As a fierce opponent of any organ market, whether unfettered or
regulated, I would like to thank Rabbitt Roff for her important
contribution to the debate.[1] In fact, I would like to thank her for
three things.
First, I would like to thank her for her proposal to allow kidney
sales in order to save money to the NHS. So far, I have attributed the
financial crisis of the NHS primarily to a particular economic policy that
deliberately robs it of resources in order to funnel them to a small
insatiable minority. I have always admired the determination of this
minority to protect its interests, but I have never thought that our
kidneys should subsidise the losses it incurs on us. So, thank you,
Rabbitt Roff, for correcting me.
Second, I would like to thank her for her proposal to allow British
students to pay off their university loans by selling a kidney. So far, I
have assumed that while the ideally regulated organ market (unlike its
unfettered brother) is supposed to contain no inequity in the sphere of
exchange, it necessarily presupposes, capitalises on and, worst of all,
reaffirms some form of coercion that takes place outside that sphere (just
like its unfettered brother).[2] In line with this assumption, I have
always believed that kidneys should be used to produce urine, not to pay
off loans that were imposed on our students by a certain policy that
funnels money from higher education to the minority I have mentioned
above. So, thank you, Rabbitt Roff, for correcting me, again. Contrary to
my longstanding beliefs, I now realise that your proposal, which bears a
striking resemblance to Radcliffe-Richards's recent proposal to allow
people to part with a kidney to prevent the catastrophic repossession of
their homes, is actually most generous.[3]
Third, I would like to thank her for her commendable role as a
critical intellectual. I have always believed that this position imposes a
certain social responsibility on the person. More specifically, I have
thought that the critical intellectual ought to represent the interests of
the weak majority, not the powerful parasitic minority. So, thank you,
Rabbitt Roff, for correcting me on this matter, too.
1 Rabbitt Roff S. We should consider paying kidney donors. BMJ
2011; 343:d4867
2 Epstein M. If I were a rich man could I sell a pancreas? A study in
the locus of oppression. J Med Ethics 2011; 37: 109-112.
Rapid Response:
Surprising revelations about the organ market
As a fierce opponent of any organ market, whether unfettered or
regulated, I would like to thank Rabbitt Roff for her important
contribution to the debate.[1] In fact, I would like to thank her for
three things.
First, I would like to thank her for her proposal to allow kidney
sales in order to save money to the NHS. So far, I have attributed the
financial crisis of the NHS primarily to a particular economic policy that
deliberately robs it of resources in order to funnel them to a small
insatiable minority. I have always admired the determination of this
minority to protect its interests, but I have never thought that our
kidneys should subsidise the losses it incurs on us. So, thank you,
Rabbitt Roff, for correcting me.
Second, I would like to thank her for her proposal to allow British
students to pay off their university loans by selling a kidney. So far, I
have assumed that while the ideally regulated organ market (unlike its
unfettered brother) is supposed to contain no inequity in the sphere of
exchange, it necessarily presupposes, capitalises on and, worst of all,
reaffirms some form of coercion that takes place outside that sphere (just
like its unfettered brother).[2] In line with this assumption, I have
always believed that kidneys should be used to produce urine, not to pay
off loans that were imposed on our students by a certain policy that
funnels money from higher education to the minority I have mentioned
above. So, thank you, Rabbitt Roff, for correcting me, again. Contrary to
my longstanding beliefs, I now realise that your proposal, which bears a
striking resemblance to Radcliffe-Richards's recent proposal to allow
people to part with a kidney to prevent the catastrophic repossession of
their homes, is actually most generous.[3]
Third, I would like to thank her for her commendable role as a
critical intellectual. I have always believed that this position imposes a
certain social responsibility on the person. More specifically, I have
thought that the critical intellectual ought to represent the interests of
the weak majority, not the powerful parasitic minority. So, thank you,
Rabbitt Roff, for correcting me on this matter, too.
1 Rabbitt Roff S. We should consider paying kidney donors. BMJ
2011; 343:d4867
2 Epstein M. If I were a rich man could I sell a pancreas? A study in
the locus of oppression. J Med Ethics 2011; 37: 109-112.
3 Radcliffe-Richards J. Re: The Filipino Connection. 27 August 2010.
http://www.bmj.com/content/336/7657/1377.extract /reply#bmj_el_240338.
Competing interests: No competing interests