Letter: Organ transplants
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: In his review of Anne Maclean's recent book (25 January) Tom Wilkie alleges that 'Some years ago Professor Harris famously argued for a controversial way of dealing with the shortage of transplant organs for donation. If two people required organ transplants then it was perfectly moral, Professor Harris argued, to select a suitable living 'donor' at random, kill this person and extract his or her organs . . .'
I wrote the article referred to over 20 years ago now and it was not a proposal for solving the shortage of donor organs, but rather a philosophical argument about the nature of utilitarian theory.
I do have radical solutions to offer to the shortage of donor organs: a caring society would treat cadaver organs as public property and make them readily available for transplantation without the need for an opting out system. In the case of live donors, I have argued for a limited 'monopsonistic' market in organs taken from live donors. The market would be confined to a limited area (such as the EU) where all vendors would also be beneficiaries of the system. Organs would be purchased on behalf of the EU by a single purchaser and distributed according to need, thus avoiding queue-jumping and the exploitation of poorer countries.
A second distortion of my views is contained in the review. Dr Wilkie alleges: 'Professor Harris has reasoned that the lives of new-born infants have no moral value, that their lives are at our disposal, and that infanticide is not immoral.' It is true that I defend abortion, infanticide and the use of foetal tissue under certain circumstances but not because the foetus or neonate has no moral value, rather because such value as they have is outweighed in some contexts by greater moral considerations.
Yours sincerely,
JOHN HARRIS
Professor of Applied Philosophy
University of Manchester
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments