David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Bioethics 25 (5):236-243 (2011)
We argue that the dead donor rule, which states that multiple vital organs should only be taken from dead patients, is justified neither in principle nor in practice. We use a thought experiment and a guiding assumption in the literature about the justification of moral principles to undermine the theoretical justification for the rule. We then offer two real world analogues to this thought experiment, voluntary active euthanasia and capital punishment, and argue that the moral permissibility of terminating any patient through the removal of vital organs cannot turn on whether or not the practice violates the dead donor rule.Next, we consider practical justifications for the dead donor rule. Specifically, we consider whether there are compelling reasons to promulgate the rule even though its corresponding moral principle is not theoretically justified. We argue that there are no such reasons. In fact, we argue that promulgating the rule may actually decrease public trust in organ procurement procedures and medical institutions generally – even in states that do not permit capital punishment or voluntary active euthanasia.Finally, we examine our case against the dead donor rule in the light of common arguments for it. We find that these arguments are often misplaced – they do not support the dead donor rule. Instead, they support the quite different rule that patients should not be killed for their vital organs
|Keywords||capital punishment dead donor rule organ donation euthanasia|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Joseph L. Verheijde & Mohamed Y. Rady (2011). Justifying Physician-Assisted Death in Organ Donation. American Journal of Bioethics 11 (8):52-54.
Similar books and articles
Laura A. Siminoff (2003). The Dead Donor Rule: Not Dead Yet. American Journal of Bioethics 3 (1):30.
F. G. Miller, R. D. Truog & D. W. Brock (2010). The Dead Donor Rule: Can It Withstand Critical Scrutiny? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (3):299-312.
Norman Fost (2004). Reconsidering the Dead Donor Rule: Is It Important That Organ Donors Be Dead? Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (3):249-260.
Megan Crowley-Matoka & Robert M. Arnold (2004). The Dead Donor Rule: How Much Does the Public Care ... And How Much Should. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (3):319-332.
Robert M. Veatch (2004). Abandon the Dead Donor Rule or Change the Definition of Death? Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (3):261-276.
Laura A. Siminoff, Christopher Burant & Stuart J. Youngner (2004). Death and Organ Procurement: Public Beliefs and Attitudes. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (3):217-234.
Elysa R. Koppelman (2003). The Dead Donor Rule and the Concept of Death: Severing the Ties That Bind Them. American Journal of Bioethics 3 (1):1 – 9.
David Rodríguez-Arias, Maxwell J. Smith & Neil M. Lazar (2011). Donation After Circulatory Death: Burying the Dead Donor Rule. American Journal of Bioethics 11 (8):36-43.
Wayne Shelton (2003). Respect for Donor Autonomy and the Dead Donor Rule. American Journal of Bioethics 3 (1):20 – 21.
Mike Collins (2010). Reevaluating the Dead Donor Rule. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (2):1-26.
Added to index2009-10-27
Total downloads100 ( #31,243 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #183,615 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?