Donation by default? Examining feminist reservations about opt-out organ procurement
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 17814199 |
|---|---|
| Authors | James Lindemann Nelson (corresponding author) |
| Year | 2010 |
| Volume | 3 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 23-42 |
| Publication date | 2010-03-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1937-4577 • E-ISSN: 1937-4585 |
| Publisher | University of Toronto Press Inc. (UTPress) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.3138/ijfab.3.1.23 |
| OpenAlex | W1989628731 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 4 |
There is reason to believe that procuring organs from recently dead people who did not explicitly refuse to provide them—here referred to as “opt-out” arrangements—would ease growing shortages, thus extending the lives of many who otherwise would die soon. There is also a simple, apparently powerful argument—the “easy rescue requirement”—for believing that many people have strong moral reason to provide such life-extending support to others, thus bolstering the case for implementing optout systems. Here I consider two broad types of feminist reservations about opt-out arrangements, one concerning the motivating argument, the other concerning ways in which opt-out practices might disproportionately burden women. I conclude that both reservations can be answered sufficiently so as to encourage further feminist reflection on opt-out proposals and easy rescue arguments
Advertising · Business · Donation · Economic shortage · Epistemology · Law and economics · Opt-out · Organ donation · Political science · Procurement · Public relations · Sociology · Ethics in medical practice · Grief, Bereavement, and Mental Health · Law · Medicine · Organ Donation and Transplantation · Marketing · Transplantation
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |