This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

John Glasson, MD; David Orentlicher, MD, JD
Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs American Medical Association Chicago, Ill

JAMA. 1995;273(15):1176-1177.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—In their Editorial¹ about two reports^2,3 on organ procurement by the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, Drs Murray and Youngner misjudge the reports on several counts. One report endorses mandated choice,² the other endorses limited financial incentives for procurement after death.³

Murray and Youngner¹ seem troubled by what they perceive as an undue emphasis on individual autonomy and an insufficient recognition of family interests. The Council takes the prevailing view that individuals have the right to decide what happens to their organs after they die. Society shows its respect for the essential worth of each person by permitting individuals to control their bodies even after death. Whatever the family's interests, it is clear that people have strong feelings about what happens to them after they die. It would be ironic if individuals had less control over the disposition of their bodies . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?