Literature DB >> 20191949

Mandatory autopsies and organ conscription.

David B Hershenov1, James J Delaney.   

Abstract

Laws requiring autopsies have generated little controversy. Yet it is considered unconscionable to take organs without consent for transplantation. We think an organ draft is justified if mandatory autopsies are. We reject the following five attempts to show why a mandatory autopsy policy is legitimate, but organ conscription is not: (1) The social contract gives the state a greater duty to protect its citizens from each other than from disease. (2) There is a greater moral obligation to prevent murders than disease-caused deaths because killing people is morally worse than allowing people to die. (3) Autopsies do not confiscate body parts, but organ transplants do. (4) The citizenry's knowledge that their organs are very likely to be taken will generate more anxiety than the remote possibility of a mandatory autopsy. (5) A religious conviction that one's organs will be needed in order to be resurrected is threatened by organ transplantation but not by autopsies that "return" body parts.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 20191949     DOI: 10.1353/ken.0.0300

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Kennedy Inst Ethics J        ISSN: 1054-6863


  2 in total

1.  The metaphysical basis of a liberal organ procurement policy.

Authors:  David B Hershenov; James J Delaney
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2010-08

2.  What does "presumed consent" might presume? Preservation measures and uncontrolled donation after circulatory determination of death.

Authors:  Pablo de Lora
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2014-08
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.