Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2005 Oct;31(10):587-90.
doi: 10.1136/jme.2004.009654.

Individual and family consent to organ and tissue donation: is the current position coherent?

Affiliations
Review

Individual and family consent to organ and tissue donation: is the current position coherent?

T M Wilkinson. J Med Ethics. 2005 Oct.

Abstract

The current position on the deceased's consent and the family's consent to organ and tissue donation from the dead is a double veto-each has the power to withhold and override the other's desire to donate. This paper raises, and to some extent answers, questions about the coherence of the double veto. It can be coherently defended in two ways: if it has the best effects and if the deceased has only negative rights of veto. Whether the double veto has better effects than other policies requires empirical investigation, which is not undertaken here. As for rights, the paper shows that it is entirely possible that individuals have a negative right of veto but no positive right to compel acceptance of their offers. Thus if intensivists and transplant teams turn down the deceased's offer, they do not thereby violate the deceased's right. This leaves it open whether non-rights based reasons-such as avoiding bad publicity or distress -require intensivists and transplant teams to turn down or accept the deceased's offer. This, however, is beyond the scope of this paper. The current position may or may not be wrong, but it is at least coherent.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

    1. Milbank Q. 2000;78(2):323-36, 152 - PubMed
    1. J Appl Philos. 2002;19(1):31-41 - PubMed
    1. J Med Ethics. 2003 Jun;29(3):130-4 - PubMed
    1. Med Law Rev. 2003 Spring;11(1):1-47 - PubMed
    1. Bioethics. 2004 Apr;18(2):87-103 - PubMed

MeSH terms