Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Mandatory autopsies and organ conscription

  • University of St. Thomas, Minnesota

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

10 Scopus citations

Abstract

Laws requiring autopsies have generated little controversy. Yet it is considered unconscionable to take organs without consent for transplantation. We think an organ draft is justified if mandatory autopsies are. We reject the following five attempts to show why a mandatory autopsy policy is legitimate, but organ conscription is not: (1) The social contract gives the state a greater duty to protect its citizens from each other than from disease. (2) There is a greater moral obligation to prevent murders than disease-caused deaths because killing people ismorally worse than allowing people to die. (3) Autopsies do not confiscate body parts, but organ transplants do. (4) The citizenry's knowledge that their organs are very likely to be taken will generate more anxiety than the remote possibility of a mandatory autopsy. (5) A religious conviction that one's organs will be needed in order to be resurrected is threatened by organ transplantation but not by autopsies that "return" body parts.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)367-391
Number of pages25
JournalKennedy Institute of Ethics Journal
Volume19
Issue number4
StatePublished - Dec 2009

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Mandatory autopsies and organ conscription'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this