ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2020
Popular repugnance contrasts with legal bans on controversial markets.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Public Opinions on Removing Disincentives and Introducing Incentives for Organ Donation: Proposing a European Research Agenda.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2024Pooled it
- Early estimates of awareness and uptake of over-the-counter naloxone.Health affairs scholar · 2025Article
- Estimates of Illicit Opioid Use in the US.JAMA health forum · 2025Article
- Naloxone Knowledge, Carrying, Purchase, and Use.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- The effect of fast and slow decision-making on equity-efficiency tradeoffs and moral repugnance.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Kidney paired donation in developing countries: A global perspective.Current transplantation reports · 2023Article
- Commercial Surrogacy: An Overview.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2022Review
- Global kidney chains.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021Article
- Payment in challenge studies from an economics perspective.Journal of medical ethics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We study popular attitudes in Germany, Spain, the Philippines, and the United States toward three controversial markets-prostitution, surrogacy, and global kidney exchange (GKE). Of those markets, only prostitution is banned in the United States and the Philippines, and only prostitution is allowed in Germany and Spain. Unlike prostitution, majorities support legalization of surrogacy and GKE in all four countries. So, there is not a simple relation between public support for markets, or bans, and their legal and regulatory status. Because both markets and bans on markets require social support to work well, this sheds light on the prospects for effective regulation of controversial markets.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.