Human Organs Debate | Janet Radcliffe Richards | Proposition
Summary
TLDRThe 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
🚫 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.
🧐 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.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Arcane rituals
💡Prohibition of organ selling
💡Moral and intellectual mistake
💡Regulation and control
💡Transplantation
💡Black market
💡Autonomy
💡Paternalism
💡Emotional reaction
💡Methodological
💡Rational basis
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]
Посмотреть больше похожих видео
Buying Organs on the Black Market | The Business of Crime
Human Organs Debate | Vivienne Parry | Opposition
'Organ Donation' - Speech by Aswathi Vipin | Little Flower Public School, Muringoor, Thrissur
Undercover video of human organ traders - BBC News
Buy the dip.
How to Fix Banking - Ben Dyson at Positive Money Conference 2013
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)