{"title":"分配正义、最佳选择和器官市场：对 Semrau 的答复。","authors":"Andreas Albertsen","doi":"10.1136/jme-2024-110561","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>How important is it, morally speaking, that banning the sale of organs removes the best option available to would-be organ sellers? According to a widespread argument called the best option argument, this is very important. In a recent article I criticised such reasoning, drawing on considerations of distributive justice. Luke Semrau has argued that I have misunderstood the best option argument. In this article, I respond to Semrau's criticism and elaborate on my original argument.</p>","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Distributive justice, best options and organ markets: a reply to Semrau.\",\"authors\":\"Andreas Albertsen\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/jme-2024-110561\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>How important is it, morally speaking, that banning the sale of organs removes the best option available to would-be organ sellers? According to a widespread argument called the best option argument, this is very important. In a recent article I criticised such reasoning, drawing on considerations of distributive justice. Luke Semrau has argued that I have misunderstood the best option argument. In this article, I respond to Semrau's criticism and elaborate on my original argument.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16317,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Ethics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2024-110561\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2024-110561","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Distributive justice, best options and organ markets: a reply to Semrau.
How important is it, morally speaking, that banning the sale of organs removes the best option available to would-be organ sellers? According to a widespread argument called the best option argument, this is very important. In a recent article I criticised such reasoning, drawing on considerations of distributive justice. Luke Semrau has argued that I have misunderstood the best option argument. In this article, I respond to Semrau's criticism and elaborate on my original argument.
期刊介绍：
Journal of Medical Ethics is a leading international journal that reflects the whole field of medical ethics. The journal seeks to promote ethical reflection and conduct in scientific research and medical practice. It features articles on various ethical aspects of health care relevant to health care professionals, members of clinical ethics committees, medical ethics professionals, researchers and bioscientists, policy makers and patients.
Subscribers to the Journal of Medical Ethics also receive Medical Humanities journal at no extra cost.
JME is the official journal of the Institute of Medical Ethics.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
