My paper is aimed at obtaining a more robust understanding of the moral values that lie behind the "dead donor rule." It questions assumptions that people make about the rule and its current application. I argue that a good understanding of the values we seek to exemplify in this case will reveal that the rule itself (as it is currently understood or specified) is problematic.

There is a significant shortage of organs and many people (perhaps needlessly) die as a result. This leaves the community to seek ways to increase the organ supply. This is a utilitarian goal. But the ends don't always justify the means—we cannot increase organ supply in ways that violate the rights or integrity of persons. We have two moral values present; the good of people in need and the respect of each individual as an individual. The dead donor rule is an attempt to mediate these two moral values—to increase the organ supply (good of the community) without disrespecting individuals. The dead donor rule specifies that vital organs cannot be removed from a person unless that person is dead. It supplies a restriction on the means of obtaining organs aimed at exemplifying the respect of persons. Yet current technology has brought the very concept of death into question. Thus, theorists have sought to find a definition of death so that we can understand how or when this rule gets applied. My aim in this paper is to show that a definition of death is not necessary to properly apply the rule. This is because the rule itself is the result of a misunderstanding of the values it supposedly exemplifies.

After obtaining my Ph.D. in philosophy (ethical theory), I decided to get a MA in bioethics. This paper was my research project for that degree.