Legislation of Presumed Consent for End-Of-Life Organ Donation in the United Kingdom (UK): Undermining Values in a Multicultural Society

Verheijde, Joseph L.; Rady, Mohamed Y.; McGregor, Joan; Murray, Catherine Friederich

doi:10.1590/s1807-59322008000300002

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 23 publications

(29 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Critics have argued that ‘presumed consent’ de facto takes away the potential donor's autonomy because many people may not be aware of the ‘opt out’ clause and have their organs removed in opposition to their wishes 4 5. Ben Saunders6 has recently responded to this objection by claiming that actual consent is not necessary for organ donation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Normative consent and presumed consent for organ donation: a critique

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ben Saunders claims that actual consent is not necessary for organ donation due to 'normative consent', a concept he borrows from David Estlund. Combining normative consent with Peter Singer's 'greater moral evil principle', Saunders argues that it is immoral for an individual to refuse consent to donate his or her organs. If a presumed consent policy were thus adopted, it would be morally legitimate to remove organs from individuals whose wishes concerning donation are not known. This paper disputes Saunders' arguments. First, if death caused by the absence of organ transplant is the operational premise, then, there is nothing of comparable moral precedence under which a person is not obligated to donate. Saunders' use of Singer's principle produces a duty to donate in almost all circumstances. However, this premise is based on a flawed interpretation of cause and effect between organ availability and death. Second, given growing moral and scientific agreement that the organ donors in heart-beating and non-heart-beating procurement protocols are not dead when their organs are surgically removed, it is not at all clear that people have a duty to consent to their lives being taken for their organs. Third, Saunders' claim that there can be good reasons for refusing consent clashes with his claim that there is a moral obligation for everyone to donate their organs. Saunders' argument is more consistent with a conclusion of 'mandatory consent'. Finally, it is argued that Saunders' policy, if put into place, would be totalitarian in scope and would therefore be inconsistent with the freedom required for a democratic society.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Normative consent and presumed consent for organ donation: a critique

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another similar bill proposed in Colorado was also dropped after facing substantial resistance [10]. Proposals akin to this have also been blocked in Canada and the United Kingdom [11,12]. There is ongoing debate regarding the appropriateness of the presumed consent policy, especially its ethical implications related to human rights and individual autonomy [13,14].…”

Section: Legislative Change To Increase Organ Donor Poolmentioning

confidence: 99%