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

Brock L. Eide, MD
University of Chicago Chicago, Ill

JAMA. 1995;274(22):1757.

	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 reversing its historical opposition to the use of live anencephalic neonates as organ donors, the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs of the American Medical Association (AMA)¹ has wandered far from traditional notions of ethical medical practice and basic human rights.

Thomas Jefferson, in defining the basic rights of citizenship, appealed to the concept of self-evident rights²—rights conferred neither by institutions nor by individuals, but belonging to human beings as such. These rights were "inalienable" and could not be relinquished (or "alienated"), even voluntarily. Because we recognize that individuals possess such inalienable rights to life and liberty we do not allow them to forfeit their lives by donating their essential organs or to voluntarily sell themselves into slavery.

In abandoning the concept of an inalienable right to life, the Council has abandoned a fundamental safeguard of human life and liberty. In deciding that . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Footnotes
Edited by Margaret A. Winker, MD, Senior Editor, and Phil B. Fontanarosa, MD, Senior Editor.

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