Do the sick have a right to cadaveric organs?

Abstract

One way of increasing the supply of organs for transplantation is to adopt a policy giving the sick a right to cadaveric organs. Such a right would entail the coercive transfer of organs from the dead without their previous consent. Because this policy would violate individual autonomy and the special relation between humans and their bodies, it would be morally unjustifiable. Although a rights-based non-consensual model of salvaging cadaveric organs would be medically desirable, a communitarian-based consensual model would be a morally justifiable alternative way of addressing the problem of organ scarcity.

Reconsidering the Consent Requirement for Organ Recovery After Death

“…Some authors argue for the existence of "surviving interests" which, if thwarted, would harm the decedent and violate the principle of nonmaleficence (4). We are skeptical of the concept of posthumous harm.…”

A few realistic questions raised by organ retrieval in the intensive care unit

“…Public awareness of the possibility to donate one's organs and that those organs are allocated to recipients free of charge, according to transparent and non-discriminatory criteria should be enhanced (72). Every citizen should be offered a "right to donate" whatever the circumstances of their death (death after circulatory arrest, brain death), whenever and wherever it occurs, and thus be ensured that their wishes will be respected after death (73). Individuals should have opportunity to enroll in a national organ/tissue-donor register when completing certain administrative formalities such as applying for a passport, a driving licence or a health insurance card (72).…”

Normative consent and opt-out organ donation

“…However, it seems that the burden demanded is small. People's organs are of little use to them after their death and the costs of posthumous removal are less than those faced by a living donor (in particular, there is no risk of death from postoperative complications) 22. Therefore, most people probably can save lives at little, if any, cost to themselves (I deal with possible excuses, such as conscientious objections, in the following section), placing them under a duty to consent.…”