非补偿性血浆中心剥削献血者吗?

IF 1.3 3区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS
D Robert MacDougall
{"title":"非补偿性血浆中心剥削献血者吗?","authors":"D Robert MacDougall","doi":"10.1093/jmp/jhaf014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Some authors defend prohibiting compensation for blood plasma on the grounds that compensating donors exploits them. James Taylor has recently argued against this view. According to Taylor, not only does compensation not exploit donors but also accepting uncompensated donations in jurisdictions requiring this exploits donors. In this article, I evaluate Taylor's novel market-based account of exploitation and the conclusions about plasma donations he draws from it. I accept and offer further support for his account of exploitation but argue that (contra Taylor) the market-based account suggests that it is only in cases of capped compensation or legal monopsonies that centers can exploit donors. Uncompensated donations required by prohibitions are unlikely to exploit donors because a system of uncompensated donations does not actually benefit plasma centers, assuming a reasonable understanding of \"benefits\" for these nonprofit organizations. Finally, I discuss whether centers that can increase benefits to everyone by making exploitative offers should.</p>","PeriodicalId":47377,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medicine and Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do Non-Compensating Plasma Centers Exploit Donors?\",\"authors\":\"D Robert MacDougall\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jmp/jhaf014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Some authors defend prohibiting compensation for blood plasma on the grounds that compensating donors exploits them. James Taylor has recently argued against this view. According to Taylor, not only does compensation not exploit donors but also accepting uncompensated donations in jurisdictions requiring this exploits donors. In this article, I evaluate Taylor's novel market-based account of exploitation and the conclusions about plasma donations he draws from it. I accept and offer further support for his account of exploitation but argue that (contra Taylor) the market-based account suggests that it is only in cases of capped compensation or legal monopsonies that centers can exploit donors. Uncompensated donations required by prohibitions are unlikely to exploit donors because a system of uncompensated donations does not actually benefit plasma centers, assuming a reasonable understanding of \\\"benefits\\\" for these nonprofit organizations. Finally, I discuss whether centers that can increase benefits to everyone by making exploitative offers should.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47377,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medicine and Philosophy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medicine and Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhaf014\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medicine and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhaf014","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

一些作者为禁止补偿血浆辩护,理由是补偿献血者剥削了他们。詹姆斯·泰勒最近反驳了这一观点。根据泰勒的说法,赔偿不仅不剥削捐赠者,而且在司法管辖区接受无偿捐赠也会剥削捐赠者。在这篇文章中,我评价了泰勒新颖的基于市场的剥削描述,以及他从中得出的关于血浆捐献的结论。我接受并进一步支持他对剥削的解释,但我认为(与泰勒相反),基于市场的解释表明,只有在补偿上限或合法垄断的情况下,中心才能剥削捐赠者。禁令要求的无偿捐赠不太可能剥削捐赠者,因为无偿捐赠系统实际上对血浆中心没有好处,假设这些非营利组织对“利益”有合理的理解。最后,我讨论了那些可以通过提供剥削性服务来增加每个人利益的中心是否应该。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Do Non-Compensating Plasma Centers Exploit Donors?

Some authors defend prohibiting compensation for blood plasma on the grounds that compensating donors exploits them. James Taylor has recently argued against this view. According to Taylor, not only does compensation not exploit donors but also accepting uncompensated donations in jurisdictions requiring this exploits donors. In this article, I evaluate Taylor's novel market-based account of exploitation and the conclusions about plasma donations he draws from it. I accept and offer further support for his account of exploitation but argue that (contra Taylor) the market-based account suggests that it is only in cases of capped compensation or legal monopsonies that centers can exploit donors. Uncompensated donations required by prohibitions are unlikely to exploit donors because a system of uncompensated donations does not actually benefit plasma centers, assuming a reasonable understanding of "benefits" for these nonprofit organizations. Finally, I discuss whether centers that can increase benefits to everyone by making exploitative offers should.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
6.20%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: This bimonthly publication explores the shared themes and concerns of philosophy and the medical sciences. Central issues in medical research and practice have important philosophical dimensions, for, in treating disease and promoting health, medicine involves presuppositions about human goals and values. Conversely, the concerns of philosophy often significantly relate to those of medicine, as philosophers seek to understand the nature of medical knowledge and the human condition in the modern world. In addition, recent developments in medical technology and treatment create moral problems that raise important philosophical questions. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy aims to provide an ongoing forum for the discussion of such themes and issues.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信