A Defense of the Dead Donor Rule

Discussion of the “dead donor rule” is challenging because it implicates views about a wide range of issues, including whether and when patients are appropriately declared dead, the validity of the doctrine of double effect, and the moral difference between or equivalence of active euthanasia and wi...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Magnus, David (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Interlibrary Loan:Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany)
Published: 2018
In: The Hastings Center report
Year: 2018, Volume: 48, Pages: 36-38
Online Access: Volltext (kostenfrei)
Volltext (kostenfrei)

MARC

LEADER 00000naa a22000002c 4500
001 1937581233
003 DE-627
005 20251002055746.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 251002s2018 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1002/hast.951  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1937581233 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1937581233 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Magnus, David  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 2 |a A Defense of the Dead Donor Rule 
264 1 |c 2018 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a Discussion of the “dead donor rule” is challenging because it implicates views about a wide range of issues, including whether and when patients are appropriately declared dead, the validity of the doctrine of double effect, and the moral difference between or equivalence of active euthanasia and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. The DDR will be defined here as the prohibition against removal of organs necessary for the life of the patient—that is, the prohibition of intentionally ending the life of a patient through organ removal. At a minimum, it is difficult not to see the DDR as grounded in a set of laws, norms, values, and practices that are firmly entrenched and have a great deal of philosophical, religious, and legal support. Obviously, the primary argument against the DDR is that it is highly desirable that we continue to procure organs for transplantation, combined with the belief that those from whom we often and possibly typically procure organs are not “really” dead. If donors are not really dead, then we are left with a dilemma: either we abandon organ procurement, or we abandon the DDR. Such a move should be taken only if the way we currently delineate the dead (those from whom it is acceptable to remove organs) cannot be maintained or defended. I will suggest that this is not the case. 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |a Hastings Center  |t The Hastings Center report  |d Malden, Mass. : Wiley, 1971  |g 48(2018), S4, Seite 36-38  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)341346551  |w (DE-600)2067369-3  |w (DE-576)258761822  |x 1552-146X  |7 nnas 
773 1 8 |g volume:48  |g year:2018  |g supplement:S4  |g pages:36-38 
856 |u https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/hast.951  |x unpaywall  |z Vermutlich kostenfreier Zugang  |h publisher [open (via free article)] 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.951  |x Resolving-System  |z kostenfrei  |3 Volltext 
856 4 0 |u https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/hast.951  |x Verlag  |z kostenfrei  |3 Volltext 
912 |a NOMM 
935 |a mteo 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4779707463 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1937581233 
LOK |0 005 20251002055746 
LOK |0 008 251002||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2025-09-27#442608913560817769CCA633F6BC8D58A62A07EC 
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 |0 935   |a ixrk  |a ixzs  |a zota  |a tiep 
OAS |a 1 
ORI |a TA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw