Individual and family consent to organ and tissue donation: is the current position coherent?

The current position on the deceased’s consent and the family’s consent to organ and tissue donation from the dead is a double veto—each has the power to withhold and override the other’s desire to donate. This paper raises, and to some extent answers, questions about the coherence of the double vet...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Wilkinson, T. M. (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: BMJ Publ. 2005
In: Journal of medical ethics
Year: 2005, Volume: 31, Issue: 10, Pages: 587-590
Online Access: Volltext (JSTOR)
Volltext (kostenfrei)
Volltext (kostenfrei)

MARC

LEADER 00000naa a22000002 4500
001 1816129291
003 DE-627
005 20220908053416.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 220908s2005 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1136/jme.2004.009654  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1816129291 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1816129291 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Wilkinson, T. M.  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Individual and family consent to organ and tissue donation: is the current position coherent? 
264 1 |c 2005 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a The current position on the deceased’s consent and the family’s consent to organ and tissue donation from the dead is a double veto—each has the power to withhold and override the other’s desire to donate. This paper raises, and to some extent answers, questions about the coherence of the double veto. It can be coherently defended in two ways: if it has the best effects and if the deceased has only negative rights of veto. Whether the double veto has better effects than other policies requires empirical investigation, which is not undertaken here. As for rights, the paper shows that it is entirely possible that individuals have a negative right of veto but no positive right to compel acceptance of their offers. Thus if intensivists and transplant teams turn down the deceased’s offer, they do not thereby violate the deceased’s right. This leaves it open whether non-rights based reasons—such as avoiding bad publicity or distress —require intensivists and transplant teams to turn down or accept the deceased’s offer. This, however, is beyond the scope of this paper. The current position may or may not be wrong, but it is at least coherent. 
601 |a Individuation 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Journal of medical ethics  |d London : BMJ Publ., 1975  |g 31(2005), 10, Seite 587-590  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)323607802  |w (DE-600)2026397-1  |w (DE-576)260773972  |x 1473-4257  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:31  |g year:2005  |g number:10  |g pages:587-590 
856 |3 Volltext  |u http://www.jstor.org/stable/27719491  |x JSTOR 
856 |u https://jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/31/10/587.full.pdf  |x unpaywall  |z Vermutlich kostenfreier Zugang  |h publisher [open (via free pdf)] 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2004.009654  |x Resolving-System  |z kostenfrei  |3 Volltext 
856 4 0 |u http://jme.bmj.com/content/31/10/587.abstract  |x Verlag  |z kostenfrei  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mteo 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4185583141 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1816129291 
LOK |0 005 20220908053416 
LOK |0 008 220908||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-08-02#4BD5BD036D0EA6FED2A77011978ECE6DA717A205 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 866   |x JSTOR#http://www.jstor.org/stable/27719491 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixrk  |a zota 
OAS |a 1 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw 

Similar Items

more