Article info
PDFLaw, ethics and medicine
Transplants save lives, defending the double veto does not: a reply to Wilkinson
- Correspondence to: A J Cronin Institute of Medicine Law and Bioethics, School of Law, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK; antonia.cronin{at}kcl.ac.uk
Citation
Transplants save lives, defending the double veto does not: a reply to Wilkinson
Publication history
- Received January 30, 2006
- Accepted June 6, 2006
- Revised June 2, 2006
- First published March 30, 2007.
Online issue publication
April 27, 2016
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
Copyright 2007 by the Journal of Medical Ethics
Other content recommended for you
- Individual and family consent to organ and tissue donation: is the current position coherent?
- Whither a Welfare-Funded ’Sex Doula' Programme?
- An analysis of knowledge and attitudes of hospice staff towards organ and tissue donation
- Do the sick have a right to cadaveric organs?
- Positive rights, negative rights and health care
- Sexual rights and disability
- The potential for non-heart beating organ donation within a paediatric intensive care unit
- Authorisation, altruism and compulsion in the organ donation debate
- Views of leaders in under-represented and equity-denied communities on organ and tissue donation in Nova Scotia, Canada, in light of the Human Organ and Tissue Donation Act: a qualitative descriptive study
- Doctors' knowledge of tissue donation in children