Rating:
2.5 Stars – a solid ‘fine.’

In a nutshell:
Investigative journalist Scott Carney explores the various ways humans sell bodies and body parts.

Best for:
Those interested in the ethics of these issues and who aren’t squeamish.

Lines(s) that stuck with me:
N/A

Why I chose it:
The audio book selection from my local library is ROUGH. Virtually none of the books on my TBR list are available, so I started scrolling non fiction and this seemed interesting. Also … medical things fascinate me, as does ethics.

Review:
How can you ethically procure a non-renewable resource? Or a resource that requires someone to literally give of their own flesh? And what about when that resource is needed to save a life? What if that resource isn’t actually needed, but people really want it?

Carney’s book explores a variety of scenarios where human anatomy is procured in ways that may be unethical, questioning both the black (or ‘red’) market approach as well as the legal routes for securing these resources. He looks at getting bodies and bones for anatomy studies, blood for surgery, eggs for surrogacy, kidneys for transplant, volunteer for drug trials, and even babies for adoption.

One critique that I think holds for this book is that in nearly every example (save, if I recall correctly, blood donation, which I’ll get to below), Carney really only explores the red markets of other countries, usually India, though sometimes China as well. For example, he (rightfully, I believe) explores the unethical nature of so many international adoptions, including situations where parents didn’t actually think they were relinquishing their children – and where US adoptive parents refuse to return those children. But he doesn’t explore the ethics of US domestic adoption. In fact, I think there is a real missed opportunity here to explore the actions of those who provide something that no one actually needs – a baby. This also goes for the section on egg harvesting and surrogacy.

Most of what else Carney explores one could argue is a necessity – blood for a surgery, or a kidney to stop needing dialysis, or, at a higher level, stem cells for research purposes. And the question becomes: if someone needs it, is it right that another person should be prevented from providing it if they are remunerated? And what is the cost of that to the seller/donor, and to society? How much is your kidney worth, and if you are possibly not able to feed your children, how low a price might someone offer?

I found the chapter on blood donation especially fascinating. A little over a decade ago I served on the junior board of the non-profit who manages blood collection (not the American Red Cross) in the city I used to live in. I also used to donate blood regularly (the UK makes you wait much longer between donations, so I can’t donate as regularly here) and platelets on occasion. I was shocked (not that shocked) to learn that in the 60s, corporations managed and paid for blood donations and then sold the blood to hospitals. When non-profits got involved, these corporations actually filed claims of an anti-trust nature, saying these non-profits seeking volunteers were preventing them from making profits, and for awhile US government agreed, fining these non-profits daily. Fucking WILD. Also, there was a whole thing where prisoners in Alabama were ‘donating’ blood, and that blood wasn’t screened, and was sold to Canada, leading to a lot of issues.

Carney argues that one of the best things we could do is require that all human body parts and resources have a name associated with their donation. Every pint of blood, every organ donation, every body. While some argue that privacy is the ethical choice, Carney argues that having a name will reduce the likelihood that someone is coerced to give their flesh and bone. While it wasn’t providing my name, as a blood donor they trialed a project where I would get a text when the blood I was donated was used, which was pretty cool, and probably an incentive for others to keep donating when they had the chance.

There’s much more in the book – the above are just the areas that really stood out to me. And as I said, there seems to be a real issue around the countries that Carney chose to focus on – India and China cannot be the only places participating in unethical human organ / blood / tissue procurement, and it feels weird that (as best as I can recall) Carney doesn’t really even pay lip service to the issues taking place in any of the other 200+ countries in the world.

Would I recommend it to its target audience:
Sure, but probably as an audio book as you could get the washing done at the same time., and with the caveat that there might be some bias in what the author has chosen to highlight.

Rating:
5 Stars

In a nutshell:
Palestinian poet and journalist El-Kurd shares his perspective on life in Palestine under colonial occupation.

Best for:
Anyone who cares about justice, freedom, and morality.

