vtioВестник трансплантологии и искусственных органовRussian Journal of Transplantology and Artificial Organs1995-1191Academician V.I.Shumakov National Medical Research Center of Transplantology and Artificial Organs", Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation10.15825/1995-1191-2018-4-121-133vtio-959Research ArticleВопросы этики и философииQuestions of Ethics and PhilosophyЭтические апории развития органного донорстваEthical aporia of organ donation developmentПоповаО. В.PopovaO. V.

109240, Москва, ул. Гончарная, д. 12, стр. 1Тел. (903) 515-76-41

building 1, 12, Goncharnaya str., Moscow, 109240Теl. (903) 515-76-41

J-9101980@yandex.ruФГБУН «Институт философии Российской академии наук»РоссияInstitute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Federation201831012019204121133Copyright © Попова О.В., 20192019Попова О.В.Popova O.V.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://journal.transpl.ru/vtio/article/view/959

Целью статьи является исследование ряда этических и эпистемологических проблем, возникших в последние годы в связи с появлением казусов, вызвавших проблематизацию традиционных подходов к определению и констатации смерти (в частности, казусов, отражающих историю болезни Jahi McMath и Anahita Meshkin), и распространением на Западе таких практик, как «контролируемое донорство» и «донорство после эвтаназии».

Материалы и методы

Материалы и методы. В статье использован метод социально-этического анализа и биоэтическая методология case-study.

Результаты

Результаты. Дано представление о развитии этического обеспечения практики органного донорства.

Заключение

Заключение. Сделан вывод о ярко выраженной либерализации этики органного донорства, характеризующейся диктатом локальной моральной контингентности, лингвистическими манипуляциями с категориями «дара», «вреда», «автономии» и угрозой распространения в системе развития трансплантологии и органного донорства тенденций технологической инструментальности при исходном минимуме этических оснований.

Aim

Aim. The Aim of the article is to investigate the ethical and epistemological problems that have arisen in recent years in connection with the emergence of incidents that have caused the problematization of traditional approaches to the definition and ascertainment of death (in particular, cases that reflect the history of Jahi McMath and Anahita Meshkin) and the spread in the West such practices, as «controlled donation» and «donation after euthanasia».

Materials and methods

Materials and methods. The article uses the method of socio-ethical analysis and the bioethical case study methodology.

Results

Results. The analysis of the development of ethical support for the practice of organ donation is presented.

Conclusion

Conclusion. The conclusion is made about the pronounced liberalization of the ethics of organ donation, characterized by the dictates of local moral contingency, linguistic manipulations with the categories of «gift», «harm», «autonomy» and the threat of trends in technological instrumentality in the system of development of transplantology and organ donation with the initial minimum of ethical grounds.

