Visiting Research Fellow, School of Politics, International Politics and Philosophy, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN, UK.
J Med Ethics. 2013 Mar;39(3):153-7. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2012-100951. Epub 2012 Nov 10.
This essay comments on the British Medical Association's recent suggestion that protocols for Elective Ventilation (EV) might be revived in order to increase the number of viable organs available for transplant. I suggest that the proposed revival results, at least in part, from developments in the contemporary political landscape, notably the decreasing likelihood of an opt-out system for the UK's Organ Donor Register. I go on to suggest that EV is unavoidably situated within complex debates surrounding the epistemology and ontology of death. Such questions cannot be settled a priori by medical science, bioethics or philosophical reflection. As Radcliffe-Richards suggests, the determination of death has become a moral question, and therefore, now extends into the political arena. I argue for the conclusion that EV, and wider debates about organ donation and the constitution of the organ donation register, are matters of 'biocitizenship' and must, therefore, be addressed as 'biopolitical' questions.
这篇文章评论了英国医学协会最近提出的建议,即可能恢复选择性通气 (EV) 的方案,以增加可用于移植的可用器官数量。我认为,提议的复苏至少部分是由于当代政治格局的发展,特别是英国器官登记处退出选择系统的可能性降低。我接着认为,EV 不可避免地处于围绕死亡的认识论和本体论的复杂辩论中。这些问题不能由医学科学、生物伦理学或哲学反思预先确定。正如拉德克利夫-理查兹所指出的,死亡的确定已成为一个道德问题,因此现在已扩展到政治领域。我认为,EV 以及关于器官捐赠和器官捐赠登记册构成的更广泛辩论是“生物公民身份”的问题,因此必须作为“生物政治”问题来解决。