Abstract
Arguments against directed altruistic living organ donation are too weak to justify a ban. Potential donors who want to specify the non-related person or group of persons to receive their donated kidney should be accepted. The arguments against, based on considerations of motivation, fairness and (non-)anonymity (e.g. those recently cited by an advisory report of the Dutch Health Council), are presented and discussed, as well as the Dutch Government’s response. Whereas the Government argues that individuals have authority with regard to the allocation of their organs, partial considerations have not been sufficiently explored. In addition, it is argued that partial relationships govern human life, are significant and should be valued highly. These relationships are at the core of accepted living kidney donation between relatives (family members, partners, friends). Respecting the particular act of living donation goes beyond respect for autonomy; it touches upon our personal and social identity. Donation, e.g. of a kidney, is not undertaken strictly for the benefit of the recipient, but also to meet the moral standards we wish to set for ourselves. This consideration, rooted in a view of moral identity, provides the basis for many forms of directed donation that are both partial and justified. If the importance of this is not recognized, social policies can be neither adequate nor effective.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ankeny, Rachel A., The Moral Status of Preferences for Directed Donation. Cambridge Quarterly of Health Care Ethics 10 (2001), pp. 387–398.
Blum, Lawrence, Against Deriving Particularity, in Brad Hooker and Margaret Little (eds.), Moral Particularism. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000, pp. 205–226.
Cherry, Mark, The Body for Charity, Profit and Holiness: Commerce in Human Body Parts, Christian Bioethics 6(2) (2000), pp. 127–138.
Choudhry, S. et al., Unrelated Living Organ Donation; ULTRA Needs to Go, Journal of Medical Ethics 29 (2003), pp. 169–170.
Cunningham, A., The Heart of What Matters; The Role for Literature in Moral Philosophy. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001.
DeWispelaere, J., Altruism, Impartiality and Moral Demands, in J. Seglov (ed.), The Ethics of Altruism. London: Frans Cass Publ. 2004.
Editorial, Everyday Heroes, Transplant News 14 (2003), p. 1.
Evans, C., Organ Donations Should Not Be Restricted to Relatives, Journal of Medical Ethics 15 (1989), pp. 17–19.
Fellner, C., Organ Donation: For Whose Sake? Annals of Internal Medicine 79 (1973), p. 592.
Geuss, R., Public Goods, Private Goods. Princeton: Princeton, U.P., 2001, Chapter 5.
Hartogh, G. den, Gift of bijdrage? Over morele aspecten van orgaandonatie. Den Haag: Rathenau Instituut, 2003.
Health Council of the Netherlands, New Options in Organ Donation. The Hague: Ministry of Health, 2003, Paragraph 6.5: The Non-Related Donor, pp. 136–140.
Joralemon, D., Shifting Ethics: Debating the Incentive Question in Organ Transplantation, Journal of Medical Ethics 27 (2001), pp. 30–35.
Kraneburg, L. et al., Starting a Crossover Kidney Transplantation Program in the Netherlands: Ethical and Psychological Considerations, Transplantation 78(2) (2004), pp. 194–197.
Kranenburg, L. et al., Psychological and Ethical Aspects of Living Organ Donation Transplant International} (in press).
Landolt M.A. et al., They Talk the Talk:Surveying Attitudes and Judging Behavior about Living Anonymous Kidney Donation, Transplantation 76(10) (2003), pp. 1437–1444.
Little, M., Suspect Norms of Appearance and the Ethics of Complicity, in I.D. de Beaufort, M.T. Hilhorst and S. Holm (eds.), In the Eye of the Beholder; Ethics and Medical Change of Appearance. Copenhagen: Scandinavian University Press, 1996, pp. 151–167.
Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, Position on the Advise Organdonation (Letter and Appendix). The Hague: Dutch Government, 2004, Document IBE/E-2413450.
Price, D., Legal and Ethical Aspects of Organ Transplantations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002 (2nd ed.), i.e. Chapter 8: Contentious classes of donors, pp. 314–364.
Schechtman, M., The Constitution of Selves. London: Cornell University Press, 1996.
Spital, A., Should People Who Donate a Kidney to a Stranger be Permitted to Choose their Recipients? Views of the United States public, Transplantation 76(8) (2003), pp. 1252–1256.
Spital, A., Response to “Do Genetic Relationships Create Moral Obligations to Organ Transplantation?” by W. Glennon and L. Friedman Ross, Cambridge Quarterly of Health Care Ethics, 12(1) (2003), pp. 116–118.
Spital, A., Public Attitudes Toward Kidney Donation by Friends and Altruistic Strangers in the United States, Transplantation 71(8) (2001), pp. 1061–1064.
Wendler, David and Ezekiel Emanuel, Guidelines Needed for Living Donor Cases, Journal of the American Medical Association, Februari 2004.
Wilkinson, T.M., What’s not Wrong with Conditional Organ Donation? Journal of Medical Ethics 29(3) (2003), pp. 163–164.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hilhorst, M.T. Directed Altruistic Living Organ Donation: Partial but not Unfair. Ethic Theory Moral Prac 8, 197–215 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-005-3295-3
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-005-3295-3