David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Medical Ethics 32 (10):601-605 (2006)
Ravelingien et al have suggested that early human xenotransplantation trials should be carried out on patients who are in a permanent vegetative state (PVS) and who have previously granted their consent to the use of their bodies in such research in the event of their cortical death. Unfortunately, their philosophical defence of this suggestion is unsatisfactory in its current formulation, as it equivocates on the key question of the status of patients who are in a PVS. The solution proposed by them rests on the idea that it should be up to people themselves to determine when they should be treated as dead. Yet the authors clearly believe (and state) that patients who are in a PVS are in fact dead. Finally, given the public good that their proposal is intended to achieve, the moral importance they place on the consent of a person to the use of his or her body in research is ultimately only defensible in so far as this consent represents the wishes of a living person. It is thus only a gentle caricature of their position to suggest that according to their account, consent to participation in xenotransplantation research is a “right of the living dead”. The equivocation by Ravelingien et al on the question of whether these people are living or dead means that they avoid confronting the implications of their argument. The solution proposed by Ravelingien et al to the problem of how we should proceed with xenotransplantation research is therefore not as neat as it first seems to be
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
J. P. Bishop (2008). Biopolitics, Terri Schiavo, and the Sovereign Subject of Death. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 33 (6):538-557.
Similar books and articles
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.
Dale Gardiner & Robert Sparrow (2009). Not Dead Yet: Controlled Non-Heart-Beating Organ Donation, Consent, and the Dead Donor Rule. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 19 (01):17-.
Kieran Cashell (2007). Ex Post Facto: Peirce and the Living Signs of the Dead. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 43 (2):345-372.
D. Alan Shewmon (2004). The Dead Donor Rule: Lessons From Linguistics. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (3):277-300.
Robert Sparrow & Dale Gardiner (2010). Not Dead Yet: Controlled Non-Heart-Beating Organ Donation, Consent, and the Dead Donor Rule. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 19 (1):17-26.
Hazel Biggs (2001). Euthanasia, Death with Dignity, and the Law. Hart Publishing.
Catherine Belling (2010). The Living Dead Fiction, Horror, and Bioethics. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 53 (3):439-451.
Ireneusz Ziemiński (2007). Death is Not an Event in Life: Ludwig Wittgenstein as a Transcendental Idealist. Idealistic Studies 37 (1):51-66.
Marc Crépon (2008). Mourir pour? Studia Phaenomenologica 8:109-119.
Robert M. Veatch (2004). Abandon the Dead Donor Rule or Change the Definition of Death? Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (3):261-276.
Added to index2009-10-29
Total downloads15 ( #107,735 of 1,101,021 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #27,714 of 1,101,021 )
How can I increase my downloads?