Beyond inconsistency: defending the moral boundary of the dead donor rule

Lawrence J Masek argues that the dead donor rule (DDR) cannot be theoretically justified without also condemning various widely accepted medical practices, such as kidney and partial liver donation, fetal surgery, domino transplants and lethal palliation.1 He offers an internal critique, contending that the principles used to defend the DDR—‘do no harm’, ‘do not kill’ and the doctrine of double effect—either overreach or become inconsistent.