Article Text
Abstract
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.
- PVS, permanent vegetative state
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Proceeding with clinical trials of animal to human organ transplantation: a way out of the dilemma
- Why I wrote my advance decision to refuse life-prolonging treatment: and why the law on sanctity of life remains problematic
- Court applications for withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration from patients in a permanent vegetative state: family experiences
- Withdrawing clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) in patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness: is there still a role for the courts?
- Ethical issues in diagnosis and management of patients in the permanent vegetative state
- Withdrawing artificial nutrition and hydration from minimally conscious and vegetative patients: family perspectives
- Causes and consequences of delays in treatment-withdrawal from PVS patients: a case study of Cumbria NHS Clinical Commissioning Group v Miss S and Ors [2016] EWCOP 32
- Can ‘Best Interests’ derail the trolley? Examining withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration in patients in the permanent vegetative state
- Non-heart beating organ donation: old procurement strategy—new ethical problems
- Eluana Englaro, chronicle of a death foretold: ethical considerations on the recent right-to-die case in Italy