Division of Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine, Corrigan Minehan Heart Center ICU, and Optimum Care (Ethics) Committee, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Bioethics. 2023 May;37(4):374-378. doi: 10.1111/bioe.13138. Epub 2023 Jan 27.
Five countries now permit organ donation after euthanasia, on the basis of respecting donor autonomy. Some now openly consider performing euthanasia itself via organ extraction to better preserve organ viability, albeit in violation of the dead donor rule. Proponents argue that respect for patient autonomy requires this option; the dead donor rule is inapplicable since it fulfills donors' wishes. Other ethical arguments, not addressed herein, explore issues including dying at home, impact on clinicians, and societal faith in donation enterprise, but these concerns are not insurmountable. This paper instead solely critiques proponents' oversimplified understanding of autonomy with an autonomy-based argument against any linkage of organ donation and euthanasia, regardless of its timing. Respect for patient autonomy does not unilaterally require fulfilling patients' every wish. Moreover, the very possibility of organ donation with euthanasia limits donor autonomy qualitatively and quantitatively substantially more than by offering it. In fact, organ donation after euthanasia violates the purpose of the dead donor rule, even if not its technicalities.
目前有五个国家在尊重捐赠者自主权的基础上,允许在安乐死之后进行器官捐献。一些国家现在公开考虑通过器官提取来实施安乐死,以更好地保存器官活力,尽管这违反了死亡捐赠者规则。支持者认为,尊重患者自主权需要这样的选择;死亡捐赠者规则不适用,因为它满足了捐赠者的意愿。其他伦理问题,如在国内死亡、对临床医生的影响以及社会对捐赠事业的信任,虽然没有得到解决,但这些担忧并不是无法克服的。本文仅从基于自主权的角度来批评支持者对自主权的简单化理解,反对任何将器官捐献与安乐死联系起来的做法,无论其时间如何。尊重患者自主权并不需要单方面满足患者的每一个愿望。此外,安乐死伴随着器官捐献的可能性从质量和数量上极大地限制了捐赠者的自主权,而不仅仅是提供了这样的选择。事实上,即使没有违反技术细节,安乐死之后的器官捐献也违反了死亡捐赠者规则的目的。