Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T16:17:55.861Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In Defense of Routine Recovery of Cadaveric Organs: A Response to Walter Glannon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2008

AARON SPITAL  and
JAMES S. TAYLOR
AARON SPITAL
Affiliation:
Elmhurst Hospital Center in Elmhurst, New York, and The Mount Sinai School of Medicine
JAMES S. TAYLOR
Affiliation:
The College of New Jersey
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Walter Glannon argues that our proposal for routine recovery (also known as conscription) of transplantable cadaveric organs is unacceptable “even if the consequence of [continuing to require consent] would be fewer organs for transplantation and fewer lives saved.” After carefully reviewing his counterarguments, we conclude that, although some of them have merit, none are sufficiently strong to warrant abandoning this plan. Below we respond to each of Glannon's concerns.

Type
Perspectives
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , July 2008 , pp. 337 - 343
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 Glannon, W. The case against conscription of cadaveric organs for transplantation. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2008, this issue, 330–6 at p. 334Google ScholarPubMed.

2 Spital, A, Taylor, JS. Routine recovery of cadaveric organs for transplantation: Consistent, fair, and life-saving. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 2007;2:299–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Levinsky, NG. The doctor's master. The New England Journal of Medicine 1984;311:1573–5 at p. 1573CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

4 Potts, JT, Herdman, R, eds. Non-heart-beating Organ Transplantation: Medical and Ethical Issues in Procurement. A Report from the Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1997:55–6Google Scholar; Steinbrook, R. Organ donation after cardiac death. The New England Journal of Medicine 2007;357:209–13CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

5 Perry, C. The right of public access to cadaver organs. Social Science & Medicine 1981;15F:163–6Google ScholarPubMed; Stein, R. New zeal in organ procurement raises fears. The Washington Post 2007 Sep 13:A1Google Scholar.

6 Childress, JF, Liverman, CT, eds. Organ Donation: Opportunities for Action. A Report from the Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2006:175–6Google Scholar.

7 Truog, RD, Robinson, WM. Role of brain death and the dead-donor rule in the ethics of organ transplantation. Critical Care Medicine 2003;31:2391–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

8 Dukeminier, J, Sanders, D. Organ transplantation: A proposal for routine salvaging of cadaver organs. The New England Journal of Medicine 1968;279:413–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

9 Harris, J. Organ procurement: Dead interests, living needs. Journal of Medical Ethics 2003;29:130–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Truog, RD. Are organs personal property or a societal resource? The American Journal of Bioethics 2005;5:14–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

10 See note 5, Perry 1981:165.

11 Spital, A. Conscription of cadaveric organs for transplantation: A stimulating idea whose time has not yet come. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2005;14:107–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Loewy, EH. Of community, organs and obligations: Routine salvage with a twist. Theoretical Medicine 1996;17:61–74at p. 70CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 See note 12, Loewy 1996.