Human Organs Debate | Janet Radcliffe Richards | Proposition

Summary

The speaker addresses the moral and intellectual issues surrounding the prohibition of organ selling, arguing that the ban is an emotional reaction rather than a reasoned decision. They highlight the lack of evidence and debate that led to the swift legislation against organ sales. The speaker calls for a reevaluation of this prohibition, suggesting that a properly regulated organ market could benefit those in desperate need, while the current black market exposes sellers to significant risks and exploitation.

Takeaways

• 🗳️ The proposition being voted on is not about the merits of organ selling but rather the moral and intellectual justification for its prohibition.
• 🤔 The speaker argues that the absolute prohibition of organ selling is unjustified and that we need to rethink our stance before discussing regulation and control.
• 🏥 The prohibition of organ selling was enacted quickly without thorough debate or consideration of evidence, reflecting an emotional rather than rational response.
• 👨‍⚕️ The success of kidney transplants had already led to a de facto acceptance of the procedure, with doctors willing to perform them and the law recognizing the benefits outweigh the minimal risks to the donor.
• 💼 The market for organs developed spontaneously without nefarious planning, and the need for facilitators and intermediaries arose naturally in response to demand.
• 🚫 The speaker points out that there was no rational basis for making organ selling illegal initially, and the law was created in response to the emotional reaction to the practice.
• 🧐 The prohibition is criticized for being based on moral intuitions and emotions, which are difficult to shift with reason, as noted by John Stuart Mills and modern psychologists.
• 🌈 The speaker draws a parallel between the historical prejudice against homosexuality and the current attitudes towards organ selling, suggesting a similar resistance to change based on emotion.
• 💔 The immediate prohibition may have had tragic consequences, such as preventing someone in need from receiving an organ, as illustrated by the story of the Turkish peasant trying to sell his kidney to save his daughter.
• ⚠️ The risks and dangers of organ selling are acknowledged, but the speaker emphasizes that the black market, which operates without controls, is the real problem.
• 🛑 The conclusion calls for a methodological shift away from intuitive reactions and towards reasoned consideration of how to adapt to new medical procedures, including potentially legalizing and regulating organ selling.

Q & A

What is the main proposition being voted on in the script?

The main proposition being voted on is not about whether organ selling is a good idea or should be part of a free market, but rather that the absolute prohibition of organ selling is unjustified and a moral and intellectual mistake.

Why does the speaker argue that the prohibition of organ selling is a moral and intellectual mistake?

The speaker argues that the prohibition is a mistake because it is incompatible with most of our normal views and was enacted without thorough thought, debate, or evidence collection, based on an immediate emotional reaction.

What was the immediate reaction to the news of organ selling in the script?

The immediate reaction was one of horror and disgust, viewing it as the exploitation of the poor by the rich, which led to the swift implementation of a prohibition without proper consideration of the implications.

How does the speaker describe the development of the organ selling market?

The speaker describes the market as developing spontaneously, without nefarious planning, as a natural outcome of people possessing goods that others desperately want, leading to the emergence of facilitators and intermediaries.

What is the speaker's view on the role of emotions and intuitions in moral philosophy?

The speaker believes that relying on emotions and intuitions in moral philosophy can be problematic, as they can be very difficult to shift by reason and can lead to entrenched positions that are resistant to argument.

What historical example does the speaker use to illustrate the strength of emotions and intuitions in moral debates?

The speaker uses the historical example of attitudes towards homosexuality, where passionate disgust was once considered impregnable by argument, to illustrate the strength of emotions and intuitions in moral debates.

What is the speaker's stance on the current state of organ selling prohibition?

The speaker's stance is that the current prohibition of organ selling is based on an instantaneous emotional reaction and lacks a rational basis, and that it should be reconsidered to better help those in need.

What are the potential harms the speaker associates with the black market for organs?

The speaker associates the black market with numerous harms, including lack of controls, improper medical attention, failure to deliver promised money, and inadequate care for those involved in organ selling.

What does the speaker suggest as an alternative to the current prohibition?

