Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T05:30:43.765Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Small, Good Thing – Anencephalic Organ Donation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2009

David A. Buehler
David A. Buehler
Affiliation:
Charlton Memorial Hospital, Fall River, Massachusetts, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Responses and Dialogue
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , Winter 1993 , pp. 81 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Ramsey, P. Patient as Person. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1970:104.Google Scholar Cf. Hauerwas, S. Suffering Presence. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1986:88.Google Scholar

2. M. Harrison has argued compellingly for a classification of “brain-absent” dead people, but this smacks of tautology. “Brain-absent” is no more revealing than the diagnostic term “anencephalic” itself, Harrison, M, Meilaender, G. The anencephalic newborn as organ donor. Hastings Center Report 1986; 16(2):21–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Arras, JD. Toward an ethic of ambiguity. Hastings Center Report 1984;14(2):26.Google ScholarPubMedToulmin, S. The Place of Reason in Ethics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1950 (rev. ed. 1986):190f.Google Scholar

4. Ramsey, P. Ethics at the Edges of Life. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1978:213ff.Google Scholar Cf. Weir, R. Selective Nontreatment of Handicapped Newborns. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1984.Google Scholar For an earlier discussion of “selective nontreatment,” cf. Harris, J. Ethical problems in the management of some severely handicapped children. Journal of Medical Ethics 1981;7:117–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

5. Beller, FK, Quackernack, K, Fragen zur Bioethik: Terirtinierung der Schwangerschaft im und III. Trimenon aus eugenischer Indikation. Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde 1980;40:142–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Cf. Hozgreve, W, Beller, FK, Buchholz, B. Kidney transplantation from anencephalic donors. New England Journal of Medicine 1987;316(17);1069–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarChervenak, F, Farley, M et al. , When is termination of pregnancy during the third trimester morally justifiable? New England Journal of Medicine 1984;310(8):501–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMedHaering, B. Medical Ethics. Notre Dame, Indiana: Fides, 1973:109–11.Google Scholar

6. Stone, C. Should Trees Have Standing? Los Altos, California: W. Kaufmann, 1972.Google ScholarCf. Singer, P. In Defense of Animals. New York: Harper … Row, 1985.Google ScholarLindzey, A. Christianity … the Rights of Animals. New York: Crossroad, 1987.Google ScholarRegan, T. The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983.Google Scholar

7. See note 3. Arras, . 1984;14(2):25.Google ScholarHolbrook, D. Medical ethics and the potentialities of the living being. British Medical Journal 1985;291:459–62.Google ScholarPolanyi, M. Chemical and Engineering News 1967;45:54–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarJonas, H. The Phenomenon of Life. New York: Delta, 1966:7–37.Google Scholar See note 1. Ramsey, . 1970:24.Google Scholar On artificial intelligence: Penrose, R. The Emperor's New Mind. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989:425–34.Google ScholarWarnock, M. Memory. London: Faber & Faber, 1987: 8–9Google Scholar

8. Singer, P. Practical Ethics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1979.Google ScholarFletcher, JF. Four indicators of humanhood- the enquiry matures. Hastings Center Report 1974; 4(6):4–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

9. Brock, D, Buchanan, A. Deciding for Others: The Ethics of Surrogate Decision Making. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1989.Google ScholarSinger, MG. The golden rule. Philosophy 1963;38 (10.):293–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. Gaylin, W. Harvesting the dead. Harper's 1974 Sep. 1974;249(1492):23–30.Google ScholarKushner, T, Belliotti, R. Baby Fae: a beastly business. Journal of Medical Ethics 1985;11:178–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

11. May, W. The metaphysical plight of the family. In: P, Steinfels, RM, Veatch, eds. Death Inside Out. New York: Harper Forum, 1974:49–60.Google ScholarShelp, E. Born to Die? Deciding the Fate of Critically III Newborns. New York: Free Press, 1986:197–201.Google Scholar

12. JR, Nelson. Ten theses concerning human beings. In: S, Lammers, A, Verhey, eds. On Moral Medicine: Theological Perspectives in Medical Ethics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1987:615–6.Google Scholar Cf. Nozick, R. The Examined Life. New York: Simon 46–54.Google Scholar