第一人称授权和家属反对器官捐赠。

IF 1.3 3区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS
Ana S Iltis, Briana Denny
{"title":"第一人称授权和家属反对器官捐赠。","authors":"Ana S Iltis, Briana Denny","doi":"10.1093/jmp/jhaf008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the United States, individuals who authorize organ donation through various mechanisms make a legally binding decision that only they may revoke. When a person who has given first-person authorization for organ donation becomes eligible to donate organs, according to laws across the United States, their next-of-kin should be informed, not asked, about the impending organ procurement. Despite this, sometimes families are asked for permission to proceed with donation, or they express unsolicited objections to donation. Some scholars and activists argue for the importance of honoring first-person authorization and not accepting what are sometimes called \"family overrides\" or \"family vetoes\" of donation. We consider two arguments for this view, the respect-for-wishes and the prevent-harm arguments and defend a more nuanced approach to family objections to organ donation in the presence of first-person authorization. We also examine the role of families or legally authorized representatives in making decisions regarding premortem interventions for potential donors who are not yet deceased. We argue that such decisions are about living patients and should be treated like all other clinical decisions that legally authorized representatives make for incapacitated living patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":47377,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medicine and Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12097891/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"First-Person Authorization and Family Objections to Organ Donation.\",\"authors\":\"Ana S Iltis, Briana Denny\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jmp/jhaf008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In the United States, individuals who authorize organ donation through various mechanisms make a legally binding decision that only they may revoke. When a person who has given first-person authorization for organ donation becomes eligible to donate organs, according to laws across the United States, their next-of-kin should be informed, not asked, about the impending organ procurement. Despite this, sometimes families are asked for permission to proceed with donation, or they express unsolicited objections to donation. Some scholars and activists argue for the importance of honoring first-person authorization and not accepting what are sometimes called \\\"family overrides\\\" or \\\"family vetoes\\\" of donation. We consider two arguments for this view, the respect-for-wishes and the prevent-harm arguments and defend a more nuanced approach to family objections to organ donation in the presence of first-person authorization. We also examine the role of families or legally authorized representatives in making decisions regarding premortem interventions for potential donors who are not yet deceased. We argue that such decisions are about living patients and should be treated like all other clinical decisions that legally authorized representatives make for incapacitated living patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47377,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medicine and Philosophy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12097891/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medicine and Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhaf008\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medicine and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhaf008","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在美国,通过各种机制授权器官捐赠的个人做出了具有法律约束力的决定,只有他们自己才能撤销。根据美国各地的法律,当给予器官捐赠第一人称授权的人有资格捐赠器官时,他们的近亲应该被告知即将进行的器官获取,而不是被询问。尽管如此,有时还是要征得家属的同意,或者他们主动表示反对捐赠。一些学者和活动人士认为,尊重第一人称授权的重要性,不接受有时被称为“家庭凌驾”或“家庭否决”的捐赠。我们考虑了这一观点的两个论点,即尊重意愿和防止伤害的论点,并为家庭反对在第一人称授权下进行器官捐赠的更微妙的方法辩护。我们还研究了家庭或合法授权代表在决定对尚未死亡的潜在捐赠者进行死前干预时所起的作用。我们认为,这些决定是关于活着的病人的,应该像所有其他临床决定一样被对待,这些决定是由合法授权的代表为没有行为能力的活着的病人做出的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
First-Person Authorization and Family Objections to Organ Donation.

In the United States, individuals who authorize organ donation through various mechanisms make a legally binding decision that only they may revoke. When a person who has given first-person authorization for organ donation becomes eligible to donate organs, according to laws across the United States, their next-of-kin should be informed, not asked, about the impending organ procurement. Despite this, sometimes families are asked for permission to proceed with donation, or they express unsolicited objections to donation. Some scholars and activists argue for the importance of honoring first-person authorization and not accepting what are sometimes called "family overrides" or "family vetoes" of donation. We consider two arguments for this view, the respect-for-wishes and the prevent-harm arguments and defend a more nuanced approach to family objections to organ donation in the presence of first-person authorization. We also examine the role of families or legally authorized representatives in making decisions regarding premortem interventions for potential donors who are not yet deceased. We argue that such decisions are about living patients and should be treated like all other clinical decisions that legally authorized representatives make for incapacitated living patients.

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
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
6.20%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: This bimonthly publication explores the shared themes and concerns of philosophy and the medical sciences. Central issues in medical research and practice have important philosophical dimensions, for, in treating disease and promoting health, medicine involves presuppositions about human goals and values. Conversely, the concerns of philosophy often significantly relate to those of medicine, as philosophers seek to understand the nature of medical knowledge and the human condition in the modern world. In addition, recent developments in medical technology and treatment create moral problems that raise important philosophical questions. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy aims to provide an ongoing forum for the discussion of such themes and issues.
×
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