The speaker suggests that instead of the current prohibition, there should be a focus on developing a properly regulated system for organ selling that could improve lives and be adapted to the rapidly changing field of medicine.

What is the methodological conclusion the speaker draws from the discussion?

The methodological conclusion is that the current prohibition of organ selling should be reconsidered, not because it is inherently wrong, but because it was enacted without proper reasoning and research, and it may be causing more harm than good.

How does the speaker characterize the initial reaction to organ selling in terms of moral philosophy?

The speaker characterizes the initial reaction as an emotional and intuitive response that is difficult to challenge with reason, and which may be based on prejudice and bigotry rather than rational thought.

Outlines

00:00

🚫 The Ethics of Organ Selling Prohibition

The speaker begins by clarifying the proposition being voted on, which is not about endorsing organ selling as a good idea or a free market solution, but rather challenging the absolute prohibition of organ selling as a moral and intellectual mistake. They argue that the prohibition was hastily implemented without proper debate or evidence collection, stemming from an emotional reaction to the exploitation of the poor by the rich. The speaker uses the example of Turkish peasants selling organs to highlight the unintended consequences of such a ban, suggesting that it may have prevented people in desperate need from receiving life-saving treatments. The paragraph emphasizes the need to rethink the prohibition and consider rational arguments and evidence-based discussions on the topic.

05:01

🧐 Reevaluating Intuitive Moral Reactions

In this paragraph, the speaker delves into the challenges of shifting moral intuitions and passionate feelings, particularly in the context of organ selling. They reference John Stuart Mill's observation that arguing against such positions can actually reinforce them, as people believe their beliefs have deeper roots. The speaker also draws a parallel between the historical attitudes towards homosexuality and the current sentiments towards organ selling, suggesting that strong emotions and intuitions can be misguided and prejudiced. They argue for a methodological approach to the issue, advocating for reasoned debate and evidence-based policy-making, rather than relying on immediate emotional reactions. The speaker concludes by emphasizing the importance of adapting to new medical procedures and considering the implications of organ selling in a regulated manner, to avoid the dangers and injustices of a black market.

Keywords

💡Arcane rituals

The term 'arcane rituals' refers to practices that are mysterious or understood by only a few. In the context of the video, it may be used metaphorically to describe the complex and often misunderstood nature of the organ selling debate. The script does not elaborate on this term, but it sets a tone of addressing an issue that may not be fully comprehended by the general public.

💡Prohibition of organ selling

This concept refers to the legal ban on the sale of organs for transplantation. The video argues that this prohibition is a 'moral and intellectual mistake' because it does not align with most people's normal views and is based on an immediate emotional reaction rather than a reasoned debate. The script uses the example of how quickly the prohibition was enacted, comparing it to the 'dangerous dogs act', to highlight the lack of thoughtful consideration behind the decision.

💡Moral and intellectual mistake

This phrase is used in the script to describe the speaker's view that the prohibition of organ selling is fundamentally flawed. It suggests that the stance against organ selling is not based on a sound ethical or rational foundation. The video implies that the prohibition is more about an emotional response to a perceived injustice rather than a well-thought-out position.

💡Regulation and control

The script mentions the need to consider what kinds of regulation and control should be in place regarding organ selling. This indicates that the speaker is not advocating for a free market of organs but rather for a reevaluation of the current ban to allow for a more thoughtful and regulated system that could potentially benefit both donors and recipients.

💡Transplantation

Transplantation is the medical procedure of moving an organ from one body to another to replace a failing organ. The video focuses on kidney transplantation and how its success has led to a demand for organs, which in turn has created a market for organ selling. The script uses transplantation as a backdrop to discuss the ethical and legal issues surrounding organ sales.

💡Black market

The term 'black market' refers to the illegal trade of goods or services, in this case, organs. The video argues that the prohibition of organ selling has led to a dangerous black market where transactions occur without controls, leading to exploitation and harm for both sellers and buyers. The script provides examples of the negative consequences of this unregulated market.

