Voluntarism of Consent in Both Related and Unrelated Living Organ Donors
Voluntarism, which is defined as acting of one’s own free will, the condition of unconstrainedness, or acting intentionally in the Concise Oxford Dictionary , forms the basis of all transplant procedures where rules exist to control such procedures. We insist on voluntariness because transplant donation is an intrinsically charitable act: societies which support the development of transplantation have generally refused to assign a monetary value to transplantable organs or tissues.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Fowler HW, Fowler HG (eds) Concise Oxford Dictionary Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
- 2.Meredith (1990) Transplantation proceedings.Google Scholar
- 3.Ail Qatton M (1984) The juristic regarding transplant donor. In: Abowmelha MS (ed) Organ transplantation: proceedings of the second international Middle East symposium. Medical Education Services, Oxford, pp. 1–4.Google Scholar
- 4.Human Tissue Act (1961) Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
- 5.Dalywell T (1974) Hansard (December 11). Her Majesty’s Government, London.Google Scholar
- 7.Organ Transplant Bill (1990) Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
- 8.The British Transplantation Society (1986) Recommendations on the use of living kidney donors in the United Kingdom. Br Med J 293-257.Google Scholar
- 9.World Medical Association (1947) Nuremberg Code, (revised 1975).Google Scholar
- 11.Conference of Medical Royal Colleges and their facilities in the UK (1979) Diagnosis of death. Lancet i: 261–262.Google Scholar
- 12.Lamb D (1990) Organ transplants and ethics. Routledge, London, pp. 106–108.Google Scholar
- 13.Simmons R (1983) Long-term reactions of renal recipients and donors. In: Levy NB (ed) Psycho-nephrology. Plenum, New York, pp. 275–287.Google Scholar
- 14.Thiagarajan CM, Reddy KC, Shunmugasundaram D, et al. (1990) The practice of unconventional renal transplantation at a single center in India. Transplant Proc 22(3): 912–914.Google Scholar