Welcome to PsychiatryAI.com: [PubMed] - Psychiatry AI Latest

Double-Effect Donation or Bodily Respect? A “Third Way” Response to Camosy and Vukov

Evidence

Linacre Q. 2023 May;90(2):155-171. doi: 10.1177/00243639231162436. Epub 2023 Mar 23.

ABSTRACT

Is it possible to donate unpaired vital organs, foreseeing but not intending one’s own death? We argue that this is indeed psychologically possible, and thus far agree with Charles Camosy and Joseph Vukov in their recent paper on “double effect donation.” Where we disagree with these authors is that we see double-effect donation not as a morally praiseworthy act akin to martyrdom but as a morally impermissible act that necessarily disrespects human bodily integrity. Respect for bodily integrity goes beyond avoiding the aim to kill: not all side effects of deliberate bodily interventions can be outweighed by intended benefits for another even if the subject fully consents. It is not any necessary intention to kill or harm another or oneself that makes lethal donation/harvesting illicit but the more immediate intention to accept or perform surgery on an (innocent) person combined with the foresight of lethal harm and no health-related good for him or her. Double-effect donation falls foul of the first condition of double-effect reasoning in that the immediate act is wrong in itself. We argue further that the wider effects of such donation would be socially disastrous and corrupting of the medical profession: doctors should retain a sense of nonnegotiable respect for bodily integrity even when they intervene on willing subjects for the benefit of others. Summary: Lethal organ donation (for example, donating one’s heart) is not a praiseworthy but a morally impermissible act. This is not because such donation necessarily involves any aim to kill oneself (if one is the donor) or to kill the donor (if one is the surgeon). Respect for bodily integrity goes beyond avoiding any hypothetical aim to kill or harm oneself or another innocent person. ‘Double effect donation’ of unpaired vital organs, defended by Camosy and Vukov, is in our view a form of lethal bodily abuse and would also harm the transplant team, the medical profession and society at large.

PMID:37325428 | PMC:PMC10265387 | DOI:10.1177/00243639231162436

Document this CPD Copy URL Button

Google

Google Keep

LinkedIn Share Share on Linkedin

Estimated reading time: 6 minute(s)

Latest: Psychiatryai.com #RAISR4D Evidence

Cool Evidence: Engaging Young People and Students in Real-World Evidence

Real-Time Evidence Search [Psychiatry]

AI Research

Double-Effect Donation or Bodily Respect? A “Third Way” Response to Camosy and Vukov

Copy WordPress Title

🌐 90 Days

Evidence Blueprint

Double-Effect Donation or Bodily Respect? A “Third Way” Response to Camosy and Vukov

QR Code

☊ AI-Driven Related Evidence Nodes

(recent articles with at least 5 words in title)

More Evidence

Double-Effect Donation or Bodily Respect? A “Third Way” Response to Camosy and Vukov

🌐 365 Days

Floating Tab
close chatgpt icon
ChatGPT

Enter your request.

Psychiatry AI RAISR 4D System Psychiatry + Mental Health