💡Autonomy

Autonomy in this context refers to the individual's right to make decisions about their own body, including the decision to sell an organ. The video suggests that the current prohibition infringes upon this autonomy and that a properly regulated system could respect individual freedom while also protecting against exploitation.

💡Paternalism

Paternalism is the practice of deciding what is best for people without their consent, often based on the belief that they cannot make informed decisions for themselves. The video contrasts autonomy with paternalism, suggesting that even from a paternalistic perspective, a regulated organ sale could improve lives by providing necessary funds to those in need.

💡Emotional reaction

The script criticizes the immediate emotional reaction to the idea of organ selling, which led to its prohibition without proper consideration of the implications. It contrasts this with the need for reasoned argument and evidence-based decision-making, suggesting that emotions can cloud judgment and lead to hasty and misguided policies.

💡Methodological

The term 'methodological' refers to the approach or method used to address a problem or question. In the video, the speaker concludes with a methodological point, urging for a shift away from intuitive reactions to a more reasoned and evidence-based approach to the issue of organ selling.

💡Rational basis

A 'rational basis' implies that there is a logical and well-reasoned foundation for a particular decision or policy. The video argues that the prohibition of organ selling lacks such a basis, as it was enacted without sufficient thought or evidence, and instead was driven by an emotional response to a complex issue.

Highlights

The proposition being voted on is not the same as the opposition's arguments, urging to listen to the actual arguments presented.

The prohibition of organ selling is a moral and intellectual mistake, incompatible with most normal views.

Opposition to organ selling began with an instantaneous reaction without thorough debate or evidence collection.

The immediate prohibition of organ selling was more rapid than the Dangerous Dogs Act in Britain.

The emotional reaction to organ selling was based on the narrative of greedy rich exploiting the poor.

Kidney transplantation had become successful enough that doctors were willing to perform the procedure with minimal risk to the donor.

Markets for goods spontaneously develop where there is demand, as seen with organ selling without nefarious planning.

Facilitators and intermediaries naturally arise in areas of commerce, including organ selling.

The lack of a rational basis for making organ selling illegal led to the creation of a special law.

Moral philosophy warns against relying on emotions and intuitions in ethical debates.

People with strong feelings are difficult to shift by reason, as noted by John Stuart Mills.

The prohibition of organ selling may have prevented a Turkish peasant from saving his daughter's life.

The black market for organs is disastrous due to the lack of controls and regulation.

Research on the harm caused by organ selling is flawed due to the prevalence of a black market.

A properly regulated organ sale could improve lives, and there is a need to work out how to do it ethically.

The conclusion emphasizes the need to adapt to new medical procedures and to reason properly rather than relying on intuitive reactions.

The prohibition of organ selling makes the rich and healthy feel more comfortable at the expense of those in need.

Transcripts

[Music]

[Music]

