[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.197.151.150. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
March 13, 1991

Families' Self-interest and the Cadaver's OrgansWhat Price Consent?

Author Affiliations

From the Center for the Advanced Study of Ethics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.

From the Center for the Advanced Study of Ethics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.

JAMA. 1991;265(10):1305-1306. doi:10.1001/jama.1991.03460100107035
Abstract

IT IS TRAGIC for an eligible recipient to die for want of a lifesaving organ. The profession and society are under a clear moral compulsion to seek ways to prevent such deaths. But it would be equally tragic, even in order to save lives, to resort to such a morally dubious and destructive policy to increase the supply of donated organs as Peters suggests. His proposal that a $1000 death "benefit" be offered to motivate families to consent to removal of organs from their deceased relatives is logically, ethically, and practically flawed.

In his sincere and understandable commitment to save lives, Peters follows an oversimplified line of reasoning: people die waiting for organ transplants. Organs are scarce because we have relied on altruism to motivate donors. Therefore, self-interest must replace altruism as a motive. With the obstacle of activism out of the way, Peters believes that an adequate supply, and

×