Breaking down organ donation borders: Revisiting “opt out” residency requirements in the UK

Q1 Arts and Humanities Clinical Ethics Pub Date : 2024-02-20 DOI:10.1177/14777509241231501
J. Parsons
{"title":"Breaking down organ donation borders: Revisiting “opt out” residency requirements in the UK","authors":"J. Parsons","doi":"10.1177/14777509241231501","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"All four UK nations have, in recent years, introduced “opt out” organ donation systems. Whilst these systems are largely similar, they operate independently. A key feature of each policy is a residency requirement, stipulating that opt out may only apply where the deceased had been ordinarily resident in that nation for at least 12 months. A resident of Scotland who dies in England, for example, would not fall under opt out. Public awareness is the underlying reasoning for such stipulations. A residency requirement was appropriate when Wales was the only UK nation with an opt out system, but, I suggest, the continued imposition of intra-UK borders on organ donation is unjustified now that all four nations operate the same policy. Further, it has the potential to limit organ donation. There is a need for all four systems to be amended to allow for UK-wide applicability, such that providing the deceased was ordinarily resident in the UK, they can fall under opt out in any of the four nations. I argue that such an amendment is ethically justified – continuing to satisfy the public awareness criterion – and practically straightforward. In doing so, I emphasise that my proposed amendment should extend only to the four UK nations, stopping short of the Crown Dependencies even though they also operate opt out systems for organ donation.","PeriodicalId":53540,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14777509241231501","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

All four UK nations have, in recent years, introduced “opt out” organ donation systems. Whilst these systems are largely similar, they operate independently. A key feature of each policy is a residency requirement, stipulating that opt out may only apply where the deceased had been ordinarily resident in that nation for at least 12 months. A resident of Scotland who dies in England, for example, would not fall under opt out. Public awareness is the underlying reasoning for such stipulations. A residency requirement was appropriate when Wales was the only UK nation with an opt out system, but, I suggest, the continued imposition of intra-UK borders on organ donation is unjustified now that all four nations operate the same policy. Further, it has the potential to limit organ donation. There is a need for all four systems to be amended to allow for UK-wide applicability, such that providing the deceased was ordinarily resident in the UK, they can fall under opt out in any of the four nations. I argue that such an amendment is ethically justified – continuing to satisfy the public awareness criterion – and practically straightforward. In doing so, I emphasise that my proposed amendment should extend only to the four UK nations, stopping short of the Crown Dependencies even though they also operate opt out systems for organ donation.
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
打破器官捐赠的边界:重新审视英国的 "选择退出 "居住要求
近年来,英国所有四个国家都引入了 "选择退出 "器官捐献系统。虽然这些制度大体相似,但各自独立运作。每项政策的一个主要特征是居住地要求,规定只有在死者通常居住在该国至少 12 个月的情况下,才能适用 "选择放弃 "制度。例如,在英格兰去世的苏格兰居民就不属于选择退出的范围。公众意识是做出此类规定的根本原因。当威尔士是英国唯一一个实行选择退出制度的国家时,居住地要求是合适的,但我认为,现在所有四个国家都实行同样的政策,继续对器官捐献施加英国内部边界是不合理的。此外,它还有可能限制器官捐献。有必要对所有四个系统进行修订,使其适用于整个英国,这样只要死者通常居住在英国,他们就可以在四个国家中的任何一个国家选择退出。我认为这样的修订在伦理上是合理的--继续满足公众意识标准--在实践上也是简单易行的。同時,我強調我建議的修訂應只擴展至英國㆕個國家,而不包括英國屬土,儘管它們也實 施器官捐贈的選擇不捐贈制度。
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
Clinical Ethics
Clinical Ethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
期刊最新文献
Psychiatry as a vocation: Moral injury, COVID-19, and the phenomenology of clinical practice. From a phenomenology of birth towards an ethics of obstetric care Phenomenologies of care: Integrating patient and caregiver narratives into clinical care Loneliness in medicine and relational ethics: A phenomenology of the physician-patient relationship Gross negligence manslaughter of intern doctors – scapegoating or justified?
×
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