How (not) to think of the 'dead-donor' rule

Restoring the Organism as a Whole: Does NRP Resurrect the Dead?

The introduction of normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) in controlled donation after circulatory determination of death (cDCDD) protocols is by some regarded as controversial and ethically troublesome. One of the main concerns that opponents have about introducing NRP in cDCDD protocols is that reestablishing circulation will negate the determination of death by circulatory criteria, potentially resuscitating the donor. In this article, I argue that this is not the case. If we take a closer look at the concept of death underlying the circulatory criterion for determination of death, we find that the purpose of the criterion is to show whether the organism as a whole has died. I argue that this purpose is fulfilled by the circulatory criterion in cDCDD protocols, and that applying NRP does not negate the determination of death or resuscitate the donor.

Does Controlled Donation after Circulatory Death Violate the Dead Donor Rule?

The vital status of patients who are a part of controlled donation after circulatory death (cDCD) is widely debated in bioethical literature. Opponents to currently applied cDCD protocols argue that they violate the dead donor rule, while proponents of the protocols advocate compatibility. In this article, we argue that both parties often misinterpret the moral implications of the dead donor rule. The rule as such does not require an assessment of a donor's vital status, we contend, but rather an assessment of whether procurement of organs in cDCD cause the death of the donor or not. We then argue that commonly practiced cDCD protocols do not violate the dead donor rule, since the donation does not trigger or cause the death of the donors.

The inviolateness of life and equal protection: a defense of the dead-donor rule

There are increasing calls to reject the dead-donor rule and permit organ donation euthanasia in organ transplantation. I argue that the fundamental problem with this proposal is that it would bestow more worth on the organs than on the donor who possesses them. What is at stake is the basis of human equality, which, I argue, should be based on an ineliminable dignity that each of us has in virtue of having a rational nature. To allow mortal harvesting would be to make our worth contingent upon variable quality-of-life judgments that can be based only on properties that come in degrees. Thus, rejecting the dead-donor rule comes at the expense of egalitarian principles with respect to the value each individual human life has in relation to the protections against killing.

Giving Useful but Not Well-Understood Ideas Their Due

In this paper, I introduce the ideas to be discussed in the articles of this journal with reference to an imaginary case involving a pregnant woman declared dead on the basis of neurological criteria. I highlight the fact that although these ideas have proved useful for advancing certain claims in bioethical debates, their implications are not always well understood and may complicate our arguments. The ideas to be discussed are (1) an ethic internal to the profession of medicine; (2) the difference between killing and letting die; (3) the organism as a whole; and (4) the “lives” and interests of the dead.