• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

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.
3
Double-Effect Donation or Bodily Respect? A "Third Way" Response to Camosy and Vukov.双重效应捐赠还是身体尊重?对卡莫西和武科夫的“第三条道路”回应。
Linacre Q. 2023 May;90(2):155-171. doi: 10.1177/00243639231162436. Epub 2023 Mar 23.
4
The Human Organ Transplantation Act in Bangladesh: Towards Proper Family-Based Ethics and Law.孟加拉国的《人体器官移植法》:迈向基于家庭的恰当伦理与法律
Asian Bioeth Rev. 2021 Apr 10;13(3):283-296. doi: 10.1007/s41649-021-00170-6. eCollection 2021 Sep.
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.
6
May I give my heart away? On the permissibility of living vital organ donation.我可以捐献我的心脏吗?关于活体器官捐赠的可允许性。
Bioethics. 2021 Oct;35(8):812-819. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12935. Epub 2021 Aug 18.
7
Does It Matter How We Die? Ethical and Legal Issues Raised by Combining Euthanasia and Organ Transplantation.我们如何死亡重要吗?安乐死与器官移植相结合引发的伦理和法律问题。
Linacre Q. 2019 Nov;86(4):359-365. doi: 10.1177/0024363919872623. Epub 2019 Sep 10.
8
Does organ donation legislation affect individuals' willingness to donate their own or their relative's organs? Evidence from European Union survey data.器官捐赠立法是否会影响个人捐赠自己或其亲属器官的意愿?来自欧盟调查数据的证据。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2008 Feb 27;8:48. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-8-48.
9
Organ Donation and Declaration of Death: Combined Neurologic and Cardiopulmonary Standards.器官捐献与死亡判定:神经学与心肺标准相结合
Linacre Q. 2019 Nov;86(4):285-296. doi: 10.1177/0024363919840129. Epub 2019 May 20.
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

1
Double-Effect Donation or Bodily Respect? A "Third Way" Response to Camosy and Vukov.双重效应捐赠还是身体尊重?对卡莫西和武科夫的“第三条道路”回应。
Linacre Q. 2023 May;90(2):155-171. doi: 10.1177/00243639231162436. Epub 2023 Mar 23.
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

1
Targeting the Fetal Body and/or Mother-Child Connection: Vital Conflicts and Abortion.针对胎儿身体和/或母婴联系:重大冲突与堕胎
Linacre Q. 2020 May;87(2):147-160. doi: 10.1177/0024363919887613. Epub 2019 Nov 18.
2
Organ Donation and Declaration of Death: Combined Neurologic and Cardiopulmonary Standards.器官捐献与死亡判定:神经学与心肺标准相结合
Linacre Q. 2019 Nov;86(4):285-296. doi: 10.1177/0024363919840129. Epub 2019 May 20.
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.
4
A philosophical assessment of TK's autopsy report: Implications for the debate over the brain death criteria.对TK尸检报告的哲学评估:对脑死亡标准辩论的启示
Linacre Q. 2016 May;83(2):192-202. doi: 10.1080/00243639.2016.1164936.
5
Brain Death and Human Organismal Integration: A Symposium on the Definition of Death.脑死亡与人体整合:死亡定义研讨会
J Med Philos. 2016 Jun;41(3):229-36. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhw007. Epub 2016 Apr 23.
6
Determination of Death: A Scientific Perspective on Biological Integration.死亡的判定:生物整合的科学视角
J Med Philos. 2016 Jun;41(3):257-78. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhw004. Epub 2016 Apr 13.
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.
9
One life ends, another begins: Management of a brain-dead pregnant mother-A systematic review-.一尸两命,另一个生命开始:脑死亡孕妇的处理——系统综述。
BMC Med. 2010 Nov 18;8:74. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-74.
10
Delimiting death.界定死亡。
Nature. 2009 Oct 1;461(7264):570. doi: 10.1038/461570a.

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.

DOI:10.1177/0024363921989477
PMID:33897047
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8033499/
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。