Non-heart-beating organ donation: a reply to Campbell and Weber.

In the preceding commentary, Campbell and Weber raise two valid and important issues concerning non-heart-beating organ donation (NHBOD). First, because the procedure links withdrawal of life support and the potential for subsequent organ donation, the desire for organs may create a situation in which care of the dying individual has relatively less importance and the dying may receive suboptimal care. Second, even if concerns about care of the dying were dealt with adequately, there will not be enough non-heart-beating donors to significantly decrease the organ shortage that exists, making the procedure not worth the risk. We agree that attention to the important details of caring for the dying are, and must be, the primary concern of all health care workers caring for those individuals. Ensuring the patients' comfort, dignity, and autonomy, and providing for family and social support are the mainstays of this care. All policies for NHBOD should clearly support and mandate these concepts. Regarding the second concern, we agree that NHBOD is currently rare; however, evidence is increasing that this type of donation has great potential. Continued growth of the practice in this country will depend largely on public acceptance, which we believe will be directly influenced by whether the public perceives that care of the dying is not compromised by this procedure.     

Harming and failing to benefit: a reply to purves

Philosophical Studies - A prominent objection to the counterfactual comparative account of harm is that it classifies as harmful some events that are, intuitively, mere failures to benefit. In an...     

Phenomenal conservatism and self-defeat: a reply to DePoe

John DePoe has criticized the self-defeat argument for Phenomenal Conservatism. He argues that acquaintance, rather than appearance, may form the basis for non-inferentially justified beliefs, and that Phenomenal Conservatism conflicts with a central motivation for internalism. I explain how Phenomenal Conservatism and the self-defeat argument may survive these challenges.     

Exploitation and Workers'Co-operatives: a reply to Alan Carter

ABSTRACT In a recent paper Alan Carter argues that the claim that workers'co-operatives merely replace exploitation by employers with 'self-exploitation'is nonsense: the term 'self-exploitation'is self-contradictory. He maintains that the only form of exploitation to which a workers'co-operative may be said to be subject is 'market-exploitation'by dominant economic actors who are external to the co-operative. I argue that these conclusions are mistaken. While the concept of 'market-exploitation'is not without value, it is difficult to operationalise. While the concept of 'self-exploitation'is, understood literally, incoherent, the claims defended by some of the users of this term can be made conceptually respectable.     

Epistemic means and ends: a reply to Hofmann

How is epistemic justification related to knowledge? Is it, as widely thought, constitutive of knowledge? Is it merely a means to knowledge, or merely a means to something else, such as truth? In a recent article in this journal, Hofmann (2005, Synthese, 146(3), 357–369) addresses these questions in attempting to defend an important argument articulated by Sartwell (1992, The Journal of Philosophy, 89(4), 167–180) and reconstructed and criticized by Le Morvan (2002, Erkenntnis: An International Journal of Analytic Philosophy, 56(2), 151–168). This Sartwellian argument purported to show that, since epistemic justification is of merely instrumental value, it is not constitutive of knowledge. In this paper, I argue that Hofmann’s defense of Sartwell fails, but that its failure brings to light some important lessons concerning the nature of justification and its relationship to truth and knowledge.     

Conversion to non-remunerated plasmapheresis donation: Effects of labeling and donation environment

IntroductionPlasmapheresis donors’ recruitment strategies should focus on asking whole-blood donors (WBDs) to convert to plasmapheresis.ObjectiveThis study measured the effect of labeling on the conversion of WBDs to plasmapheresis donation and examined the relationship between the type of blood drive and conversion to plasmapheresis.MethodsTwo blood drives destined towards students were held either on a university campus (mobile blood drive), or in a blood center. At the end of each whole-blood donation, the nurse performed a labeling, reactivated a few minutes later by a second individual asking the donor if he would agree to donate plasma. If so, an appointment for plasma donation was made or a promise was collected. The number of commitments to plasmapheresis (promise/appointment) and the number of achievements of these commitments measured the effect of labeling.ResultsFew significant differences between social or functional labeling were found compared to a “no labeling” condition in terms of commitments and concretizations. The in-center blood drive achieved three times more engagements than the mobile blood drive (p < .001). Appointments had better chances to turn into a plasma donation than promises (p < .001).ConclusionLabeling as it was tested seemed ineffective in conversion from whole blood donation to plasmapheresis, but further studies should be carried out to replicate these results. When only collected during in-center blood drives, blood collection agencies should try to develop in-center whole blood donations and promotional approaches towards plasma donation. When approaching potential plasmapheresis donors, appointments should be preferred to promises. Further research is needed to examine the causes of these results.