The communitarian approach would justify presumed consent as a way to give

back to the community.

Andrew D Lawson [Consultant in Pain Medicine & Anaesthesia & Medical Ethicist, Royal
Berkshire Hospital; Honorary Senior Lecturer, Medical Ethics, Imperial College, London].
Presumed consent for organ donation in the United Kingdom. Journal of the Intensive Care
Society. Volume 9, Number 2, July 2008. http://journal.ics.ac.uk/pdf/0902116.pdf.
Perhaps a way around the autonomy, rights and utilitarian conflict is to consider a communitarian response. This model
suggests organ donation not as a gift, but as an act of giving back to the community, the paying back of an
obligation. Communitarian philosophy stresses the common good. According to communitarian theorists, all
of our norms, theories, principles and virtues can be traced to distinct ethical traditions and
ways of life. The good society focuses both on individual rights and the good of the larger
community. Communitarianism might entail a persisting obligation after death to benefit
other members of the community. This obligation may not be absolute; consideration may also be given to individual
autonomy. One problem with a communitarian solution is how one defines a community and how society deals with differing
perceptions of a community.

When the organs are no longer valuable to the dead, they should be used to
help the living.
Marie-Andree Jacob [LL.B. University Laval; LL.M. York University, J.S.D. in progress, Cornell
University; Research Associate, Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research],
On Silencing and Slicing: Presumed Consent to Post-Mortem Organ Donation in Diversified
Societies, 11 Tulsa J. Comp. & Int'l L. 239 (2003). Available at:
http://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tjcil/vol11/iss1/7
Presumed consent can be justified by a communitarian vision of the world. Communitarianism
rejects a liberal construction of the individual as an "unencumbered self."' Communitarianism focuses on the
interconnection, interdependence, and community-orientation of beings. Following the Aristotelian
tradition, Communitarian theory suggests that ethics is "the exercise of a set of spatially and
temporally bound virtues that we may regard as our primary defense system against the
destruction or erosion of that human community without which our lives would be
aimless." According to a communitarian, her organs might well belong to her during her life, as they
are essential in that lifetime; but when no longer needed by or useful to her they are
properly shared with the other community members. This "sharing of the goods" is
required, according to Aristotle. "[T]o be [human] is to fill a set of roles each of which has its own point and purpose: member of
a family, citizen, soldier, philosopher, servant of God."1 To this list, "organ supplier for your sick fellows" can be added. Sharing
is a higher value than an individual's wish to preserve the integrity of a dead body.

Establishing presumed consent as the norm creates a civic duty.
Marie-Andree Jacob [LL.B. University Laval; LL.M. York University, J.S.D. in progress, Cornell
University; Research Associate, Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research],
On Silencing and Slicing: Presumed Consent to Post-Mortem Organ Donation in Diversified
Societies, 11 Tulsa J. Comp. & Int'l L. 239 (2003). Available at:
http://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tjcil/vol11/iss1/7
Communitarians would approve of an across-the-board presumed consent rule because the
donation of organs would be the norm. As reported by Nora Machado, "[n]ot to donate is a negative deviation from
the norm. Since the norm is viewed as a positive act, the deviation becomes a negative and egoistic act," thus fulfilling the educational
purpose of the law. Moreover, in order to effect the deviation, steps must be taken; contrasted with the passive obedience of the moral
norm. Is it possible that a law or policy presuming consent will facilitate altruistic behavior, as it becomes easy to donate organs?
There are practical advantages to this method. If more organs are desirable, people are more likely to
passively concur (the "status quo bias") and obey established routine. Without presumed consent,
they must perform an active, and to some extent, energy-consuming altruistic act. In a world of presumed
consent, "[i]nstead of altruism, one articulates a notion of quasi-civic duty in donating organs,
grounded on notions of social solidarity in society," writes Machado. Another author speaks about presumed
consent as being an expression of "presumed solidarity.'' The assumption is that current human ethical behavior of lower priority
between individual self development and solidarity, or freedom and responsible involvement. As such, building a presumption of
solidarity into the law would be ethically justifiable."
Presumed consent laws intend to increase donation rates the law expresses a
social norm in favor of increasing organ supply
Bilgel 12
Frat Bilgel, Department of Economics, U of Bologna, The impact of presumed consent laws and
institutions on deceased organ donation Eur J Health Econ 12 13:2938 [PDI]

On the other hand, presumed consent laws express a social norm about the default course of action.
On the contrary of informed consent where donation is a special option (opt-in), it is assumed to be the default option (opt out) under presumed
consent [15]. Therefore, a higher number of deceased organs is expected to be procured because
individuals who do not legally express their wishes to not donate are considered as having no
opposition to have their organs removed. Based on this view, enforcing presumed consent
may have a positive effect on donation rates but it may not be of great magnitude because in practice families can override
the wish of the deceased individual to donate.