Against abandoning the dead donor rule: reply to Smith

Journal of Medical Ethics 49 (10):715-716 (2023)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Smith argues that death caused by transplant surgery will not harm permanently unconscious patients, because they will not suffer a setback to their interests in the context of donation. Therefore, so the argument goes, the dead donor rule can be abandoned, because requiring a death declaration before procurement does not protect any relevant interest from being thwarted. Smith contends that a virtue of his argument is that it avoids the controversies over defining and determining death. I argue that it does not and explain why no change in policy is justified.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,667

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-01-05

Downloads
19 (#1,082,612)

6 months
4 (#1,263,115)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Adam Omelianchuk
Baylor College of Medicine

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Why DCD Donors Are Dead.John P. Lizza - 2020 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 45 (1):42-60.
Abandoning the Dead Donor Rule.Anthony P. Smith - 2023 - Journal of Medical Ethics 49 (10):707-714.

Add more references