смертьумираниесмерть мозгаконтролируемое донорстводонорство после эвтаназииорганное донорствотрансплантологияdeathdyingbrain deathcontrolled donationdonation after euthanasiaorgan donationtransplantologyРНФ, грант № 17­18­01444ReferencesСмерти вопреки: запущен проект по регенерации мертвого мозга [Интернет] [Дата обращения – 01.10.2018]. Режим доступа: https://www.bbc.com/russian/science/2016/05/160522_brain_dead_research. Smerti vopreki: zapushchen proyekt po regeneratsii mertvogo mozga [Internet] [cited 2018 Oct. 1]. Available from: https://www.bbc.com/russian/science/2016/05/160522_brain_dead_research.Смерти вопреки: запущен проект по регенерации мертвого мозга [Интернет] [Дата обращения – 01.10.2018]. Режим доступа: https://www.bbc.com/russian/science/2016/05/160522_brain_dead_research. Smerti vopreki: zapushchen proyekt po regeneratsii mertvogo mozga [Internet] [cited 2018 Oct. 1]. Available from: https://www.bbc.com/russian/science/2016/05/160522_brain_dead_research.Viens AM. Bodily Integrity as a Barrier to Organ Donation. International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine. Vol. 59.Viens AM. Bodily Integrity as a Barrier to Organ Donation. International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine. Vol. 59.Meshkin v. John Muir Medical Centre // http://thaddeuspope.com/images/Meshkin_v_Muir_Medical_Contra_Costa_April_2015_.pdf.Meshkin v. John Muir Medical Centre // http://thaddeuspope.com/images/Meshkin_v_Muir_Medical_Contra_Costa_April_2015_.pdf.Тоффлер Э. Метаморфозы власти. Знание, богатство и сила на пороге XXI века [Интернет] [Дата обращения – 01.10.2018]. Режим доступа: http://rumagic.com/ru_zar/sci_philosophy/toffler/2/j287.html. Toffler E.Metamorfozy vlasti. Znaniye, bogatstvo i sila na poroge XXI veka [Internet] [cited 2018 Oct. 1]. Available from: http://rumagic.com/ru_zar/sci_philosophy/toffler/2/j287.html.Тоффлер Э. Метаморфозы власти. Знание, богатство и сила на пороге XXI века [Интернет] [Дата обращения – 01.10.2018]. Режим доступа: http://rumagic.com/ru_zar/sci_philosophy/toffler/2/j287.html. Toffler E.Metamorfozy vlasti. Znaniye, bogatstvo i sila na poroge XXI veka [Internet] [cited 2018 Oct. 1]. Available from: http://rumagic.com/ru_zar/sci_philosophy/toffler/2/j287.html.The contested Death of Aden Hailu. – https://www.rgj.com/story/news/2016/03/25/contested-death-aden-hailu/82269006/The contested Death of Aden Hailu. – https://www.rgj.com/story/news/2016/03/25/contested-death-aden-hailu/82269006/Zuckier LS. Radionuclide Evaluation of Brain Death in the Post-McMath Era. J Nucl Med. 2016 Oct; 57 (10): 1560–1568.Zuckier LS. Radionuclide Evaluation of Brain Death in the Post-McMath Era. J Nucl Med. 2016 Oct; 57 (10): 1560–1568.International Guidelines for the Determination of Death – Phase I. May 30–31, 2012 Montreal Forum Report, October 2012. http://www.who.int/patientsafety/montreal-forum-report.pdf. P. 31.International Guidelines for the Determination of Death – Phase I. May 30–31, 2012 Montreal Forum Report, October 2012. http://www.who.int/patientsafety/montreal-forum-report.pdf. P. 31.Резник ОН, Скворцов АЕ, Попова ОВ. Этическая проб лематика донорства органов при необратимой остановке сердца. Вестник трансплантологии и искусственных органов. 2018; 20 (3): 116–125. https://doi.org/10.15825/1995-1191-2018-3-116-125. Reznik ON, Skvortcov AE, Popova OV. Ethical issues of organ donation after cardiac death. Russian Journal of Transplantology and Artificial Organs. 2018; 20 (3): 116–125. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.15825/1995-1191-2018-3-116-125.Резник ОН, Скворцов АЕ, Попова ОВ. Этическая проб лематика донорства органов при необратимой остановке сердца. Вестник трансплантологии и искусственных органов. 2018; 20 (3): 116–125. https://doi.org/10.15825/1995-1191-2018-3-116-125. Reznik ON, Skvortcov AE, Popova OV. Ethical issues of organ donation after cardiac death. Russian Journal of Transplantology and Artificial Organs. 2018; 20 (3): 116–125. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.15825/1995-1191-2018-3-116-125.Wijdicks EFM. Brain death worldwide: Accepted fact but no global consensus in diagnostic criteria. Neurology. 2002; 58 (1): 20–25.Wijdicks EFM. Brain death worldwide: Accepted fact but no global consensus in diagnostic criteria. Neurology. 2002; 58 (1): 20–25.Shemie SD, Baker A. Uniformity in brain death criteria. Seminars in neurology. 