Beyond the Altruistic Donor: Embedding Solidarity in Organ Procurement Policies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The author makes a pro-social argument for solidarity as a necessary normative approach to organ procurement as a collective challenge.

 

Perhaps the author should correct “As shown in this brief example Why You Should Donate a Kidney to a Stranger” [261-262]” (better perhaps “… in the brief example of”), as well as “… the amount of suffering they avoid throughout their altruistic act” [267-268] (better perhaps “they avoid through their altruistic act” or “they avoid thanks to their altruistic act”). To “… a practical, reasonable, and justified guideline/benchmark/measure in the framework of social justice” [531], the author should choose between one of these three terms. Regarding to “… more appropriate in other cultural contexts (Spain, France, etc.)” [511-512], it would be preferable to include a more detailed list of countries or regions and not to solve it with the abbreviation “etc.”, to write something like "...in other cultural context, such as those of Spain and France", or to eliminate the parenthesis altogether.

 

The author may wish to consider deleting the sentence “One of the most studied cases of living donation for effective altruism is living kidney donation” [265-266] as redundant.

 

“Solidarity is a concept that can be elevated to an enforceable normative criterion, as long as conditions of legitimacy are met, since it does not depend on the motivations of individuals” [518- 519]. There is a political issue that is taken for granted here, since the author does not specify those "conditions of legitimacy" that are crucial for the validity of the principle in the field of health public policy.

 

Finally, perhaps the meaning of "positive valence" should be clarified in the sentence “However, there is no such thing as an “altruistic imperative”, that is, as a kind of moral duty to be altruistic—although the very term ‘altruism’ is a thick concept of positive valence” [124-126; consider moreover that there are different inverted commas]. It is further said that “both concepts [solidarity and altruism] express a crucial moral component that goes beyond self-interest and implies performing actions for the good of others”. Precisely because of both this moral component and the thickness of its positive valence, perhaps what separates it from solidarity should be seen more as a matter of degree and, in any case, it is not merely that altruism is a descriptive issue and solidarity a normative one. In sum, it is not conclusively argued that "altruism cannot be elevated to a normative level". This consideration does not seem consistent with what is said later about effective altruism and even the pure altruism of the so-called good Samaritan donation.

 

Please, consider also the references number 24, 27, 33, and 37

Author Response

Dear editors,

 

Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript for consideration at Philosophies.

 

The comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers have been very important in improving our work.

 

Mainly, the reviewers make comment about: formal matters (comments 1, 2, 3, 6, 17 and 19), conceptual clarifications (comments 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 19) and  extension of relevant literature (comments 9, 11).

 

To take these comments into account, we have made the following changes:

• Revise the article by improving punctuation and eliminating redundancies.
• Clarify terms and remove terms that were confusing.
• Added relevant and updated references

 

 

We attach a point-by-point reply to each of the reviewers’ comments.

 

 

 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments in  pdf. enclosed

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear editors,

 

Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript for consideration at Philosophies.

 

The comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers have been very important in improving our work.

 

Mainly, the reviewers make comment about: formal matters (comments 1, 2, 3, 6, 17 and 19), conceptual clarifications (comments 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 19) and  extension of relevant literature (comments 9, 11).

 

To take these comments into account, we have made the following changes:

• Revise the article by improving punctuation and eliminating redundancies.
• Clarify terms and remove terms that were confusing.
• Added relevant and updated references

 

 

We attach a point-by-point reply to each of the reviewers’ comments.

 

 

 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

The authors

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf