THE
PUSHPIN PUNDIT
Organ Legators
(posted May 6, 2006)
The
“Karlovian” transplant case is a staple of anti-utilitarian theory. In this imaginary case, a doctor must decide
whether to kill one of his patients in order to save five other patients with
the victim’s transplanted organs. I
refer to this charming example as the “Karlovian” transplant case because I can
imagine Boris Karloff playing the role of doctor (“What I do is for the
greatest benefit of humanity. Come,
Igor!”).
Possibly
as a result of over-exposure to the Karlovian transplant case, I have never
liked the term “organ donor,” when used to describe people who elect to pass
their organs on to others after they are dead.
“Donor” to me suggests a gift given while the giver is alive. There really should be a term that makes it
clear that the organs will not be taken until after death has occurred (and
that death will occur for reasons unrelated to removal of the organs). Hence, my suggestion: “organ legator.” This term may be unfamiliar, but it does
bring to mind the word “legacy”, which has a generally positive connotation.
The
term “organ legator” would be especially useful in light of the increasing
number of live-donor transplants
(e.g., of one kidney). People tend to be
possessive about their organs; they may be put off when the same term is used
to describe those who give up an organ while alive and those who give up organs
after they are dead.
Permanent link to this post: www.pushpinpundit.com/v1n7050606.htm