Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36807753›Full record

ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2023

The Morality of Kidney Sales: When Caring for the Seller's Dignity Has Moral Costs.

Alexander Reese, Ingo Pies

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. "The Danger of Words": Language Games in Bioethics.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2023
    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

2 authors.

Alexander ReeseMartin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Faculty of Law and Economics, Grosse Steinstrasse 73, 06108, Halle (Saale), Germany. alexander.reese@ethicsinbusiness.eu.ORCID 0000-0003-3809-6717
Ingo PiesMartin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Faculty of Law and Economics, Grosse Steinstrasse 73, 06108, Halle (Saale), Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Kidney markets are prohibited in principle because they are assumed to undermine the seller's dignity. Considering the trade-off between saving more lives by introducing regulated kidney markets and preserving the seller's dignity, we argue that it is advisable to demand that citizens restrain their own moral judgements and not interfere with the judgements of those who are willing to sell a kidney. We also argue that it is advisable not only to limit the political implications of the moral argument of dignity concerns toward a market-based solution but also to re-evaluate the dignity argument itself. First, if the dignity argument is to be given normative force, it must also consider the dignity violation of the potential transplant recipient. Second, there seems to be no compelling notion of dignity that demonstrates why it is morally permissible to donate but not to sell a kidney.

Indexed as

KidneyKidney TransplantationMoralsTissue and Organ HarvestingTissue and Organ ProcurementCommerceHumansRespectHuman dignityKidneysOrgan procurementTransplantationVital organ donation

Identifiers

PMID36807753
PMCPMC9940055

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.