Attitudes of Swedes to marginal donors and xenotransplantation

Journal of Medical Ethics 29 (3):186-192 (2003)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The aim of our survey was to capture the attitudes of Swedes to marginal donors and xenotransplantation. Modern biotechnology makes it possible to replace non-functioning organs, cells, and genes. Nonetheless, people may have reservations and fears about such treatments. With the survey, Attitudes of the General Public to Transplants, we have sought to expose the ambivalence that arises when medical possibilities are juxtaposed with ideas of risk. The design of the questionnaire originates from the interdisciplinary cooperation between ethnologists, medical scientists, and geneticists. By combining qualitative and quantitative methods, it is possible to illustrate the complexity that characterises people’s view of modern biomedicine. People’s reflections are based on a personal and situation bound morality, which does not necessarily coincide with what they generally consider as ethically justifiable

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,931

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Xenotransplantation, consent and international justice.Robert Sparrow - 2009 - Developing World Bioethics 9 (3):119-127.
Xenografting: ethical issues.J. Hughes - 1998 - Journal of Medical Ethics 24 (1):18-24.
Counseling philanthropic donors.Scott Sibary - 2006 - Ethics and Behavior 16 (3):183 – 197.
Is the Use of Animal Organs for Transplants Morally Acceptable?Rui-Peng Lei - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 5:49-61.
Justice and third party risk: The ethics of xenotransplantation.Jonathan Hughes - 2007 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 24 (2):151–168.
Operation Blue, ULTRA: DION--The Donation Inmate Organ Network.Clifford Earle Bartz - 2003 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13 (1):37-43.
“Marginal Consequences” and Utilitarianism.C. L. Sheng - 1988 - Philosophy Research Archives 14:143-163.
The Argument from Marginal Cases: is species a relevant difference.Julia Tanner - 2011 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 11 (2):225-235.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-24

Downloads
30 (#549,487)

6 months
3 (#1,044,897)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references