Semrau Luke
Philosophy, Bloomsburg University, Bloomsburg, PA, USA
J Med Ethics. 2025 May 21;51(6):429-430. doi: 10.1136/jme-2024-110289.
In a recent article, Albertsen both elaborates and levels a justice-based objection to kidney sales. In the present article, I show that Albertsen has crucially misunderstood the best option argument. It is not a defence of kidney sales, as Albertsen claims. It is a reply to an objection. The objection, perennial in the debate, opposes kidney sales on the grounds that sellers would be harmed. The best option argument-proving that prohibitions tend to set back the interests of those denied their preferred option-shows this thinking to be confused. If sound, the best option argument dramatically undercuts any attempt to oppose a market citing would-be sellers' interests.
在最近的一篇文章中，阿尔伯森既详细阐述了基于正义对肾脏买卖提出的反对意见，又提出了这样的反对意见。在本文中，我指出阿尔伯森严重误解了最佳选择论证。它并非如阿尔伯森所声称的那样是对肾脏买卖的辩护。它是对一种反对意见的回应。这种反对意见在辩论中一直存在，其反对肾脏买卖的理由是卖家会受到伤害。最佳选择论证表明这种观点是混乱的，它证明了禁令往往会损害那些被剥夺其首选选择之人的利益。如果该论证合理，那么最佳选择论证将极大地削弱任何以潜在卖家的利益为由反对市场的企图。
