Hawaii legalised assisted suicide this week. It becomes the seventh American jurisdiction to do so. Since 1997, the legislatures of Hawaii, Oregon, Washington state, California, Colorado, Vermont and the District of Columbia have passed laws permitting assisted suicide. In Montana, a court decision found that it was legal, but there has been no legislation.
The new law follows the controversial Oregon model. One of the drawbacks of this legislation is its definition of "terminal illness". It is usually understood to be a condition which will lead to death withinn six months or a year. But if a patient decides to spurn all treatment, treatment which could keep them alive for years, his or her illness will automatically become "terminal". This is a flimsy basis for such an important law.
NEWS THIS WEEK
by Michael Cook | Apr 08, 2018Seventh US jurisdiction since Oregon legalised it in 1997
by Michael Cook | Apr 08, 2018... and nearly 2% have it chosen for them.
by Michael Cook | Apr 08, 2018Genetic tests can reveal dark secrets
by Xavier Symons | Apr 07, 2018A new article in Bioethics criticises the treatment policies of neonatal care units.
by Xavier Symons | Apr 07, 2018Perhaps social media might be utilised to solicit more donations.
by Xavier Symons | Apr 07, 2018A doctor from Rwanda offers a unique perspective on allocation dilemmas.
by Xavier Symons | Apr 07, 2018Political commentators have clashed in the US over down syndrome abortions.
by Michael Cook | Apr 07, 2018Not just any fish, mind you: just the Asian arrowana
by Michael Cook | Apr 07, 2018Care could improve, but there are many sticky ethical issues
IN DEPTH THIS WEEK
by Asier Gomez-Olivencia and James Ohman | Apr 06, 2018So maybe it’s time we changed our stereotype of the brutish, thuggish Neanderthals, and view them with the respect and awe they deserve.
Organ donation in an age of social media
by Xavier Symons | 7 Apr 2018 |
A multitude of solutions have been proposed to solve the problem of chronic organ shortages in Western nations. One recent proposal, outlined in an article in the April edition of Bioethics, considers how social media might be utilised to solicit more donations.
Warwick Medical School academics Greg Moorlock and Heather Draper suggest that governments should consider utilising a social media platform akin to Facebook to solicit donations for patients in need of a transplant. Moorlock and Draper suggest that the controlled release of recipient information -- information that takes the recipient from being a “statistical individual” to an “identifiable person” -- could greatly increase the number of organs donated by living donors. The authors write:
One can appeal to people by providing facts, figures, and impartial generalized reports, but something that prompts a stronger and immediate emotional reaction may be more effective at motivating them to provide a solution...using ‘identifiable victims’ within a personalized approach to promoting donation may therefore be an effective way to increase living kidney donation.The authors do not outline a concrete model for their proposal, though they suggest that a government-run website with donor profiles and contact details would be appropriate.
They caution against a range of pitfalls for a state-run donor-recipient matching service. The website could turn into a “beauty-contest”, and it could also be the unwitting catalyst for an underground organ market (by virtue of donors and recipients covertly exchanging money for organs). Yet the authors suggest that the potential for such a service means that it is at least deserving of further research:
Further research exploring responses to social media organ donation campaigns, as well as motivations behind Publically Solicited Donation (PSD), more generally would be extremely helpful for establishing how our suggested approach could be best used...if implemented correctly, [this approach] could increase rates of living kidney donation without significantly undermining the justice of kidney allocation.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario