In almost all opt-in systems of postmortal organ procurement, if the deceased has not made a decision about donation, his relatives will be asked to make it. Can this decision power be justified? I consider three possible justifications. (1) We could presume the deceased to have delegated this power to his relatives. (2) It could be argued that, if the deceased has not made a decision, a proxy decision has to be made in his best interests. (3) The relatives could (...) have a standing of their own because they are singled out from the parties whose interests are being affected by the decision by the special relation they had to the deceased. None of these arguments turns out to be convincing. (shrink)

China is developing an ethical and sustainable organ donation and procurement system based on voluntary citizen donation. The gift-of-life metaphor has begun to dominate public discussion and education about organ donation. However, ethical and legal problems remain concerning this “gift-of-life” discourse: In what sense are donated organs a “gift-of-life”? What constitutes the ultimate worth of such a gift? On whose authority should organs as a “gift-of-life” be donated? There are no universal answers to these questions; instead, responses must be compatible (...) with local cultural values. This paper argues that from a Confucian point of view, organs should be viewed as a gift from the donor’s family, and that final dispositional authority should also rest with the donor’s family. The worth of such a “gift” rests on the virtue of ren, the origin of which is family love. Ultimately, I will argue that a family-based consent model for deceased organ donation is not merely justified, but morally required in the Chinese cultural context. (shrink)

The article argues that altruistic giving based on anonymity, which is expected to promote social solidarity and block trade in human body parts, is conceptually defective and practically unproductive. It needs to be replaced by a more adequate notion which responds to the human practices of giving and receiving. The argument starts with identification of the main characteristics of the anonymous altruistic donation: social separation of the organ donor from the recipient, their mutual replaceability, non-obligatoriness of donation, and non-obligatoriness of (...) reciprocation on the recipient’s part. Since these characteristics are also central to typical market relations, anonymous altruistic donation not only cannot promote solidarity but may encourage proposals for markets of transplantable organs. Thus, transplant ethics needs to be reframed. It needs to be rooted in, rather than promote, the practices of giving and receiving known to human societies. As the basis for such reframing, the idea of sharing in another’s misfortune is proposed. It relies on the human practices of giving and receiving and, with appropriate regulatory safeguards, can provide a better conceptual basis for blocking commercial exchanges of human body parts. (shrink)