Comment on "Xeno's paradox".
Comment on "Xeno's paradox".
复制标题
评论“Xeno的悖论”。
DOI：
10.1038/embor.2009.161
复制
发表时间：
2009
期刊：
影响因子：
7.7
通讯作者：
Sousa,Rui
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Sousa,Rui
强迫妇女允许胎儿在她体内生存和生长，直到怀孕足月。当然，这个类比并不完美：大多数怀孕都是自愿行为的结果，因此，有些人可能会认为，妇女对后果负有一定的道德责任，而等待移植的病人唯一能对他的同胞提出的道德要求是，我们所有人，作为社会的一员，对保护我们同胞的生命都有积极的兴趣。此外，终止妊娠需要作出决定和采取行动，而等待移植的人死亡则需要我们什么也不做。然而，这些论点的分量可能证明国家更强有力的干预是合理的，以使移植器官可用，而不是维持意外怀孕。国家的利益是保护公民的生命，但大多数人可能会认为，移植受体的生存权比胚胎或胎儿的生存权更重要。等待移植的病人毕竟是一个有朋友、父母和亲人的自主的人。此外，从一个死者身上摘取器官，而死者肯定对器官没有进一步的用处，似乎比迫使一个妇女把意外怀孕的孩子生下来更不强迫。因此，允许医生从死者身上摘取器官和组织可能是有用的，即使没有明确的同意--可能只有在明确拒绝的情况下，或者在未成年人的情况下由负责的监护人例外。如果坚持不懈地倡导这一立场，可能会为相当一部分甚至大多数公民所接受。这也可能有助于正在进行的关于堕胎的辩论：如果堕胎的强烈反对者拒绝接受允许从死者身上摘取器官的法律，这将暴露他们立场的虚伪性。
to compel a woman to allow a fetus to live and grow inside her body for as long as is required to bring the pregnancy to term. To be sure, this analogy is not perfect: most pregnancies result from a volitional act so that, some might suggest, a woman bears some moral responsibility for the consequences, whereas the only moral claim that a patient awaiting a transplant can make on his fellow citizens is that we all, as members of society, have a positive interest in preserving the lives of our fellow citizens. Moreover, the termination of a pregnancy requires that decisions and actions be taken, whereas the death of an individual waiting for a transplant requires that we simply do nothing. However, the weight of the arguments might justify stronger state intervention to make transplant organs available than to sustain an unwanted pregnancy. The state’s interest is to preserve the lives of its citizens, but most would probably feel that the right to live that should be accorded to a transplant recipient is of greater weight than that given to an embryo or fetus. The patient awaiting a transplant is, after all, an autonomous human being with friends, parents and loved ones. Furthermore, removing organs from a deceased individual, who certainly has no further use for them, would seem to be less of an imposition than obliging a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. It could be useful, therefore, to allow physi cians to harvest organs and tissue from the deceased, even without explicit consent—probably with some exceptions only in cases in which this is explicitly denied or by responsible guardians in the case of minors. It is possible that such a position, if advocated with persistence, might become acceptable to significant fractions, even the majority, of citizens. It might also be useful in the ongoing debate on abortion: if strong opponents of abortion rejected a law that allows the harvesting of organs from the deceased, it would expose the hypocrisy of their position.