James Taylor

In 2013 the World Health Organization published a Report in which it was argued that countries should become self-sufficient in safe blood and blood products, and that these should be secured through voluntary non-remunerated donation. These two claims were putatively supported by a wealth of citations to peer-reviewed academic papers, the results of Royal Commissions and Public Inquiries in both Canada and the United Kingdom, and data collected from Non-Government Organizations. Yet not only do many of the sources cited by the authors of this WHO Report fail to support their conclusions, many support conclusions that are the opposite of those that they draw. The aim of this paper is not, however, to argue against the conclusions of this Report. Instead, it is to argue that its authors were culpably negligent in its writing, in that they failed to take reasonable care to ensure that their conclusions were supported by the evidence, and in so doing exposed third parties to risks of harm to which they had not consented.

In a recent paper Carol Hay has argued for the conclusion that “a woman who has been sexually harassed has a moral obligation to confront her harasser.” I will argue in this paper that Hay’s arguments for her conclusion are unsound, for they rest on both a misconstrual of the nature of personal autonomy, and a misunderstanding of its relationship to moral responsibility. However, even though Hay’s own arguments do not support her conclusion that women have a duty to resist sexual harassment this conclusion can draw support from arguments that are independent of hers. Women, then, do indeed have a moral obligation to confront those who sexually harass them.

In a recent commentary, S R Benatar criticised the debates over organ donation and kidney selling for being located within a “narrow and inadequate framework”. Benatar levels four charges against those who engage in the current organs debate: that they myopically focus on saving lives; that they accept the dominance of market orientated approaches to health care; that they reify individualism, and that they engage in limited moral arguments. Given the importance of the organs debate it is imperative that the misunderstandings of it on which Benatar’s criticisms are based are dispelled. Accordingly, I will consider and reject each of his objections in turn

I cannot fully respond here to all of the subtle and sophisticated criticisms of my full-blooded Epicureanism that have been advanced by Frederik Kaufman, Stephan Blatti, TM Wilkinson and Walter Glannon.1–4 Accordingly, I will focus on correcting some misunderstandings of my position and on responding to some of the most pressing objections.Kaufman holds that the implications of my full-blooded Epicureanism are ‘startling,’ since if I am right “killing or being killed in war will be morally inconsequential, saving people from death will be without merit, and execution could not count as punishment”.1 Second, he criticises my distinction between something being a harm to a person , and something being a harm for a person . Kaufman holds that this distinction does little work, and that it is question-begging to assert that only harms to a person are harms proper. Finally, Kaufman criticises my view that there might be instances of harmless wrongdoing, claiming that it is ‘a conceptual truth’ that ‘to be wronged entails being harmed’. …