Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2003;327:1287 (29 November), doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7426.1287-c
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITORNeuberger and Price admit that there is a significant morbidity and an up to 1% mortality among living liver donors.1 They argue that a combination of the potential benefits to the recipient, the right of donors to make an altruistic decision to help someone else, an acceptable "societal ceiling" concerning mortality and morbidity, and an acceptable risk-benefit ratio, are sufficient for living liver donation to be morally acceptable.
However, the fundamental goals of medicine, without which medicine could not exist as a practice, are more important than either the notion of patient autonomy or a utilitarian cost-benefit analysis. The fundamental end of medicine is to help an individual sick or injured patient; from this prime goal stem the principles of non-maleficence, "Do no harm," and beneficence, "Benefit the patient."
The surgery to remove a portion of a healthy person's liver may benefit the recipient, but at considerable risk
Michael Potts, head
Philosophy and Religion Department, Methodist College, Fayetteville, NC 28311, USA gratiaetnatura@yahoo.com
Read all Rapid Responses
What can you learn from this BMJ paper? Read Leanne Tite's Paper+