Distributive Justice
The organ transplantation is vitally important for many patients suffering
from serious diseases. At the same time, the lack of organ transplants raises
serious problems because people that need organ transplants cannot receive them
in time. In such a situation, the process of distribution of organ transplants
because not only vitally question but it also raises ethical dilemma: which
patients should get organ transplants first. On solving this dilemma specialists
arrived to the idea of cutting in line for organ transplants and the case of
Tood Krampitz illustrated how this system actually works. However, it became
obvious that cutting in line for organ transplants, being a simple and presumable
just system, turns to be far from ideal and even unethical.
On analyzing the implementation of the idea of cutting in line for organ transplants,
it is necessary to point out the fact that this system basically focuses on
the sequence of patients in which they appealed for medical assistance (Limentani,
1999). In other words, this system implies that the patient who comes first
is the first who gets an opportunity to be served. At first glance, the system
is just since many patients need organ transplantation and it is quite logical
to operate patients who come first.
However, the cutting in line is rather a technical approach than a qualitative
approach. What is meant here is the fact that the system of cutting in line
functions perfectly well technically because logically it is absolutely correct.
But, on profound reflections, it becomes obvious that from the qualitative point
of view this system does not work at all. To put it more precisely, patients
do need transplant organs, but, while taking a decision which patient should
be served, it is important to take into account the actual physiological state
of the patient. In other words, the extent to which patients may need the organ
transplantation may differ. For instance, the patient, who comes the last, may
need the organ transplantation more urgently than the patient who has come first
because his actual state may be consistently worse than the state of the first
patient (Benoff & Grauman, 1997). This means that the delay of the organ
transplantation for the last patient is more likely to result in the death of
the patient than the delay of the organ transplantation for the first patient.
In such a situation, an ethical dilemma, which patient should be served first,
becomes particularly significant. On the one hand, the cutting in line system
justifies the organ transplantation for the first patient, but, in the example
described above, this will violate basic ethical norms of healthcare professionals
since, in accordance with cutting in line, they will jut doom the last patient
to die. In such a way, the ethical decision of this dilemma contradicts to the
cutting in line for organ transplants principle.
Thus, in conclusion, it should be said that the cutting in line system may be
really effective as long as it does not threat the life of patients. To put
it more precisely, while taking the decision, it is necessary to rely on the
actual state of the patient and his need in the operation, but not the line.
References:
Benoff, M., & Grauman, D. M. (1997). Mastering the physician integration
challenge. Healthcare Financial Management; Westchester; Jan 1997.
Limentani, A. E. (1999, October). The role of ethical principles in health care
and the implications for ethical codes. Journal of Medical Ethics 25 (5), 394-399.
Ascension Health (2005). Key Ethical Principles. Retrieved on
November 17, 2007, from http://www.ascensionhealth.org/ethics/public/key_principles/main.asp
Kellog Library (2003). Bioethics - Introduction and Definition.
Retrieved on November 17, 2007, from http://www.library.dal.ca/kellogg/Bioethics/definition.htm.
St. James Ethics Center (2006). Ethical Dilemmas of the Month.
Retrieved on November 17, 2007, from
http://www.ethics.org.au/things_to_do/dilemma_of_the_month/
