{
  "abstract": "Concern for those who will benefit from a transplant has led to a variety of proposals to increase the supply of organs. Some, like opt-out organ donor registers, annual publicity campaigns and the involvement of specially trained professionals in caring for families of potential donors in the perimortem period, have been taken up. Others, such as organ markets, elective ventilation and declarations that the organs of the dead are the legal property of the state, have not. While existing challenges to the dead donor rule (DDR) are often framed in terms of the way we conceptualise death, 1 that abandoning it will increase the number of organs available for transplant often plays a role in such arguments. This is, however, conjecture. Thus, while one might consider Masek’s argument for abandoning the DDR on its own terms,2 it is also important that we examine the (more or less implicit) assumption that doing so will positively impact donation rates.",
  "authors": [
    {
      "affiliations": [
        "School of Medicine and Psychology, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia",
        "Institute of Ethics, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland"
      ],
      "name": "Nathan Emmerich"
    }
  ],
  "title": "Changing face of transplant medicine: can we do without the dead donor rule?",
  "uid": "5e028fbe-8c98-53a1-94cb-3873e28c3f36"
}