Welfare, Abortion, and Organ Donation: A Reply to the Restrictivist
-
Published:2023-04-14
Issue:
Volume:
Page:1-6
-
ISSN:0963-1801
-
Container-title:Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Camb Q Healthc Ethics
Author:
Carroll Emily,Crutchfield Parker
Abstract
We argued in a recent issue of this journal that if abortion is restricted,1 then there are parallel obligations for parents to donate body parts to their children. The strength of this obligation to donate is proportional to the strength of the abortion restrictions. If abortion is never permissible, then a parent must always donate any organ if they are a match. If abortion is sometimes permissible and sometimes not, then organ donation is sometimes obligatory and sometimes not. Our argument was based on the following ideas: (a) that a fetus has full moral status, (b) that parents have special obligations to their offspring, fetus or not, and (c) that this special obligation is to protect them. The result is the conclusion that abortion restrictivists cannot also consistently deny that organ donation should be compulsory.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Health Policy,Issues, ethics and legal aspects,Health (social science)
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. What’s Wrong with Restrictivism?;Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics;2024-03-06