Organ transplants represent a modern-day miracle as patients with failing organs receive another chance to live. Unfortunately, organs cannot be manufactured and hospitals have to rely on donors for support. Accordingly, there is a tremendous shortage of organs all over the world. Surgeons often face the dilemma of deciding which patients to consider, for “we must do a rational job of trying to allocate organ in a manner that they will be successful”. Therefore, the success of organ transplants depends on the patient’s ability and willingness to adhere to the guidelines for medication and care, after surgery. I also submit to philosophers’ provocations that underline the essence of doling “out medical services based on a value judgment of the patient’s virtues and vices”. Given the current conundrum involving three recipients for a liver transplant, alive to the fact that there is only one organ and weighty ethical issues to follow, I settle on the utilitarianism in picking up the right candidate-not ignoring the ethical aspect of it. Consequently, I have been motivated by the realization that my choice was the only possible and rational I could pick and I draw pleasure from the understanding that the hospital will continue to enjoy numerous contributions that will further better our service, contributing to the larger goal of providing improved healthcare services to locals.
The facts of the case are that Recipient A, Francis is a recovering alcoholic counting nine months of sobriety, not to void the chances of a relapse- for there is precedence. Francis has a wife and is a father of three teenage children. Francis is also the president of a small, struggling credit union that may fail without him. Recipient B, Miriam, is 34 and generally unlikeable. However, Miriam comes from a very wealthy family, whose philanthropy is known to all. Now we have a cancer research program courtesy of Miriam’s father, who made it obvious that the hospital will continue to enjoy their support, though there is a large risk that he may reconsider his position should her daughter die. Lastly, Benji is our third recipient and is only 19. Benji is also a sophomore in the local college and his performance is considerably good. Benji also dreams of becoming a doctor. Unfortunately, there is a high risk that his body might reject the liver, based on past complications. I would start by affirming that the lives of the three patients are important and none can be considered to be more important than the others. However, I stipulate to a rational process in deciding which patient to receive a transplant.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Organ transplant ethics outline some of the key consideration that ought to be guide allocation. Ethics refers to good practices and as doctors, we must equally submit to such principles in dispensing our duty. The initial tests were conducted on all the three patients and we are convinced that the available kidney is a perfect match for all. The process would have been easier if it was based on a simple first-come-first-served rule, but it is not. Therefore, a determination to be made refers to tested practices that are generally considered safe and necessary under the same situation. Also, I could have picked Benji as he is the youngest and with a promising life ahead of him, not to mention that he might be a resource to the medical fraternity should he live to realize his dream. Unfortunately, Benji has underlying conditions that render him unfit for the donation. What inconveniences Benji also contradicts the fundamental principle of organ transplants that dictates the need to perform the process in a manner that will be successful. Unfortunately, success is not a guarantee with Benji, as his body might reject the liver. Also, we are not convinced that Benji can afford the medication required to guarantee full recovery. Of the two remaining patients, I could first consider Francis, the father of three. Surely Francis deserves to live and is already showing potential to offer more to this world. Unfortunately, alcoholics make bad recipients, given their inability to stick to medication post-surgery. Also, Francis's financial position is not encouraging and he may equally lack funds for the medication. Consequently, Francis is not a suitable candidate for this transplant.
Miriam may be unlikeable, with nothing much going on in her life, she however makes a good candidate for the transplant. They are wealthy and therefore she can afford medication and she will be able to follow instructions given her father’s strictness. Consequently, we have the assurance that she will fully recover. I, therefore, propose Miriam as the suitable recipient for the transplant believing that my actions are morally right and promise to produce the most good. As a utilitarian and a follower of Mill, I confirm that pleasures are a different kind and I pick that which is superior, ‘intellectual pleasure’. Following Mill’s directive that “the only proof capable of being given that an object is visible is that people actually see it”. I parade Miriam with confidence, verily assured that she will survive the surgery and afterward recover without complications. Most importantly, I find pleasure knowing that her recovery will further inspire her father to continue supporting the hospital. Possibly, with the help of Miriam’s family money, we could set up facilities that will further enhance our services in providing quality healthcare services.
