According to 2021 data, the United States’ opt-in system of posthumous organ donation results in seventeen Americans dying each day waiting for vital organs, while many good undonated organs go to the grave with the corpse. One of the most aggressive, and compelling, proposals to resolve this tragedy is postmortem organ conscription, also called routine salvaging or organ draft. This proposal entails postmortem retrieval of needed organs, regardless of the prior authorization or refusal of the deceased or his family. The (...) argument of most proponents of conscription relies heavily upon a denial of the possibility of posthumous harms. While I also deny the possibility of posthumous harms, I argue this denial fails to acknowledge other serious wrongs that could be done to the deceased person and his corpse. While the person can no longer be harmed, his _life_, in a roughly biographical sense, can be damaged. Humans highly value life in this sense, often more than biological life. Respect for this sense of life also informs appropriate treatment of particular human corpses, which already have special value beyond mere resource. I will argue that conscription proponents fail to appropriately value lives and human corpses. This failure can lead to multiple wrongs, among them a wrongful exploitation of the vulnerability of a person’s life and corpse and a disrespect of persons. While it is possible that some biographical lives could be made better, or at least less bad, by conscription, the judgments such decisions would require make conscription bad policy. (shrink)

Donating, distributing and ultimately transplantingorgans each has distinct ethical problems. In thispaper I suggest that the first ethical question is notwhat should be done but what is a fair way in whicheach of these problems can be addressed. Experts –whether these be transplant surgeons, policy analysts,political scientists or ethicists – can help guidebut cannot by themselves make such decisions. Inmaking these decisions the difference betweenidentified and non-identified lives is crucial. Isuggest that an approach in which reason is temperedby compassion (``compassionate (...) rationality'') whendealing with identified lives and in whichcompassion is controlled by reason (``rationalcompassion'') in dealing with unidentified lives mustserve us well. Ultimately decisions of this sort areprone to sturdy democratic process which is possibleonly when the preconditions of person, economic andeducational democracy are met. (shrink)