Abstract

Testa and colleagues argue that evaluation for suitability for living donor surgery is rooted in paternalism in contrast with the evaluation for most operative interventions which is rooted in the autonomy of patients. We examine two key ethical concepts that Testa and colleagues use: paternalism and autonomy, and two related ethical concepts, moral agency and shared decision making. We show that moving the conversation from paternalism, negative autonomy and informed consent to moral agency, relational autonomy and shared decision making, one better understands why the arguments give by Testa and colleagues fail.