Principle consistency is not practice justification: why Masek’s critique of the dead donor rule proves less than it appears

Masek’s recent paper offers a disciplined challenge to the dead donor rule (DDR). 1 Unlike critics who rely on consequentialism or deny donors’ moral status, Masek works within non-consequentialist ethics to mount a consistency argument: the principles used to justify the DDR—do-no-harm, do-not-kill and double effect—would, if applied consistently, also prohibit kidney donation, fetal surgery, domino liver transplants and lethal palliation. Since those practices are widely accepted, these principles cannot bear the weight placed on them.