Alireza Bagheri supports a policy on organ procurement where individuals could choose their own definition of death between two or more socially accepted alternatives. First, we claim that such a policy, without any criterion to distinguish accepted from acceptable definitions, easily leads to the slippery slope that Bagheri tries to avoid. Second, we suggest that a public discussion about the circumstances under which the dead donor rule could be violated is more productive of social trust than constantly moving the line between life and death.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
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.
Competing interests: None.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Individual choice in the definition of death
- The dead donor rule: effect on the virtuous practice of medicine
- Death and organ donation: back to the future
- A narrative review of the empirical evidence on public attitudes on brain death and vital organ transplantation: the need for better data to inform policy
- Death, dying and donation: organ transplantation and the diagnosis of death
- Organismal death, the dead-donor rule and the ethics of vital organ procurement
- Defining death in non-heart beating organ donors
- Abandoning the dead donor rule? A national survey of public views on death and organ donation
- Does it matter that organ donors are not dead? Ethical and policy implications
- Death and legal fictions