双效捐赠还是身体尊重?对 Camosy 和 Vukov 的 "第三条道路 "的回应。

IF 0.4 Q4 MEDICAL ETHICS
Linacre Quarterly Pub Date : 2023-05-01 Epub Date: 2023-03-23 DOI:10.1177/00243639231162436
Anthony McCarthy, Helen Watt
{"title":"双效捐赠还是身体尊重?对 Camosy 和 Vukov 的 \"第三条道路 \"的回应。","authors":"Anthony McCarthy, Helen Watt","doi":"10.1177/00243639231162436","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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. <b>Summary:</b> 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":44238,"journal":{"name":"Linacre Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10265387/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Double-Effect Donation or Bodily Respect? A \\\"Third Way\\\" Response to Camosy and Vukov.\",\"authors\":\"Anthony McCarthy, Helen Watt\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00243639231162436\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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. <b>Summary:</b> 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44238,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Linacre Quarterly\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10265387/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Linacre Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00243639231162436\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/3/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Linacre Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00243639231162436","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/3/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

是否有可能在预知但不打算自己死亡的情况下捐献未配对的重要器官?我们认为,这在心理学上确实是可能的,因此我们同意查尔斯-卡莫西(Charles Camosy)和约瑟夫-武科夫(Joseph Vukov)最近发表的关于 "双重效应捐赠 "的论文。我们与这两位作者的不同之处在于,我们认为双效捐献不是一种道德上值得称赞的行为,类似于殉道,而是一种道德上不允许的行为,必然是对人类身体完整性的蔑视。对身体完整性的尊重不仅限于避免以杀人为目的:并非所有蓄意的身体干预的副作用都能被为他人带来的预期利益所抵消,即使受试者完全同意。使致命性捐献/采集成为非法的并不是任何杀死或伤害他人或自己的必要意图,而是接受一个(无辜的)人或对其进行手术的更直接的意图,再加上对致命伤害的预见,以及对其健康没有任何好处。双重效果捐赠违反了双重效果推理的第一个条件,即直接行为本身是错误的。我们进一步认为,这种捐赠的广泛影响将对社会造成灾难性后果,并腐蚀医疗行业:即使医生为了他人的利益而对自愿受试者进行干预,他们也应保持对身体完整性的尊重,这是不容商量的。摘要:致命的器官捐献(例如捐献心脏)不是一种值得称赞的行为,而是一种道德上不允许的行为。这并不是因为这种捐献必然涉及任何杀死自己(如果自己是捐献者)或杀死捐献者(如果自己是外科医生)的目的。对身体完整性的尊重超越了避免任何杀害或伤害自己或另一个无辜者的假设目的。我们认为,卡莫西和武科夫为 "双重效果捐赠 "未配对的重要器官辩护,是一种致命的身体虐待,也会伤害移植团队、医疗专业和整个社会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Double-Effect Donation or Bodily Respect? A "Third Way" Response to Camosy and Vukov.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Linacre Quarterly
Linacre Quarterly MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
40.00%
发文量
57
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信