title: In the best interests of the deceased: a possible justification for organ removal without consent?
abstract: Opt-out systems of postmortem organ procurement are often supposed to be justifiable by presumed consent, but this justification turns out to depend on a mistaken mental state conception of consent. A promising alternative justification appeals to the analogical situation that occurs when an emergency decision has to be made about medical treatment for a patient who is unable to give or withhold his consent. In such cases, the decision should be made in the best interests of the patient. The analogous suggestion to be considered, then, is, if the potential donor has not registered either his willingness or his refusal to donate, the probabilities that he would or would not have preferred the removal of his organs need to be weighed. And in some actual cases the probability of the first alternative may be greater. This article considers whether the analogy to which this argument appeals is cogent, and concludes that there are important differences between the emergency and the organ removal cases, both as regards the nature of the interests involved and the nature of the right not to be treated without one's consent. Rather, if opt-out systems are to be justified, the needs of patients with organ failure and/or the possibility of tacit consent should be considered.
authors: Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam, Oude Turfmarkt 141-147, 1012, GC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. G.A.denHartogh@uva.nl
authors: Govert
authors: G
authors: den Hartogh
references: Med Law. 2005 Sep;24(3):575-83
references: 16229392
references: Med Health Care Philos. 2012 May;15(2):195-205
references: 21365351
references: Transplantation. 2004 Dec 27;78(12):1713-6
references: 15614141
references: Bioethics. 2006 Apr;20(2):92-104
references: 16770879
references: Science. 2003 Nov 21;302(5649):1338-9
references: 14631022
references: Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2000 Sep;913:174-87
references: 11040837
references: J Med Ethics. 2005 Oct;31(10):587-90
references: 16199601
references: Health Care Anal. 2000;8(3):279-95
references: 11186026
references: J Med Ethics. 2003 Jun;29(3):130-4
references: 12796426
references: J Med Ethics. 2011 Jun;37(6):344-7
references: 21450746