To harvest, procure, or receive? Organ transplantation metaphors and the technological imaginary

IF 1.1 3区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics Pub Date : 2022-04-01 DOI:10.1007/s11017-022-09563-6
Jordan Mason
{"title":"To harvest, procure, or receive? Organ transplantation metaphors and the technological imaginary","authors":"Jordan Mason","doi":"10.1007/s11017-022-09563-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>One must technologize bodies to conceive of organ transplantation. Organs must be envisioned as replaceable parts, serving mechanical functions for the workings of the body. In this way, it becomes possible to imagine exchanging someone’s organs without changing anything essential about the selfhood of the person. But to envision organs as mechanical parts is phenomenologically uncomfortable; thus, the terminology used to describe the practice of organ retrieval seems to attempt other, less technological ways of viewing the human body. In this paper, I analyze three common metaphors that currently contextualize the process of organ retrieval in English-speaking communities: harvesting the agrarian body, procuring the commodified body, and receiving the gifted body. These powerful images constrain the gaze toward the body in important ways. Every gaze both obscures and reveals. While each of these three metaphors makes sense of some aspects of organ retrieval, each of them is ultimately subject to being overtaken by what Jeffrey Bishop calls the technological imaginary. This imaginary deploys a gaze that obscures important elements of what it means to be human and does violence to parts of the phenomenological experience of transplantation and bodily existence. I argue that no matter how hard one tries to avoid the technological aspect of transplantation practices by embracing nonviolent metaphors—even the metaphor of gifting, which seems the most promising—it will never be possible to fully resist organ transplantation’s violence toward our phenomenological sense of embodiment.</p>","PeriodicalId":46703,"journal":{"name":"Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics","volume":"76 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-022-09563-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

One must technologize bodies to conceive of organ transplantation. Organs must be envisioned as replaceable parts, serving mechanical functions for the workings of the body. In this way, it becomes possible to imagine exchanging someone’s organs without changing anything essential about the selfhood of the person. But to envision organs as mechanical parts is phenomenologically uncomfortable; thus, the terminology used to describe the practice of organ retrieval seems to attempt other, less technological ways of viewing the human body. In this paper, I analyze three common metaphors that currently contextualize the process of organ retrieval in English-speaking communities: harvesting the agrarian body, procuring the commodified body, and receiving the gifted body. These powerful images constrain the gaze toward the body in important ways. Every gaze both obscures and reveals. While each of these three metaphors makes sense of some aspects of organ retrieval, each of them is ultimately subject to being overtaken by what Jeffrey Bishop calls the technological imaginary. This imaginary deploys a gaze that obscures important elements of what it means to be human and does violence to parts of the phenomenological experience of transplantation and bodily existence. I argue that no matter how hard one tries to avoid the technological aspect of transplantation practices by embracing nonviolent metaphors—even the metaphor of gifting, which seems the most promising—it will never be possible to fully resist organ transplantation’s violence toward our phenomenological sense of embodiment.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
收获、获得或接受?器官移植隐喻和技术想象
一个人必须把身体技术化才能设想器官移植。器官必须被设想为可替换的部件,为身体的运作提供机械功能。通过这种方式,可以想象交换某人的器官而不改变这个人本质上的任何东西。但是把器官想象成机械部件在现象学上是不舒服的;因此,用来描述器官摘取实践的术语似乎是在尝试用其他更少技术含量的方式来观察人体。在本文中,我分析了目前英语社区中器官摘取过程的三种常见隐喻:收获农业身体,获取商品化身体和接受天赋身体。这些强有力的图像在重要方面限制了人们对身体的关注。每一次凝视既模糊又揭示。虽然这三个隐喻中的每一个都对器官回收的某些方面有意义,但它们最终都会被杰弗里·毕晓普(Jeffrey Bishop)所说的技术想象所取代。这种想象的凝视模糊了作为人类的重要元素,并对移植和身体存在的部分现象学经验施加了暴力。我认为,无论一个人多么努力地试图通过拥抱非暴力的隐喻来避免移植实践的技术方面——甚至是礼物的隐喻,这似乎是最有希望的——它永远不可能完全抵制器官移植对我们现象学意义上的体现的暴力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
14.30%
发文量
43
期刊介绍: AIMS & SCOPE Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics examines clinical judgment and reasoning, medical concepts such as health and disease, the philosophical basis of medical science, and the philosophical ethics of health care and biomedical research Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics is an international forum for interdisciplinary studies in the ethics of health care and in the philosophy and methodology of medical practice and biomedical research. Coverage in the philosophy of medicine includes the theoretical examination of clinical judgment and decision making; theories of health promotion and preventive care; the problems of medical language and knowledge acquisition; theory formation in medicine; analysis of the structure and dynamics of medical hypotheses and theories; discussion and clarification of basic medical concepts and issues; medical application of advanced methods in the philosophy of science, and the interplay between medicine and other scientific or social institutions. Coverage of ethics includes both clinical and research ethics, with an emphasis on underlying ethical theory rather than institutional or governmental policy analysis. All philosophical methods and orientations receive equal consideration. The journal pays particular attention to developing new methods and tools for analysis and understanding of the conceptual and ethical presuppositions of the medical sciences and health care processes. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics publishes original scholarly articles, occasional special issues on important topics, and book reviews. Related subjects » Applied Ethics & Social Responsibility – Bioethics – Ethics – Epistemology & Philosophy of Science – Medical Ethics – Medicine – Philosophy – Philosophy of Medicine – Surgery
期刊最新文献
An ageless body does not imply transhumanism: A reply to Levin Risky first-in-human clinical trials on medically fragile persons: owning the moral cost Probability and informed consent. Values, decision-making and empirical bioethics: a conceptual model for empirically identifying and analyzing value judgements. An account of medical treatment, with a preliminary account of medical conditions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1