thank you very much it's a long time

since I last spoke here and the Arcane

rituals are as strange as ever but I

will try to fit

in first let us be clear that the

proposition which is being voted on is

not the same as the arguments which the

opposition says that we are using please

listen to our arguments rather than the

one we are alleged to have and also let

us make the proposition clear the idea

is not that this is a good idea or a

good way to get orgams it's not that we

should have a free market it's nothing

of the kind it's just that the

prohibition of organ selling which began

as soon as it was first heard that

people were doing it is actually a moral

and intellectual mistake in the specific

sense that starting from that position

is

incompatible with most of our normal

views and that the arguments fail

because they try to show them as

compatible with our normal views

um the oppos prohibition whereas in fact

it's completely opposed so I am merely

taking the minimal position that the

absolute prohibition is

unjustified and that until we can free

our minds from that we can't even start

addressing the question of What kinds of

Regulation and control there should

be the remarkable thing about the

prohibition of organ selling when it

started was its

instantaneousness I believe it was P the

objection in Britain was passed even

more quickly than the dangerous dogs act

which is saying something it was

instantaneous now it's being

instantaneous means that there was no

chance to Think Through the issues

clearly and debate them it meant that

there was no possibility of collecting

evidence to was on each side there was

no balancing of good and harm it was an

immediate emotional reaction that this

is terrible the greedy rich and the

exploited

poor and we heard the reason it came to

light was that some Turkish peasants had

come to Harley Street to sell their

organs to Rich purchases this was the

first time anyone had heard about it and

we were all horrified

but look at the thing from a different

point of view

transplantation of kidneys and its

kidneys we're talking about mainly here

had by then become so

successful that doctors were willing to

do it and you don't have surgeons going

ahead operating if they're expecting a

string of dead donors on their

slabs they were doing it they were

willing the law had even accepted de

facto I'm not sure how officially that

the good to be got from an organ

transplant was great enough to justify

the minimal risk to the

donor the

donor had to give consent but if the

Dona gave fully informed consent that

was all that was

required now what is ours to give is

normally ours to

sell and without anybody doing anything

nobody putting up a policy saying organs

should be sold you can see that

naturally where some people have Goods

that other people desperately want a

market develops quite

spontaneously there is no nefarious

planning in the back of this and of

course if people have these exchanges

they want to make inevitably just as in

all areas of Commerce you will get

facilitators and

intermediaries so this is just something

which nobody had any reason to believe

was wrong no reason to think there was

any reason to object to it which was

precisely why a special law had to be

made to make it illegal because there

was no rational basis for making it

illegal to start

with this immediate

is also a warning light to people who

are involved with moral philosophy

because we all know that people who have

passionate feelings and go by their

moral

intuitions are very difficult to shift

by reason as John Stuart Mills said the

harder the more effectively you argue

against these positions the more people

are convinced that their position has

some deeper root that argument can't

reach and while the feeling remains

there forever bringing up fresh

entrenchments of argument to repair any

belief any breach made in the

old and modern mod psychologists have

found exactly the same thing so you

cannot go by your emotions and

intuitions apart from anything else you

don't think much of other people's

opposing emotions and intuitions

their emotions and strong intuitions are

prejudice and

bigotry and furthermore we all know how

strong the feelings used to be well

let's just take

homosexuality go back a generation the

passionate disgust against homosexuality

was impregnable by argument and I think

the same is happening with organ selling

now go back to these people who came to

Harley treat to buy and sell

organs we stopped them we passed this

legislation one of these people probably

was rich maybe he found some other way

around it to get an organ but if he

didn't he died but the other one the

Turkish peasant the Turkish peasant had

a daughter who was dying of

leukemia with leukemia I don't know how

far she was on um he had no money to pay

for her treatment there was none

available in Turkey he came to sell his

kidney to try to sell his save his

daughter's life so while we were patting

ourselves on the back for saving himself

from

exploitation we presumably sent him home

to watch his daughter

die now of course there are risks of

course there are dangers but that's

exactly why the black market is so

disastrous as long as there's only a

black market it means people who are

desperate for money on one side and

desperate for organs on the other will

somehow or other get together and we

expose them to this terrible Black

Market which has no controls and this is

why it's useless at the moment doing

research among people in India who have

come to harm because all research is

against the background of a black market

and a black market is exactly what is

causing the trouble there are masses of

stories of people done out of their

promised money not given proper medical

attention not being properly cared for

this is not an argument about autonomy

or freedom of individuals you could get

the same conclusions out of paternalism

there are lot of people who with a

properly regulated organ sale could

enormously improve their lives and we

ought to be trying to work out how so

really the conclusion of this is

methodological it isn't saying what kind

of arrangement we ought to have it's

just saying that at the moment we have

prohibited organ selling we have

prohibited it because we are disgusted

by it it was a quick reaction remember

no research in the background we

prohibited it instantaneously what does

that prohibition do it makes us the rich

and healthy feel a bit more

comfortable and it does so at the

expense of the very people we are

supposed to be trying to

help so we should get this great block

out of our mind and start considering

the question of how to adapt to this new

medical procedure because goodness knows

medicine is changing at such a speed and

we are so far out of our depth that we

just have to give up these intuitive

reactions and start reasoning properly

[Music]