Name:
Lecturer:
Course:
Date:
Scarce Medical Resources
A 31 year old, Ken Duke was convicted for armed robbery and taken to a California prison. Unfortunately, Ken was suffering from heart problems thus; he was admitted at StanfordUniversity medical centre. This was after his sickness worsened, but while in hospital, he was frequently attended by two-armed guards. Ken is the first prisoner to receive a free heart transplant, which cost the California government one million dollars. During this period, the country was experiencing heart transplant problems and about four thousand Americans were in need of heart transplants. Ken was listed among the patients in the United Network for Organs Sharing (UNOS) because he urgently needed the transplant due to his critical conditions. According to the general ethical rules of UNOS, anyone is provided the heart transplant regardless of his status as long as he or she qualifies for the transplant (Munson 485). One receives a transplant depending on the medical condition even if he or she is a convicted prisoner or not. Moreover, the medical resources were scarce, but the California government fought for Ken’s life something that sparked controversy in the whole country. People started complaining how a convicted prisoner, could receive a heart transplant when many people were in need of it, but they lacked the resources to pay for the transplant.
From the virtue ethics or natural law ethics presented by Aristotle, I believe that he would have decided in the case presented to be fairly handled, and justice maintained. The natural law ethics involves the duty to acting fairly and what is required in order to fulfill this duty is dependent on the context in which the matter arises. The natural law takes into account the rule against bias and the right to fair listening. Thus, in this case, Aristotle would decide that Ken receives the heart transplant. This is because fair justice should be maintained without listening to the bias of the public until investigations reveal that one is proven guilty. Munson (462) points out that some doctors are not qualified to make their own judgments. He adds that a better policy over the scarcity of the medical resources would not rely on this case since it will create social consequences. Thus, there is need for a random choice of providing services when it comes to scarcity of resources. Thus, Aristotle would decide Ken to be given heart transplant because he would advocate for fair justice and morality.
Secondly, according to Kant’s deontological ethics, he argues that an act is morally right when people act from duty. His argument is based on the belief that an act of good will is fundamental because it may save the innocent person. Therefore, for this case, I believe that Kant would decide in the case presented above by supporting doctors to provide Ken a heart transplant. This is because he argues that it is the duty of the doctors to practice what is best for them. Since their duty is to save people’s lives, they have to fulfill their ethical code of profession by saving people regardless of their status. Munson (461) highlights Kant’s arguments that there is no ground for distinguishing the ones to be sacrificed from those who may be saved. Nevertheless, Kant points out that every individual is equal to the other in dignity and value does not require the sacrifice for all. Thus, Kant would say the action on the case was morally acceptable if Ken would get healed and become proven innocent of the crime.
Lastly, from Mill’s utilitarian ethics, I believe Mill could have not allowed Ken to receive medication until the proper course of action could take place. Moreover, this kind of ethic does not dictate to a particular question of who should be saved (Munson 461). This ethical principle requires that doctors need to take into account the consequences of sacrificing some people on behalf of others. The utilitarian approach takes into account social worth of individuals thus, making moral relevance to characteristics such as age, education, accomplishment record and many others. Therefore, in this case, the decision of allocating medical services through ranking procedure would be used. This is through assigning a set of criteria from who is supposed to be given medical services through ranking them. Thus, Mill would decide in the case presented that the ranking method would be used following the social behaviors or other characteristics of the patient. This will make Ken the last one to receive the heart transplant incase employing Mill’s approach. Hence, Mill would say the action, which was taken, was a moral evil by providing a medical service to a prisoner as the first priority.
I believe that justice is the most ethically sound when Ken’s life is saved. Even if he was convicted for armed robbery, revealing justice in providing equal opportunities is fundamental. Hence, he deserves fair justice for accessing medical services like other individuals. It was morally right for the UNOS to provide him the heart transplant services because everyone has a right for life. Nevertheless, no one is supposed to deprive one’s right for life thus medical access should be provided to everyone without segregation. This is because if injustice could have been used in prison especially when it comes to medical provisions, many people who have been convicted in prison and are innocent could have died. Thus, providing equal opportunities to all citizens is essential because it will benefit one in the end.
Additionally, the supporters of organ transplantation point out that it is worth and ethically right to provide valuable medication to those who need it. They also argue that everyone should access it equally, and it should be free of biases basing on race, sex, class or income levels as well criminology status. Considering individual worth when distributing organ transplant is vital and it is one way of maintaining justice to everyone. The neediest individuals should be given the first priority when it comes to organ transplantation in order to save their lives. Consequently, it was morally right to provide Ken the heart transplantation because he was in a critical condition.
Work cited
Munson, Ronald. Intervention and Reflection: Basic Issues in Medical Ethics, 8th Edition.
Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth, 2004. Print.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|