Organ Conscription and Greater Needs.

Since its inception, the institution of postmortem organ transplantation has faced the problem of organ shortage: Every year, the demand for donor organs vastly exceeds supply, resulting in the deaths of approximately 8,000 individuals in the United States alone.1 This is in large part due to the fact that the United States, for the most part, operates under an "opt-in" policy in which people are given the opportunity to voluntarily opt-in to organ donation by registering as organ donors.2 In the United States, a person's organs will not be removed for transplantation purposes unless she has registered as a donor or her family gives their consent for organ removal.3 Jointly, these policies generate a situation where we do not retrieve as many organs as we could.

Fewer Mistakes and Presumed Consent.

"Opt-out" organ procurement policies based on presumed consent are typically advertised as being superior to "opt-in" policies based on explicit consent at securing organs for transplantation. However, Michael Gill (2004) has argued that presumed consent policies are also better than opt-in policies at respecting patient autonomy. According to Gill's Fewer Mistakes Argument, we ought to implement the procurement policy that results in the fewest frustrated wishes regarding organ donation. Given that the majority of Americans wish to donate their organs, it is plausible that a presumed consent policy would result in fewer frustrated wishes compared to the current opt-in policy. It follows that we ought to implement a policy of presumed consent. In this paper, I first consider and find wanting an objection to the Fewer Mistakes Argument developed recently by Douglas MacKay (2015). I also consider an objection put forth by James Taylor (2012) but argue that there is a methodological reason to prefer my own argument to Taylor's. Finally, I argue for two theses: first, that Gill's major argument in favor of the crucial premise of the Fewer Mistakes Argument is flawed, and second, that the major premise of the Fewer Mistakes Argument is false.

Covert moral bioenhancement, public health, and autonomy.

In a recent article in this journal, Parker Crutchfield argues that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, as some authors claim, then it ought to be covert, i.e., performed without the knowledge of the population that is being morally enhanced. Crutchfield argues that since the aim of compulsory moral bioenhancement is to prevent ultimate harm to the population, compulsory moral bioenhancement is best categorized as a public health issue, and should therefore be governed by the norms and values that apply in public health settings. In this article, I argue for two related claims. First, I question the extent to which compulsory moral enhancement should be considered a public health issue that ought to be governed by the norms and values that apply in public health settings. Second, I argue that Crutchfield's argument that covert moral bioenhancement would better respect people's autonomy than an overt program overlooks two important autonomy-based reasons that, in fact, favor an overt moral enhancement program over a covert one.

Should consent be required for organ procurement?

Must we obtain a patient's consent before posthumously removing her organs? According to the consent requirement, in order to permissibly remove organs from a deceased person, it is necessary that her prior consent be obtained. If the consent requirement is true, then this seems to rule out policies that do not seek and obtain a patient's prior consent to organ donation, while at the same time vindicating policies that do seek and obtain patient consent. In this paper, however, I argue that once we recognize the difference between consent, on the one hand, and wishing or desiring, on the other, we will see that obtaining consent before organ removal is neither necessary nor sufficient to respect patient autonomy in organ procurement.

Why Alcoholics Ought to Compete Equally for Liver Transplants.

Some philosophers and physicians have argued that alcoholic patients, who are responsible for their liver failure by virtue of alcoholism, ought to be given lower priority for a transplant when donated livers are being allocated to patients in need of a liver transplant. The primary argument for this proposal, known as the Responsibility Argument, is based on the more general idea that patients who require scarce medical resources should be given lower priority for those resources when they are responsible for needing them and when they are competing with patients who need the same resources through no fault of their own. Since alcoholic patients are responsible for needing a new liver and are in direct competition with other patients who need a new liver through no fault of their own, it follows that alcoholic patients ought to be given lower priority for a transplant. In this article, I argue against the Responsibility Argument by suggesting that in order for it to avoid the force of plausible counter examples, it must be revised to say that patients who are responsible for needing a scarce medical resource due to engaging in behavior that is not socially valuable ought to be given lower priority. I'll then argue that allocating organs according to social value is inconsistent or in tension with liberal neutrality on the good life. Thus, if one is committed to liberal neutrality, one ought to reject the Responsibility Argument.