Anencephalics as organ sources

Abstract

In recent years, the need for infant organs for transplantation has increased. There is a growing recognition of the potential use of anencephalics as sources of organs. Prevalent arguments defending the use of live anencephalics for organ sources are identified and criticized. I argue that attempts to deny the applicability of the "dead-donor rule" are either question-begging or based on false premises and that attempts to skirt the Kantian dictum against treating others as a means only are not successful. I contend that the apparent utilitarian justification for live anencephalics as organ sources is unsatisfactory for two reasons: first, because it ignores the undermining effect the policy would have on parental values and sentiments central to social welfare; and second, because attempts to respond adequately to the slippery slope argument against live anencephalic use are unconvincing.

The Moral Authority of Symbolic Appeals in Biomedical Ethics

“…16 I have argued that anencephalics should not be used as organ sources even though they will die shortly because the policy of harvesting organs from anencephalics symbolically undermines parental attachments to offspring, and threatens to diminish, through a slippery slope effect, our respect for the intrinsic worth of individuals. 17 John Lanton, reflecting on his experiences administering cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and noting its disturbing aspects that call into question its appropriateness and morality in certain circumstances, concludes that CPR is morally justified. 18 He argues that CPR fulfills a function even if not directly beneficial to the endangered or dying person: it functions as a symbol of our respect for persons.…”