Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Polling and public policy.

Daniel M Hausman1

  • 1University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.

Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal
|October 22, 2004
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Fair processes for financing universal health coverage?

Health economics, policy, and law·2024
Same author

Proxy Preferences and the Values of Children's Health States.

PharmacoEconomics·2024
Same author

Problems with NICE's severity weights.

Social science & medicine (1982)·2024
Same author

Eliciting preferences and respecting values: Why ask?

Social science & medicine (1982)·2023
Same author

Is there a human right to essential health care?

Developing world bioethics·2022
Same author

Challenge Trials: What Are the Ethical Problems?

The Journal of medicine and philosophy·2020
Same journal

Coming to America: Bioethical Training at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics and the Establishment of Medical Ethics in Germany.

Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal·2026
Same journal

Assessing the Liberty-Based Case Against Pandemic Lockdowns.

Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal·2026
Same journal

Relational Autonomy in Nonideal Medical Decision-Making.

Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal·2026
Same journal

Multivalent Environmental and Ecological Justice Reimagined.

Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal·2025
Same journal

The Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial as the Gold Standard in Psychedelic Research: Neither Feasible Nor Desirable.

Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal·2025
Same journal

"We Don't Want You Here": A Critical Examination of Staring, Disability, and the Inaccessible Environment.

Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal·2025
See all related articles

Surveys on public beliefs about death and organ donation offer insights into societal views and legal alignment. However, their utility in guiding ethical organ procurement practices is questioned.

Area of Science:

  • Bioethics
  • Medical Sociology
  • Public Health Policy

Background:

  • Public opinion surveys are frequently employed to gauge societal attitudes on sensitive topics.
  • Understanding public beliefs regarding death and organ procurement is crucial for policy development.
  • Existing research often focuses on descriptive aspects of public opinion rather than ethical implications.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To identify and delineate five primary motivations for conducting surveys on death beliefs and organ donation permissibility.
  • To critically evaluate the extent to which public opinion surveys can inform ethical considerations in organ procurement.
  • To examine the limitations of surveys in providing guidance for morally permissible organ harvesting practices.

Main Methods:

  • This study is a philosophical commentary, not an empirical research paper.
Keywords:
Death and EuthanasiaEmpirical ApproachHealth Care and Public Health

Related Experiment Videos

  • It analyzes the objectives and limitations of using surveys in bioethical discourse.
  • The commentary critically assesses the value of survey data for moral philosophy.

    • Main Results:

    • Five distinct reasons for conducting surveys on death beliefs and organ donation are presented.
    • Significant reservations are raised regarding the capacity of surveys to inform ethical decision-making in organ procurement.
    • The commentary questions the informative value of such surveys for moral philosophers.

    Conclusions:

    • While surveys can reveal public knowledge, attitudes, and policy support, their role in establishing ethical frameworks for organ procurement is limited.
    • The commentary suggests that survey data alone is insufficient for determining the ethical permissibility of organ harvesting.
    • Further philosophical inquiry is needed to address the ethical contours of organ procurement systems.