| Normative consent and presumed consent for organ donation: a critique. | |
| | |
MedLine Citation:
|
PMID: 20663768 Owner: NLM Status: In-Process |
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
|
Ben Saunders claims that actual consent is not necessary for organ donation due to 'normative consent', a concept he borrows from David Estlund. Combining normative consent with Peter Singer's 'greater moral evil principle', Saunders argues that it is immoral for an individual to refuse consent to donate his or her organs. If a presumed consent policy were thus adopted, it would be morally legitimate to remove organs from individuals whose wishes concerning donation are not known. This paper disputes Saunders' arguments. First, if death caused by the absence of organ transplant is the operational premise, then, there is nothing of comparable moral precedence under which a person is not obligated to donate. Saunders' use of Singer's principle produces a duty to donate in almost all circumstances. However, this premise is based on a flawed interpretation of cause and effect between organ availability and death. Second, given growing moral and scientific agreement that the organ donors in heart-beating and non-heart-beating procurement protocols are not dead when their organs are surgically removed, it is not at all clear that people have a duty to consent to their lives being taken for their organs. Third, Saunders' claim that there can be good reasons for refusing consent clashes with his claim that there is a moral obligation for everyone to donate their organs. Saunders' argument is more consistent with a conclusion of 'mandatory consent'. Finally, it is argued that Saunders' policy, if put into place, would be totalitarian in scope and would therefore be inconsistent with the freedom required for a democratic society. |
| | |
Authors:
|
Michael Potts; Joseph L Verheijde; Mohamed Y Rady; David W Evans |
Related Documents
:
|
19800418 - Darwin's explanation of design: from natural theology to natural selection. 19622248 - Debate in embryo donation: embryo donation or both-gamete donation? 2049508 - Ethical aspects of statistical practice. 2133618 - Paying organ donors. 2062198 - Differences in the medical and legal viewpoint illustrated by r v hardie [1984]. 13678498 - On ethical issues at the foundation of the debate over the goals of psychoanalysis. |
Publication Detail:
|
Type: Comment; Journal Article |
Journal Detail:
|
Title: Journal of medical ethics Volume: 36 ISSN: 1473-4257 ISO Abbreviation: J Med Ethics Publication Date: 2010 Aug |
Date Detail:
|
Created Date: 2010-07-28 Completed Date: - Revised Date: - |
Medline Journal Info:
|
Nlm Unique ID: 7513619 Medline TA: J Med Ethics Country: England |
Other Details:
|
Languages: eng Pagination: 498-9 Citation Subset: E; IM |
Affiliation:
|
Methodist University, Fayetteville, NC 28311-1498, USA. gratiaetnatura@yahoo.com |
Export Citation:
|
APA/MLA Format Download EndNote Download BibTex |
| MeSH Terms | |
Descriptor/Qualifier:
|
|
| Comments/Corrections | |
Comment On:
|
J Med Ethics. 2010 Feb;36(2):84-7
[PMID:
20133401
]
|
From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine
Previous Document: One step forward, two steps back? The GMC, the common law and 'informed' consent.
Next Document: Between the needy and the greedy: the quest for a just and fair ethics of clinical research.