Losing Faith in the Dead Donor Rule

Choong, Kartina Aisha orcid iconORCID: 0000-0001-9407-1771 (2014) Losing Faith in the Dead Donor Rule. Journal of Medical Law and Ethics, 2 (2). pp. 23-35.

[thumbnail of Version of Record] PDF (Version of Record) - Published Version
Restricted to Repository staff only
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

4MB
[thumbnail of The David Price memorial Seminar series Presentation 16/12/2013]
Preview
PDF (The David Price memorial Seminar series Presentation 16/12/2013) - Supplemental Material
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

514kB

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.7590/221354014X14042206275951

Abstract

According to the Dead Donor Rule (DDR), vital organs can only be removed from donors who are already dead. Organ procurement, in other words, must not be the cause of their deaths. The rule purports to protect dying and vulnerable individuals from being sacrificed for the benefit of other people who are in need of those organs. This notion that innocent human beings should not be used as means to an end is undoubtedly a concern that is unequivocally shared by Abrahamic faith communities. In this regard, the philosophy and rationale of the DDR fully cohere with their religious teachings. However, the method by which death is officially diagnosed to determine when an individual qualifies as a dead donor is not one that they necessarily share. Whilst English law recognises death as having occurred when the brainstem is dead, these faith communities ordinarily associate death with the departure of the soul. The latter is signified by the cessation of breathing and heartbeat. From this perspective, a person is still alive as long as they are still breathing even if this function is rendered possible only through artificial ventilation. Since it is currently lawful to remove the vital organs of mechanically-ventilated brainstem dead persons without contravening the DDR, it will be argued that the rule does not adequately protect the welfare of Christians, Muslims and Jews in the UK. The article ends by making recommendations on how their faith in the DDR could be restored.


Repository Staff Only: item control page