Janet Radcliffe Richards on our modest proposal

Journal of Medical Ethics 29 (3):141-141 (2003)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Janet Radcliffe Richards is as always to the point and radical. We agree with her that “if it is presumptively bad to prevent sales altogether because lives will be lost . . . it is for the same reason presumptively bad to restrict the selling of organs”. Her complaint against our paper is that we are unnecessarily restrictive. John Harris indeed has argued that there are no sound ethical or philosophical reasons for objecting on principle to the sale of live tissue and organs.1 If a scheme can be devised …

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,349

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Equality of opportunity.Janet Radcliffe Richards - 1997 - Ratio 10 (3):253–279.
Reply to dr Weinzweig.Janet Radcliffe Richards - 1983 - Philosophical Books 24 (3):136-139.
Discrimination.Janet Radcliffe Richards & J. R. Lucas - 1986 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 86:307 - 324.
Commentary. An ethical market in human organs.J. Radcliffe Richards - 2003 - Journal of Medical Ethics 29 (3):139-140.
Nepharious goings on: Kidney sales and moral arguments.Janet Radcliffe Richards - 1996 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 21 (4):375--416.
Applied ethics.Peter Singer (ed.) - 1986 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Metaphysics E 3: A Modest Proposal.Arthur Madigan - 1984 - Phronesis 29 (2):123 - 136.
Harris's Modest Proposal.Michael B. Green - 1979 - Philosophy 54 (209):400 - 406.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-24

Downloads
80 (#204,784)

6 months
5 (#629,136)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references