2015; 35 (2): 162–168.Shemie SD, Baker A. Uniformity in brain death criteria. Seminars in neurology. 2015; 35 (2): 162–168.Bastami S. The Ethics of Controlled Donation After Cardiac Death. Organ Transplantation in Times of Donor Shortage. Challenges and Solutions. International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine. Volume 59, Munich: Springer. P. 329.Bastami S. The Ethics of Controlled Donation After Cardiac Death. Organ Transplantation in Times of Donor Shortage. Challenges and Solutions. International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine. Volume 59, Munich: Springer. P. 329.Edison Moraes Rodrigues Filho, José Roque Junges. Brain death: a finished discussion? Rev bioét (Impr). 2015; 23 (3): 483–489.Edison Moraes Rodrigues Filho, José Roque Junges. Brain death: a finished discussion? Rev bioét (Impr). 2015; 23 (3): 483–489.Joffe AR. The ethics of donation and transplantation: are definitions of death being distorted for organ transplantation? Philos Ethics Humanit Med. [Internet]. 2007, 2: 28. https://peh-med.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1747-5341-2-28.Joffe AR. The ethics of donation and transplantation: are definitions of death being distorted for organ transplantation? Philos Ethics Humanit Med. [Internet]. 2007, 2: 28. https://peh-med.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1747-5341-2-28.Bernat J. The debate over death determination in DCD. Hastings Center Report. 2010; 40 (3): 3.Bernat J. The debate over death determination in DCD. Hastings Center Report. 2010; 40 (3): 3.Бодрийяр Ж. Символический обмен и смерть. М.: Добросвет, 2000. 387. Bodriyyar Zh. Simvolicheskiy obmen i smert’. M.: Dobrosvet, 2000. 387.Бодрийяр Ж. Символический обмен и смерть. М.: Добросвет, 2000. 387. Bodriyyar Zh. Simvolicheskiy obmen i smert’. M.: Dobrosvet, 2000. 387.Miller FG, Truog RD, Brock DW. The dead donor rule: can it withstand critical scrutiny? J Med Philos. [Internet]. 2010 [acesso 20 dez 2014]; 35 (3): 299–312. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhq019.Miller FG, Truog RD, Brock DW. The dead donor rule: can it withstand critical scrutiny? J Med Philos. [Internet]. 2010 [acesso 20 dez 2014]; 35 (3): 299–312. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhq019.Dagi TF, Kaufman R. Clarifying the Discussion on Brain Death. J Med and Philos. 2001; 26 (5): 503–525.Dagi TF, Kaufman R. Clarifying the Discussion on Brain Death. J Med and Philos. 2001; 26 (5): 503–525.Nair­Collins M, Gerend MA. Moral Evaluations of Organ Transplantation Influence Judgments of Death and Causation. Neuroethics. 2015; 8 (3): 283–297.Nair­Collins M, Gerend MA. Moral Evaluations of Organ Transplantation Influence Judgments of Death and Causation. Neuroethics. 2015; 8 (3): 283–297.Jonas H. Gehirntod und menschliche Organbank: Zur pragmatischen Umdefinierung des To-des. Technik, Medizin und Ethik. Zur Praxis des Prinzips Verantwortung. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, 1987. 219.Jonas H. Gehirntod und menschliche Organbank: Zur pragmatischen Umdefinierung des To-des. Technik, Medizin und Ethik. Zur Praxis des Prinzips Verantwortung. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, 1987. 219.Wilkinson D, Savulescu J. Should we allow organ donation euthanasia? Alternatives for maximizing the number and quality of organs for transplantation. Bioethics. 2012; 26: 32–48, at 40–41.Wilkinson D, Savulescu J. Should we allow organ donation euthanasia? Alternatives for maximizing the number and quality of organs for transplantation. Bioethics. 2012; 26: 32–48, at 40–41.Glannon W. The Moral Insignificance of Death in Organ Donation. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 2013; 22: 192–202.Glannon W. The Moral Insignificance of Death in Organ Donation. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 2013; 22: 192–202.Nowotny H, Testa G. Naked genes: Reinventing the human in the molecular age. Cambidge, MA: MIT Press, 2011. P. 96.Nowotny H, Testa G. Naked genes: Reinventing the human in the molecular age. Cambidge, MA: MIT Press, 2011. P. 96.Кэмпбелл А, Джиллетт Г, Джонс Г. Медицинская этика. М.: ГэотарМедиа, 2005. 169. Kempbell A, Dzhil­ lett G, Dzhons G. Meditsinskaya etika. M.: GeotarMedia, 2005. 169.Кэмпбелл А, Джиллетт Г, Джонс Г. Медицинская этика. М.: ГэотарМедиа, 2005. 169. Kempbell A, Dzhil­ lett G, Dzhons G. Meditsinskaya etika. M.: GeotarMedia, 2005. 169.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.