Smith argues that death caused by transplant surgery will not harm permanently unconscious patients, because they will not suffer a setback to their interests in the context of donation. Therefore, so the argument goes, the dead donor rule can be abandoned, because requiring a death declaration before procurement does not protect any relevant interest from being thwarted. Smith contends that a virtue of his argument is that it avoids the controversies over defining and determining death. I argue that it does not and explain why no change in policy is justified.
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.
Contributors AO is the sole author of this work.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- 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
- The dead donor rule: effect on the virtuous practice of medicine
- Death, dying and donation: organ transplantation and the diagnosis of death
- Does it matter that organ donors are not dead? Ethical and policy implications
- Abandoning the dead donor rule? A national survey of public views on death and organ donation
- Death and organ donation: back to the future
- An analysis of heart donation after circulatory determination of death
- An unquestioned assumption in the debate on the dead donor rule
- Do the ‘brain dead’ merely appear to be alive?
- Abandoning the Dead Donor Rule