An individualistic approach to routine cadaver organ removal

Consenting to the taking of one's organs after death is a moral duty--the duty to consent--which derives from a more general moral duty--the duty to attempt an easy rescue of an endangered person. These two duties can be justified within the framework of factual and value beliefs associated with the general intellectual orientation called "individualism," which informs the liberal democratic tradition in the spirit of John Locke. Individualists value personal liberty and would accept these two duties on the ground that personal liberty is likely to be better protected and advanced in a society that abides by them than in a society that does not. The same reasoning justifies a social policy of routine removal of cadaver organs. Individualists would find it prudent to give up their right to be buried whole and adopt a policy of routine removal of cadaver organs, with organs distributed according to some principle of fair allocation. Since they recognize that their own organs will be of no use to them after death, giving up their right to be buried whole will not be viewed as a significant sacrifice of personal liberty. Some people of basic individualistic sympathies may, however, embrace additional special values that favor their being buried whole. To accommodate such persons, two compromises on a policy of routine taking of cadaver organs are possible: Allow these persons to "opt out" of the system by signing a legally binding document prohibiting the taking of their organs after death, or require everyone to state on their driver's licenses a positive or negative decision concerning organ removal.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)