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.