Example Annotated Bibliography Entry
Gill, Michael B, and Robert M Sade. 2002. “Paying for kidneys: The case against prohibition.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 12 (1):17-45.
Thesis: The current prohibitions against selling kidneys should be overturned.
Arguments for thesis:
Kidney transplants themselves are not immoral and should be legal; in fact, we praise and encourage donation.
In other cases, there is widespread recognition that selling body tissues is not morally objectionable and so should be legal. For example, selling plasma is legal and not frowned on.
These arguments suggest that kidney sales are relevantly similar to other kinds of treatments we usually think are morally acceptable (kidney donation and the sale of human tissue). If it is morally acceptable both to transplant kidneys and to sell human tissue then it seems likely it should be legal for a person to sell one of his or her kidneys, since these are the two major aspects to such a sale.
Relevance to my paper:
In our group’s case, the physician has to make a decision about whether to agree to provide follow-up care to an American patient who plans to travel to India, where he will buy a kidney for transplantation, which he thinks may save his life. Gill and Sade’s arguments suggest that kidney sales are not morally different from other kinds of procedures most people think are morally acceptable. This suggests that kidney sales are not wrong, and the physician should agree to help his patient with follow-up care.
Example of a normative article
Gill, Michael B, and Robert M Sade. 2002. “Paying for kidneys: The case against prohibition.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 12 (1):17-45.
Thesis: The current prohibitions against selling kidneys should be overturned.
Arguments for thesis:
Kidney transplants themselves are not immoral and should be legal; in fact, we praise and encourage donation.
In other cases, there is widespread recognition that selling body tissues is not morally objectionable and so should be legal. For example, selling plasma is legal and not frowned on.
These arguments suggest that kidney sales are relevantly similar to other kinds of treatments we usually think are morally acceptable (kidney donation and the sale of human tissue). If it is morally acceptable both to transplant kidneys and to sell human tissue then it seems likely it should be legal for a person to sell one of his or her kidneys, since these are the two major aspects to such a sale.
Relevance to my paper:
In our group’s case, the physician has to make a decision about whether to agree to provide follow-up care to an American patient who plans to travel to India, where he will buy a kidney for transplantation, which he thinks may save his life. Gill and Sade’s arguments suggest that kidney sales are not morally different from other kinds of procedures most people think are morally acceptable. This suggests that kidney sales are not wrong, and the physician should agree to help his patient with follow-up care.
