Abstract

ABSTRACT Largely as a result of public outcry, legislation has recently been passed in the UK prohibiting the sale of bodily parts. This topic was the focus of a recent article in Journal of Applied Philosophy by Ruth Chadwick, which acknowledged that difficulties might exist in trying to distinguish between the selling of one's bodily organs and the selling of one's labour. The position argued for, in the ensuing discussion, is that there is no relevant moral difference between the two acts. Furthermore it contests the view that the sale of bodily organs should necessarily be prohibited. The assertion is made that the legislation does little to prevent the general exploitation of the type of person likely to be involved in such transactions, places unnecessary restrictions on the autonomy of individuals, and does nothing to promote an enhanced moral attitude by health professionals.