aL xin's corner
Curriculum VitaeThis paper was written for GENED 1046 and has been lightly editted since submission.
The discussion of abortion runs parallel to the question of compulsory organ donation. In both scenarios a person’s life depends on another forgoing a portion of their claim on their body. Because Thomson expands on the live donor scenario with the violinist example, we will specifically focus on post-mortem organ donation.
We can use Thomson’s methods of weighing one’s right to life against another’s claim to their body to examine the moral imperative of organ donation. Assume that the value of a human life is based on cognition and our claim to our body depends on expression of our humanity. We forego our claim upon death, so another’s right to life should prevail and usable organs should be recovered.
Laws against desecration and funerary practices, however, considers that a corpse retains humanity and that the body should be treated consistent with the wishes of the recently vacated owner. However, most people are ambivalent on organ donation; we observe drastically higher post-mortem organ donation rates in opt-out systems (healthcare institutions assume you consent to have your organs donated unless explicitly stated) versus opt-in systems. Even if the deceased did not explicitly give their consent to donate, it is probably that they would have been willing to do so, making defaulting to organ donation an attractive option.
If the deceased has explicitly renounced organ donation, it is harder to argue that living members of society are compelled to carry out a donation. Firstly, we cannot address this by stating that the living should be absolved from satisfying the wishes of the departed because the dead are incapable of feeling. Such an argument would lead to a slippery slope of justifying mass murder for organ harvesting. The best course of action would be complying with the deceased’s wishes while taking steps to raise awareness of the need for organs to reduce future anti-donation sentiment.
Implicit in this discussion is the conclusion that post-mortem organ donation is a net benefit. Based on a societal ideal of minimizing preventable death and maximizing the number of people who can live fulfilling lives up to reasonable technological limits, a dead person’s organs are best put to use in saving the living. This is conceptually reasonable but challenging to implement. Assuming that current altruistic morals have been naturally selected, we have no basis for behavior that would require sacrificing a portion of your body for someone else. In contrast, an instinct for physical self-preservation is a requirement for species maintenance.
Reading this in January of 2022, I have a few objections to the reasoning (is a slippery-slope argument of mass murder for organ donation useful, or is it there for shock value?) but mostly objections to this paper’s existence. The arguments do not seem particularly insightful or articulate and the thesis is not well-linked to the reading. If there was a compelling justification for collecting organs even when the deceased objected, maybe the paper would be more worthwhile.
The writing quality is also worse than I expected.