Worth quoting:
I underlined so much of this book, I’d basically be reproducing it here. But some passages that really stuck with me are:

“The standard, across industries, is to dehumanize the Palestinian.”

“We must not wait for Haaretz or the New York Times to arrive at the miraculous epiphanies we have long called common truths. We should purge their prestige in our minds, the prestige that renders a Times acknowledgment of an eyewitness account more valuable than the account itself.”

“Submission to the colonial logic that vilifies the violence of the oppressed and turns a blind eye to the oppressor’s violence became the price of admission.”

Why I chose it:
I wanted to learn more about the Palestinian experience.

Review:
Starting 2026 with a book that will stay with me for years It challenged me, forced me to confront my biases, and I’m still wondering about parts that I at least initially felt were ‘too much.’ Do I disagree because of my values, or because of what people I (used to) respect have said? Can I agree with most but still hold space for the places I think may go too far?

I began reading this book while on holiday in Greece, and as I looked out over the Mediterranean Sea, I kept thinking that the same body of water could carry me over to Gaza. I hope this book is read in the future as a way to learn about how things used to be, perhaps by people who can’t imagine that there was ever a time where the Palestinian people had to live under occupation, apartheid, and genocide.

Author El-Kurd was only in his mid-20s when he wrote this book, and I was floored when I learned that, because he speaks with so much heft and wisdom. Obviously people in their 20s can have deeply moving and insightful things to share, but something about everything El-Kurd has experienced and witnessed made me think he was closer to 40. But upon reflection, obviously he is young. In a society where we’ve seen small children carrying the remains of their murdered sibling in a bag, it makes sense that people who are barely old enough to rent a car in the US have been forced to grow up extraordinarily quickly.

El-Kurd does not shy away from the hard conversations; he dives right into the things that Western media and supporters of the occupying force in Palestine say and do in an attempt to divert attention from the horrors the Israeli government has committed and is committing against the Palestinian people. Moreover, he does it with a writing style that would be a joy to read, were the subject not so horrifying.

For example, he takes on things people use to justify the genocide – for example, the use of human shields: “But why accept the premise of the question in the first place? Even if the human shield allegations were true, why submit to a logic that argues it is acceptable to kill those classified as civilians if, hypothetically, ‘terrorists’ hid behind them. If, say, a robber took your mother hostage and hid behind her, would the police officer on the scene be absolved of all responsibility if he decided to kill your mother to neutralize the robber?”

He also looks at the concerns people raise when people speak of a free Palestine (he has a chapter called ‘do you want to throw Israelis into the sea’) claiming it is a call to murder Israelis. Which I suppose is an understandable surface level reaction, because the Israeli government acts as though the only way for the Israeli people to be free is to kill and/or displace all Palestinians. But that isn’t how Palestinians think. El-Kurd sums it up quite well: “Those asking, What happens to the settlers? have not once thought about the fate of the six million Palestinian refugees agonizing in exile … such distracting questions feed the discursive loop that prioritizes the settlers’ theoretical future over our material present that is already marked with extermination.” People spend so much time making assumptions about Palestinians, and in doing so ignore that the very real thing they claim to fear for the occupiers is ALREADY HAPPENING to the Palestinian people.

He repeatedly hammers home the fact that Palestinians should not have to be ‘perfect’ to be seen as human, and that so many of the issues that people raise to justify this genocide (not that genocide could ever be justified) do not and should not matter. Palestinians — including this author — have literally had their homes taken from them by Americans and others. It’s such a horrific thing that has been normalized, and that El-Kurd addresses: “We have seen a nation punished for another nation’s genocide. And we have seen God employed as a real estate agent, bestowing Jerusalem houses to Brooklynites.”

Not that the book should be boiled down to a main point, but if I were to do so, for me, I think it is this: Palestinians do not owe us perfection. The are people, and that should be enough for us to care that they are living under apartheid and genocide now.

Would I recommend it to its target audience:
Absolutely. I think everyone should read this.