Against abandoning the dead donor rule: reply to Smith

Smith argues that death caused by transplant surgery will not harm permanently unconscious patients, because they will not suffer a setback to their interests in the context of donation. Therefore, so the argument goes, the dead donor rule can be abandoned, because requiring a death declaration before procurement does not protect any relevant interest from being thwarted. Smith contends that a virtue of his argument is that it avoids the controversies over defining and determining death. I argue that it does not and explain why no change in policy is justified.

Automated summary

Smith argues that permanently unconscious patients will not be harmed by death caused by transplant surgery. Therefore, he suggests abandoning the dead donor rule. However, I argue that his argument is not valid and explain why no policy change is justified.