更公平的交换:英国活体肾脏捐赠者应该得到经济补偿的进一步原因。

IF 1.8 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Richard C Armitage
{"title":"更公平的交换:英国活体肾脏捐赠者应该得到经济补偿的进一步原因。","authors":"Richard C Armitage","doi":"10.1007/s11673-024-10420-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Rodger and Venter have proposed a monopsony system in which the National Health Service (NHS) in England, as the single buyer, allows living kidney donors to opt-in to receive £35,000 tax-free financial compensation while preserving the right to donate without such compensation. This approach aims to alleviate the severe and growing shortage of kidneys available for transplant in England and is projected to generate substantial economic savings for the NHS. This paper sets out to strengthen their proposal by: (1) presenting updated figures on the increasing kidney transplant wait list in England to highlight the urgency for intervention; (2) detailing the rigor of the existing donor evaluation process to mitigate concerns about exploitation and coercion in compensated living donation; (3) outlining the various kinds of living kidney donation and the U.K. Living Kidney Sharing Scheme, to demonstrate that the proposal's projected economic benefits are likely to be underestimations; (4) suggesting five modifications to the proposal that do not significantly alter its underlying structure; and (5) providing additional arguments against the major objections to such proposals-that financial compensation is exploitative, coercive, and likely to \"crowd out\" altruistic donors-and showing how the five suggested modifications could strengthen the proposal by bolstering it against those objections. The paper strengthens existing arguments for a pilot project of financial compensation for living kidney donors in England.</p>","PeriodicalId":50252,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Even Fairer Exchange: Further Reasons Why Living Kidney Donors in England Should Be Financially Compensated.\",\"authors\":\"Richard C Armitage\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11673-024-10420-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Rodger and Venter have proposed a monopsony system in which the National Health Service (NHS) in England, as the single buyer, allows living kidney donors to opt-in to receive £35,000 tax-free financial compensation while preserving the right to donate without such compensation. This approach aims to alleviate the severe and growing shortage of kidneys available for transplant in England and is projected to generate substantial economic savings for the NHS. This paper sets out to strengthen their proposal by: (1) presenting updated figures on the increasing kidney transplant wait list in England to highlight the urgency for intervention; (2) detailing the rigor of the existing donor evaluation process to mitigate concerns about exploitation and coercion in compensated living donation; (3) outlining the various kinds of living kidney donation and the U.K. Living Kidney Sharing Scheme, to demonstrate that the proposal's projected economic benefits are likely to be underestimations; (4) suggesting five modifications to the proposal that do not significantly alter its underlying structure; and (5) providing additional arguments against the major objections to such proposals-that financial compensation is exploitative, coercive, and likely to \\\"crowd out\\\" altruistic donors-and showing how the five suggested modifications could strengthen the proposal by bolstering it against those objections. The paper strengthens existing arguments for a pilot project of financial compensation for living kidney donors in England.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50252,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-024-10420-5\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-024-10420-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

罗杰和文特尔提出了一种垄断制度,在这种制度下,英国国家医疗服务体系(NHS)作为唯一的买家,允许活体肾脏捐赠者选择接受3.5万英镑的免税经济补偿,同时保留没有这种补偿的捐赠权利。这种方法旨在缓解英国严重且日益严重的可移植肾脏短缺问题,并预计将为NHS节省大量经济开支。本文旨在通过以下方式加强他们的建议:(1)介绍英国不断增加的肾脏移植等待名单的最新数据,以强调干预的紧迫性;(2)详细说明现有捐赠者评估过程的严谨性,以减轻对有偿活体捐赠中剥削和胁迫的担忧;(3)概述各种活体肾脏捐赠和英国活体肾脏共享计划,以证明该建议的预期经济效益可能被低估;(四)对提案提出五项修改意见,对提案的基本结构没有重大改变;(5)针对这些提案的主要反对意见——经济补偿是剥削性的、强制性的,可能会“排挤”无私的捐助者——提供了额外的论据,并展示了五种建议的修改如何通过支持这些反对意见来加强提案。这篇论文加强了对英国活体肾捐赠者经济补偿试点项目的现有争论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An Even Fairer Exchange: Further Reasons Why Living Kidney Donors in England Should Be Financially Compensated.

Rodger and Venter have proposed a monopsony system in which the National Health Service (NHS) in England, as the single buyer, allows living kidney donors to opt-in to receive £35,000 tax-free financial compensation while preserving the right to donate without such compensation. This approach aims to alleviate the severe and growing shortage of kidneys available for transplant in England and is projected to generate substantial economic savings for the NHS. This paper sets out to strengthen their proposal by: (1) presenting updated figures on the increasing kidney transplant wait list in England to highlight the urgency for intervention; (2) detailing the rigor of the existing donor evaluation process to mitigate concerns about exploitation and coercion in compensated living donation; (3) outlining the various kinds of living kidney donation and the U.K. Living Kidney Sharing Scheme, to demonstrate that the proposal's projected economic benefits are likely to be underestimations; (4) suggesting five modifications to the proposal that do not significantly alter its underlying structure; and (5) providing additional arguments against the major objections to such proposals-that financial compensation is exploitative, coercive, and likely to "crowd out" altruistic donors-and showing how the five suggested modifications could strengthen the proposal by bolstering it against those objections. The paper strengthens existing arguments for a pilot project of financial compensation for living kidney donors in England.

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
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
67
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The JBI welcomes both reports of empirical research and articles that increase theoretical understanding of medicine and health care, the health professions and the biological sciences. The JBI is also open to critical reflections on medicine and conventional bioethics, the nature of health, illness and disability, the sources of ethics, the nature of ethical communities, and possible implications of new developments in science and technology for social and cultural life and human identity. We welcome contributions from perspectives that are less commonly published in existing journals in the field and reports of empirical research studies using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The JBI accepts contributions from authors working in or across disciplines including – but not limited to – the following: -philosophy- bioethics- economics- social theory- law- public health and epidemiology- anthropology- psychology- feminism- gay and lesbian studies- linguistics and discourse analysis- cultural studies- disability studies- history- literature and literary studies- environmental sciences- theology and religious studies
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信