The "spare parts person"? Conceptions of the human body and their implications for public attitudes towards organ donation and organ sale.

Mark Schweda, Silke Schicktanz
Author Information
  1. Mark Schweda: Department for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Goettingen University, Goettingen, Germany. Mark.Schweda@medizin.uni-goettingen.de

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The increasing debate on financial incentives for organ donation raises concerns about a "commodification of the human body". Philosophical-ethical stances on this development depend on assumptions concerning the body and how people think about it. In our qualitative empirical study we analyze public attitudes towards organ donation in their specific relation to conceptions of the human body in four European countries (Cyprus, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden). This approach aims at a more context-sensitive picture of what "commodification of the body" can mean in concrete clinical decisions concerning organ donation.
RESULTS: We find that moral intuitions concerning organ donation are rooted in various conceptions of the human body and its relation to the self: a) the body as a mechanical object owned by the self, b) the body as a part of a higher order embodying the self, and c) the body as a hierarchy of organs constitutive of the self.
CONCLUSION: The language of commodification is much too simple to capture what is at stake in everyday life intuitions about organ donation and organ sale. We discuss how the plurality of underlying body-self conceptions can be taken into account in the ethical debate, pointing out consequences for an anthropologically informed approach and for a liberal perspective.

References

  1. Annu Rev Anthropol. 2000;29:287-328 [PMID: 15977341]
  2. J Med Ethics. 2007 Mar;33(3):146-9 [PMID: 17329384]
  3. Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2007 Dec 04;2:30 [PMID: 18053201]
  4. Hastings Cent Rep. 1998 Sep-Oct;28(5):30-9 [PMID: 11656768]
  5. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2003 Mar;13(1):19-36 [PMID: 12807105]
  6. J Med Philos. 1998 Aug;23(5):533-45 [PMID: 9892039]
  7. J Med Philos. 2005 Dec;30(6):593-626 [PMID: 16396787]
  8. Bioethics. 2005 Jun;19(3):202-14 [PMID: 16167401]
  9. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2001 Sep;11(3):247-61 [PMID: 11700682]
  10. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 1991 Dec;1(4):275-92 [PMID: 10115859]
  11. Soc Philos Policy. 1994 Summer;11(2):259-86 [PMID: 11659801]
  12. Hastings Cent Rep. 1992 Sep-Oct;22(5):34-42 [PMID: 1428836]
  13. J Med Philos. 2005 Oct;30(5):467-90 [PMID: 16282140]
  14. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2008 Summer;17(3):308-17 [PMID: 18495071]
  15. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 1991 Dec;1(4):289-92 [PMID: 11645710]
  16. Hastings Cent Rep. 2003 Jan-Feb;33(1):27-33 [PMID: 12613385]
  17. Soc Sci Med. 2001 May;52(10):1491-9 [PMID: 11314846]

MeSH Term

Adolescent
Adult
Commerce
Concept Formation
Europe
Female
Focus Groups
Human Body
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Reimbursement, Incentive
Tissue and Organ Procurement
Young Adult

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0organbodydonationhumanconcerningconceptionsselfdebate"commodificationbody"publicattitudestowardsrelationapproachcanintuitionssaleBACKGROUND:increasingfinancialincentivesraisesconcernsPhilosophical-ethicalstancesdevelopmentdependassumptionspeoplethinkqualitativeempiricalstudyanalyzespecificfourEuropeancountriesCyprusGermanyNetherlandsSwedenaimscontext-sensitivepicturemeanconcreteclinicaldecisionsRESULTS:findmoralrootedvariousself:mechanicalobjectownedbparthigherorderembodyingchierarchyorgansconstitutiveCONCLUSION:languagecommodificationmuchsimplecapturestakeeverydaylifediscusspluralityunderlyingbody-selftakenaccountethicalpointingconsequencesanthropologicallyinformedliberalperspective"sparepartsperson"?Conceptionsimplications

Similar Articles

Cited By