Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17400616›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical ethics2007

A "Queen of Hearts" trial of organ markets: why Scheper-Hughes's objections to markets in human organs fail.

J S Taylor

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical ethics, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

J S TaylorDepartment of Philosophy, The College of New Jersey, 2000 Pennington Road, PO Box 7718, Ewing, NJ 08628-0718, USA. jtaylor@tcnj.edu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nancy Scheper-Hughes is one of the most prominent critics of markets in human organs. Unfortunately, Scheper-Hughes rejects the view that markets should be used to solve the current (and chronic) shortage of transplant organs without engaging with the arguments in favour of them. Scheper-Hughes's rejection of such markets is of especial concern, given her influence over their future, for she holds, among other positions, the status of an adviser to the World Health Organization (Geneva) on issues related to global transplantation. Given her influence, it is important that Scheper-Hughes's moral condemnation of markets in human organs be subject to critical assessment. Such critical assessment, however, has not generally been forthcoming. A careful examination of Scheper-Hughes's anti-market stance shows that it is based on serious mischaracterisations of both the pro-market position and the medical and economic realities that underlie it. In this paper, the author will expose and correct these mischaracterisations and, in so doing, show that her objections to markets in human organs are unfounded.

Indexed as

CoercionCommerceHuman RightsHumansMedical Laboratory ScienceMoral ObligationsMotivationPersonal AutonomyTissue and Organ ProcurementTransplantation

Identifiers

PMID17400616
PMCPMC2652773

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.