Taylor on presumed consent

In his précis, James Stacey Taylor sets out his full-blooded Epicureanism, which concludes that “death is not a harm to the person who dies and that persons can neither be harmed nor wronged by events that occur after their deaths.”1 He then considers various topics in bioethics in the light of his...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Wilkinson, M. (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: BMJ Publ. 2014
In: Journal of medical ethics
Year: 2014, Volume: 40, Issue: 9, Pages: 638-639
Online Access: Volltext (JSTOR)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)

MARC

LEADER 00000caa a22000002 4500
001 1816149101
003 DE-627
005 20230426115805.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 220908s2014 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1136/medethics-2013-101756  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1816149101 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1816149101 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Wilkinson, M.  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Taylor on presumed consent 
264 1 |c 2014 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a In his précis, James Stacey Taylor sets out his full-blooded Epicureanism, which concludes that “death is not a harm to the person who dies and that persons can neither be harmed nor wronged by events that occur after their deaths.”1 He then considers various topics in bioethics in the light of his Epicureanism, one of which I consider here: presumed consent in the procurement of organs for transplantation. Although I do not accept Taylor's Epicureanism and although his examination of presumed consent is flawed in various ways, I think we can learn something important from him.Taylor couches the problem in terms of what we are supposed to presume about people's consent or dissent and he thinks that the USA and UK have a system of ‘presumed refusal’ “whereby it is presumed that a person would refuse to have her transplantable organs removed from her postmortem unless she had explicitly indicated otherwise” (ref. 2, p. 111—page references in text refer to this book). Taylor makes a common mistake. The USA and UK have never had such a presumption. In these countries, people who explicitly refuse may not have their organs taken, whereas people who do not explicitly consent may have their organs taken if, roughly speaking, their families consent. Thus non-consenters are not presumed to be refusers.Leaving aside the mistake about the status quo, … 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Journal of medical ethics  |d London : BMJ Publ., 1975  |g 40(2014), 9, Seite 638-639  |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:40  |g year:2014  |g number:9  |g pages:638-639 
856 |3 Volltext  |u http://www.jstor.org/stable/43283135  |x JSTOR 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2013-101756  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
856 4 0 |u http://jme.bmj.com/content/40/9/638.abstract  |x Verlag  |z lizenzpflichtig  |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 4185603002 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1816149101 
LOK |0 005 20220908053629 
LOK |0 008 220908||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-08-03#6182A3BCAD17A83DC82F8BD8E2CD7AD0C900988B 
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/43283135 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixrk  |a zota 
OAS |a 1  |b inherited from superior work 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw