Res Publica 14 (2):137-140 (2008)

Cecile Fabre
Oxford University
In his review of my book Whose Body is It Anyway, Wilkinson criticises the view (which I defend) that confiscating live body parts for the sake of the needy is (under some circumstances) a requirement of justice. Wilkinson makes the following three points: (a) the confiscation thesis is problematic on its own terms; (b) there is a way to justify coercive resource transfers without being committed to it; (c) the thesis rests on a highly questionable approach to the status of the body. Wilkinson’s paper is challenging, and some of his points are well taken. On the whole, however, it does not constitute an insurmountable challenge for my thesis.
Keywords Justice  Rights  Autonomy  Sufficiency  Organ confiscation  Rape
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11158-008-9052-4
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,410
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

What's Wrong with Torture?David Sussman - 2005 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 33 (1):1-33.
The Confiscation and Sale of Organs.T. M. Wilkinson - 2007 - Res Publica 13 (3):327-337.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
56 ( #204,881 of 2,519,700 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #270,824 of 2,519,700 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes