Article Text
Abstract
What makes an act of killing morally wrong is not that the act causes loss of life or consciousness but rather that the act causes loss of all remaining abilities. This account implies that it is not even pro tanto morally wrong to kill patients who are universally and irreversibly disabled, because they have no abilities to lose. Applied to vital organ transplantation, this account undermines the dead donor rule and shows how current practices are compatible with morality.
- Donation/procurement of organs/tissues
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Supplementary materials
Press coverage
Huffington Post >>
Boston Globe >>
Practical Ethics >>
The Blaze >>
Footnotes
The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not reflect the position or policy of the National Institutes of Health, the Public Health Service or the Department of Health and Human Services.
-
Competing interests None.
-
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Linked Articles
- Commentaries
- Commentaries
- Commentaries
- Commentaries
- Current controversy
- The concise argument
Other content recommended for you
- Abandoning the Dead Donor Rule
- A concise argument: on the wrongness of killing
- Killing versus totally disabling: a reply to critics
- ‘Total disability’ and the wrongness of killing
- Dependent relational animals
- Does it matter that organ donors are not dead? Ethical and policy implications
- Death and organ donation: back to the future
- Organismal death, the dead-donor rule and the ethics of vital organ procurement
- The dead donor rule: effect on the virtuous practice of medicine
- Is heart transplantation after circulatory death compatible with the dead donor rule?