Journal of Medical Ethics 32 (10):601-605 (2006)

Robert Sparrow
Monash University
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)
DOI 10.1136/jme.2005.014027
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 63,393
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

View all 10 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Biopolitics, Terri Schiavo, and the Sovereign Subject of Death.J. P. Bishop - 2008 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 33 (6):538-557.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Dead Donor Rule: Can It Withstand Critical Scrutiny?F. G. Miller, R. D. Truog & D. W. Brock - 2010 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (3):299-312.
Ex Post Facto: Peirce and the Living Signs of the Dead.Kieran Cashell - 2007 - Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 43 (2):345-372.
The Dead Donor Rule: Lessons From Linguistics.D. Alan Shewmon - 2004 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (3):277-300.
The Living Dead: Fiction, Horror, and Bioethics.Catherine Belling - 2010 - Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 53 (3):439-451.
Abandon the Dead Donor Rule or Change the Definition of Death?Robert M. Veatch - 2004 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (3):261-276.


Added to PP index

Total views
76 ( #141,189 of 2,448,945 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #443,144 of 2,448,945 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes