Jusice and the Coercive Taking of Cadaveric Organs (original) (raw)

Right to Health and the Human Organ: Right as a Consequence?

In this paper I will analyze the right to health and right to health care in a special context, in the field of organ and tissue donation. I will argue that the cases of organ and tissue transplantation provide a useful means for the discussion of the main conceptual challenges to these twin rights. Furthermore the investigation of the scope of these rights in the context of transplantation provide an important aspect to understand to what extent can right to health encompass not only the claim to have access to basic health services but also to what extent non pecuniary solidarity in the form of relying the others' altruism can shape the contours of these rights. For the purposes of concentrating on right to health I will not differentiate between cadaver and living organ donation, only when it is absolutely necessary to make such a distinction. In order to demonstrate how existing European legislation created a special field to right to health, I will start my analysis with exploring the nature and main sources of right to health then I will demonstrate how new fields might be developed, such as the right to health in the context of organ donation.

Right to Health and the Human Organ: Rights as a consequence?

Justice and the Confiscation of Live Body Parts

This paper argues that, if one thinks that the needy have a right to the material resources they need in order to lead decent lives, one must be committed, in some cases, to conferring on the sick a right that the healthy give them some of the body parts they need to lead such a life. I then assess two objections against that view, to wit: to confer on the sick a right to the live body parts of the healthy (a) violates the bodily integrity of the latter; and (b) constitutes too much of an interference in their life. I conclude that although the sick sometimes have a right to some of the body parts of the healthy, the latter still retain a considerable degree of autonomy.

From altruistic donation to conditional societal organ appropriation after death

Since we have learned that human organs can be used to treat severe health problems, only donation has been considered for organ procurement. Among the other possibilities that can be used after a person’s death, purchase or systematic removal have been a priori rejected. However, we will show that the appeal to individual altruism have resulted in some of the aporias of the present situation. Subsequently, we will consider how systematic organ removal from deceased persons can be made acceptable in liberal and democratic societies. Finally, we will suggest that individual choices with regard to systematic organ removal could well be registered in a way that allows proper implementation of present French legislation.

The inviolateness of life and equal protection: a defense of the dead-donor rule

Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 2022

There are increasing calls to reject the dead-donor rule and permit organ donation euthanasia in organ transplantation. I argue that the fundamental problem with this proposal is that it would bestow more worth on the organs than on the donor who possesses them. What is at stake is the basis of human equality, which, I argue, should be based on an ineliminable dignity that each of us has in virtue of having a rational nature. To allow mortal harvesting would be to make our worth contingent upon variable quality-of-life judgments that can be based only on properties that come in degrees. Thus, rejecting the dead-donor rule comes at the expense of egalitarian principles with respect to the value each individual human life has in relation to the protections against killing.

Dealing Death and Retrieving Organs

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 2009

It has recently been argued by that, while procuring vital organs from transplant donors is typically the cause of their deaths, this violation of the requirement that donors be dead prior to the removal of their organs is not a cause for moral concern. In general terms, I endorse this heterodox conclusion, but for different and, as I think, more powerful reasons. I end by arguing that, even if it is agreed that retrieval of vital organs causes the deaths of those who provide them, that does not pose any new substantive difficulties for efforts to justify "opt-out" organ procurement systems.

Leaving gift-giving behind: the ethical status of the human body and transplant medicine

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

The paper argues that the idea of gift-giving and its associated imagery, which has been founding the ethics of organ transplants since the time of the first successful transplants, should be abandoned because it cannot effectively block arguments for (regulated) markets in human body parts. The imagery suggests that human bodies or their parts are transferable objects which belong to individuals. Such imagery is, however, neither a self-evident nor anthropologically unproblematic construal of the relation between a human being and their body. The paper proposes an alternative conceptualization of that relation, the identity view according to which a human being is identical with their living body. This view, which offers a new ethical perspective on some central concepts of transplant medicine and its ethical and legal standards and institutions, supports widely shared intuitive ethical judgments. On this proposal, an act of selling a human body or one of its parts is an act of trade in human beings, not in owned objects. Transfers of human body parts for treatment purposes are to be seen as sharing in another human being's misfortune rather than as giving owned objects. From the perspective of policy-making, the proposal requires, first, that informed consent for removal of transplant material be obtained from the potential benefactor. Secondly, explicit consent by the prospective benefactor is obligatory in the case of removal of transplant material from a living benefactor. Thirdly, in the case of posthumous retrieval, informed consent by the potential benefactor during their life is not ethically indispensable. Additionally, while refusal of posthumous retrieval expressed by a potential benefactor during their life must be respected, such a refusal needs ethical justification and explanation.

Organ Sales and Moral Distress

2006

The possibility that organ sales by living adults might be made legal is morally distressing to many of us. However, powerful arguments have been provided recently supporting legalisation (I consider two of those arguments: the Consequentialist Argument and the Autonomy Argument). Is our instinctive reaction against a market of organs irrational then? The aim of this paper is not to prove that legalization would be immoral, all things considered, but rather to show, ﬁrst, that there are some kinds of arguments, offered in favour of legalisation, that are, in an important sense, illegitimate, and second, that even if legalisation might not be wrong all things considered, there are good reasons for our negative moral intuitions. Moreover, identifying these reasons will help highlight some features of moral decisions in non-ideal situations, which in turn might be relevant to some other moral or policy choices.

Jusice and the Coercive Taking of Cadaveric Organs (original) (raw)

Related papers