Paging King Solomon: Towards Allowing Parents to Donate Organs of Anencephalic Infants
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In October of 1987, Canadian doctors artificially sustained the life of an anencephalic infant so that her organs could be transplanted into another child, touching off a fiery debate. At the request of her parents, doctors connected Baby Gabrielle, who was born missing most of her brain, to a respirator before flying her to Loma Linda, California, where her heart was transplanted into the world's youngest recipient of a heart transplant. While Baby Gabrielle's parents insisted that their daughter's organs be used in this manner and were presumably happy with the resulting transplant, one of Baby Gabrielle's doctors expressed qualms about his role in the saga. Almost immediately, a firestorm of debate ignited as parents of unborn children with anencephaly began offering their children's organs for use in similar procedures. Critics quickly began warning of slippery slopes and difficult moral questions. This continuing debate calls into question the medical propriety and the usefulness of current medical definitions of death. It also implicates even more fundamental issues, questioning what is required for a life to be considered fully human and also the nature and extent of respect, both legal and medical, warranted by such a life. This Article attempts to demonstrate that organ donation from anencephalic infants can be both beneficial and morally justifiable. Section I discusses the biological and physical manifestations of anencephaly. Section II introduces the current need for infant organs for transplantation, the possibility that anencephalic organs could address some of that demand, and the basic ethical positions both for and against the allowance of anencephalic organ transplantation. Section III discusses the dead donor rule, the legal obstacle which currently makes anencephalic organ donation legally problematic. Section IV discusses possible legal approaches to permitting organ transplants from anencephalic donors: the abandonment of the dead donor rule would cause too many undesirable consequences; the classification of anencephalic infants as non-persons offends society's general ethical norms and creates slippery slope problems that are in the realm of possibility; however, the classification of anencephalic infants as persons born into a state of death permits anencephalic organ donation without denying anencephalic infants personhood status and opening Pandora's box. Section V lays out legal safeguards necessary to prevent the abuse of an anencephalic organ donation scheme in the event that mankind perfects its ability to intentionally create anencephalic human organ donors. Section VI addresses potential class-related social concerns posed by anencephalic organ donation while arguing that a facially-just transplant policy should not be tainted by independent social problems, such as lack of medical care for the poor. This Article concludes by advocating for the sake of infants in need of organ transplants a properly tailored transplant policy allowing parents of anencephalic infants to donate their children's organs for use in transplants.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,025 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,007 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».