Organ transplants,foreign nationals,and the free rider problem

There is strong sentiment for a policy which would exclude foreigners from access to organs from American cadaver donors. One common argument is that foreigners are ‘free riders’; since they are not members of the community whichgives organs, it would be unfair to allow them toreceive such a scarce resource. This essay examines the philosophical basis for the free rider argument, and compares that with the empirical data about organ donation in the U.S. The free rider argument ought not to be used to exclude foreign nationals because it is based on fallacious assumptions about group membership, and how the ‘giving community’ is defined. Polls show that even among the seventy-five per cent of Americans who support organ donation, only seventeen per cent had taken the small step of filling out donor cards. Therefore, it goes against logic to define the giving community as coextensive with American residency, while excluding foreigners who might well have become donors had they lived in countries which provided that option.     

Religion,medical ethics,and transplants

This article describes the exclusion of public expressions of religion from the history of bioethics during recent decades. It offers a proposal to include the public church for the purpose of gaining donations of vital organs for transplantation. I also include a brief discussion of theological support and practical suggestions for such a program.     

Ambivalence,Autonomy, and Organ Sales

Recent philosophical arguments in favor of legal markets in human organs such as kidneys claim that respect for autonomy justifies such markets. I argue that these arguments fail to establish the moral permissibility of commercialized organ sales because they do not show that those most likely to serve as vendors would choose to sell autonomously. Pro‐market views utilize hierarchical theories of autonomy to demonstrate that potential organ vendors may autonomously consent to selling their organs even in the absence of any practical alternative to doing so. But central to hierarchical accounts of autonomy is the idea that persons my experience volitional ambivalence, a condition in which the will is irreconcilably conflicted. Because commercialized organ sales would create volitional ambivalence in many of those who opt to sell an organ, the choice to sell an organ would not be an autonomous one.     

Current developments in policies,priorities and personnel

Data on the recent operation and content of the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (JOOP) are reviewed and conclusions drawn about the journal and the current state of the field. The benefits of contextualizing research and of strengthening the links between research and practice are discussed. Recommendations to authors, and new elements of JOOP policy and procedure, are outlined. These should be read alongside the earlier editorial statement ( Arnold, 2004 ).     

Why liberals should accept financial incentives for organ procurement

Free market libertarians have long supported incentives to increase organ procurement, but those oriented to justice traditionally have opposed them. This paper presents the reasons why those worried about justice should reconsider financial incentives and tolerate them as a lesser moral evil. After considering concerns about discrimination and coercion and setting them aside, it is suggested that the real moral concern should be manipulation of the neediest. The one offering the incentive (the government) has the resources to eliminate the basic needs that pressure the poor into a willingness to sell. It is unethically manipulative to withhold those resources and then offer payment for organs. Nevertheless, the poor have been left without basic necessities for 20 years since the passage of the prohibition on incentives. As long as the government continues to withhold a decent minimum of welfare, liberals should, with shame, cease opposing financial incentives for organ procurement.     

Religiosity,the need for structure,death attitudes,and funeral preferences

Study one (N?=?309) verified the common assumption that religious beliefs provide a sense of structure. Religion and structure indices contributed both shared and unique variance to the prediction of hope, affect, and life satisfaction. In a second study, 368 participants self-reported death attitudes, desire for structure, and answered questions concerning their own death (e.g., disposition of body, style of memorial). Strongly held religious beliefs linked to more positive and less negative attitudes toward death. The need for structure resonated with pain and natural aspects of death. Religious beliefs and structure needs further independently influenced attitudes toward and planning for one's own death.