Suppr超能文献

双重效应捐赠

Double Effect Donation.

作者信息

Camosy Charles C, Vukov Joseph

机构信息

Fordham University, New York, NY, USA.

Department of Philosophy, Loyola University Chicago, IL, USA.

出版信息

Linacre Q. 2021 May;88(2):149-162. doi: 10.1177/0024363921989477. Epub 2021 Feb 8.

Abstract

UNLABELLED

Double Effect Donation claims it is permissible for a person meeting brain death criteria to donate vital organs, even though such a person may be alive. The reason this act is permissible is that it does not aim at one's own death but rather at saving the lives of others and because saving the lives of others constitutes a proportionately serious reason for engaging in a behavior in which one foresees one's death as the outcome. Double Effect Donation, we argue, opens a novel position in debates surrounding brain death and organ donation and does so without compromising the sacredness and fundamental equality of human life.

SUMMARY

Recent cases and discussion have raised questions about whether brain death criteria successfully capture natural death. These questions are especially troubling since vital organs are often retrieved from individuals declared dead by brain death criteria. We therefore seem to be left with a choice: either salvage brain death criteria or else abandon current organ donation practices. In this article, we present a different way forward. In particular, we defend a view we call Double Effect Donation, according to which it is permissible for a person meeting brain death criteria to donate vital organs, even though such a person may be alive. Double Effect Donation, we argue, is not merely compatible with but grows out of a view that acknowledges the sacredness and fundamental equality of human life.

摘要

未标注

“双重效果捐赠”主张,符合脑死亡标准的人捐赠重要器官是允许的,即便此人可能仍活着。这一行为之所以被允许,是因为它并非以自身死亡为目的,而是旨在拯救他人生命,且拯救他人生命构成了从事一种可预见自身死亡为结果的行为的相称严重理由。我们认为,“双重效果捐赠”在围绕脑死亡和器官捐赠的辩论中开辟了一个新立场,且这样做并未损害人类生命的神圣性和基本平等。

总结

近期的案例和讨论引发了关于脑死亡标准是否成功界定自然死亡的问题。这些问题尤其令人困扰,因为重要器官常常从被判定为脑死亡的个体身上获取。因此,我们似乎面临一个选择:要么挽救脑死亡标准,要么放弃当前的器官捐赠做法。在本文中,我们提出了一条不同的前进道路。具体而言,我们捍卫一种我们称之为“双重效果捐赠”的观点,据此,符合脑死亡标准的人捐赠重要器官是允许的,即便此人可能仍活着。我们认为,“双重效果捐赠”不仅与承认人类生命的神圣性和基本平等的观点相容,而且源自该观点。

相似文献

1
Double Effect Donation.双重效应捐赠
Linacre Q. 2021 May;88(2):149-162. doi: 10.1177/0024363921989477. Epub 2021 Feb 8.
2
Double-Effect Donation Disputed.双效捐赠引发争议。
Linacre Q. 2022 Aug;89(3):327-335. doi: 10.1177/00243639211038128. Epub 2021 Sep 10.
5
Religious aspects of organ transplantation.器官移植的宗教层面。
Transplant Proc. 2008 May;40(4):1064-7. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2008.03.049.
10
Brain Death and the Dutch Organ Donation Law.脑死亡与荷兰器官捐赠法
Linacre Q. 2020 May;87(2):161-170. doi: 10.1177/0024363919897441. Epub 2020 Jan 6.

引用本文的文献

2
Double-Effect Donation Disputed.双效捐赠引发争议。
Linacre Q. 2022 Aug;89(3):327-335. doi: 10.1177/00243639211038128. Epub 2021 Sep 10.

本文引用的文献

3
Truly Reconciling the Case of Jahi McMath.真正调和贾希·麦克马思案。
Neurocrit Care. 2018 Oct;29(2):165-170. doi: 10.1007/s12028-018-0593-x.
6
7
A Thomistic defense of whole-brain death.对全脑死亡的托马斯主义辩护。
Linacre Q. 2015 Aug;82(3):235-50. doi: 10.1179/2050854915Y.0000000005.
8
Total brain death: a reply to Alan Shewmon.全脑死亡:对艾伦·休蒙的回复。
Bioethics. 2012 Jun;26(5):275-84. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2010.01846.x.
10
Delimiting death.界定死亡。
Nature. 2009 Oct 1;461(7264):570. doi: 10.1038/461570a.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验