Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T20:08:33.161Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Dead Donor Rule and Means-End Reasoning

A Reply to Gardiner and Sparrow

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2011

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Responses and Dialogue
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Gardiner, D, Sparrow, R.Not dead yet: Controlled non-heart-beating organ donation, consent, and the dead donor rule. Cambridge Quarterly for Healthcare Ethics 2010;19:17–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

2. See note 1, Gardiner, Sparrow 2010, at 20.

3. See note 1, Gardiner, Sparrow 2010, at 21.

4. Laird, J.The ethics of dignity. Philosophy 1940;15(58):135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. Kant, I.Critique of Practical Reason. Beck, LW, trans. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill; 1956:76–7.Google Scholar

6. Hill, TE.Humanity as an end. Ethics 1980;91(1):87. Emphasis mine.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. See note 4, Laird 1940, at 136. Emphasis mine.

8. See note 1, Gardiner, Sparrow 2010, at 21.

9. Talbot, D, Gok, M, Minor, T. Thrombolysis in the non-heart-beating donor. In: Talbot, D, D’Alessandro, AM, eds. Organ Donation and Transplantation after Cardiac Death. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009:103–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. See note 1, Gardiner, Sparrow 2010, at 22. Emphasis original.