Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-04T18:00:28.613Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Response to Zambrano

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2022

John Harris*
Affiliation:
Professor Emeritus, University of Manchester and Honorary Professor, Centre of Medical Law and Ethics, Kings College London, London, UK.
*
Corresponding author. Email: johnmorleyharris@gmail.com

Extract

Alexander Zambrano sets out to refute an argument that I have made on a number of occasions over many years since 1992, which he calls “Harris’s Greater Need Argument” (2002).

Type
Responses and Dialogue
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. John Harris “Organ Procurement-Dead interests Living Needs” in Journal of medical Ethics Vol. 29. No.3. June 2003. 130–135.

2. See Harris, J. Law and regulation of retained organs: The ethical issues. Legal Studies 2022;22(4):527–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar. With a response by Brazier, M. Retained organs: Ethics and humanity. Legal Studies 2002;22(4):550–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar. And Harris, J. Wonderwoman and Superman. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1992 Google Scholar, at chap. 5.

3. Shakespeare W. Hamlet, Act V, Sc. I.

4. Shakespeare W. Hamlet, Act V, Sc. I. Line 195ff. in Prudfoot, R, Thomson, A, Kastan, DS, eds. The Arden Shakespeare. Walton-On-Thames: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd; 1998 Google Scholar.