Abstract
'The dead donor rule' (hereafter DDR) is 'the ethical and legal rule that requires that donors not be killed in order to obtain their organs'. Although this rule was coined in 1988 by John Robertson, it had been one of the most important ethical rules of organ transplantation since it became medically feasible. According to the rule, vital organs such as hearts and lungs cannot be removed from living donors even if they have voluntarily agreed to donate the organs. In this article, I first present a review of Anglo-American literature on the controversy surrounding DDR. Roughly speaking, there are three approaches to this topic: (1) DDR should allow some exceptions; (2) DDR should have no exceptions, but the definition of death can be changed so as to meet the demands for more transplantable organs; (3) DDR should have no exceptions, nor should the definition of death be changed in any way. Secondly, I suggest that the first approach is relevantly similar to one strand of argument in Japan which states that taking organs from brain-dead donors is illegal but justified and that this may deserve more attention than so far received, given that the first approach is considered as a viable option in the DDR debate.
