I.
The goal of this paper is to examine John Harris’ experiment of the “Survival Lottery.” Specifically, I want to argue that the lottery makes too high a demand on us to give up our lives. Especially, when I’m pretty sure everyone wants to live. Prior accounts show that Harris proposes that if the argument of the distinction between “killing” and “letting die” is properly contrived, then killing one person to save two could happen on a regular basis. It would be an exception to the obligation not to kill innocent people in regards to the argument that there is a distinction between "killing" and "letting die.” The difference between killing and letting die presents a moral difference. As far as this argument we are obligated not to kill. I
…show more content…
This experiment, proposed by Harris, encouraged people to imagine a world where organ donation was expected to save more lives than it would kill. Under these circumstances, a person is obligated to give up his or her life to save one or more lives in need of a donation when they are drawn from the lottery. Hence, all lives are considered equal and two lives saved are of more value than the one life that dies. Because Utilitarianism is the concept that the right thing to do is the action that maximizes total benefit and reduces suffering, the “Survival Lottery” is morally permissible according to Utilitarianism. …show more content…
However, this creates a conflict of morality. He comes to the conclusion that there is a flaw with utilitarianism unless we completely change the parameters. By doing so, killing one person to save two, and doing so on a regular basis would be okay. He uses the example that Y and Z are dying. Y needs a heart transplant. X needs a lung transplant. If a recently deceased person were a donor, Y and Z can be saved. Y and Z then ask, Why don 't we just kill a suitable donor? The medical procedures to save Y and Z are available, and in other medical treatments, a doctor 's failure to provide the service would be regarded as equivalent to killing the two patients. So, by not killing an innocent "donor" for the necessary heart and lungs, the doctor chooses to kill Y and Z. Harris proposes objections to killing one to save two and in the end, the Survival Lottery comes out of it. The survival lottery puts everyone on an even playing field for being chosen. In this situation, you would have to make sure that everyone is aware that their own chances of living are increased due to the fact that organ donation will no longer depend on the few people who become organ donors. Those who object to being chosen in the survival lottery would be labeled
In his article “Opt-out organ donation without presumptions”, Ben Saunders is writing to defend an opt-out organ donation system in which cadaveric organs can be used except in the case that the deceased person has registered an objection and has opted-out of organ donation. Saunders provides many arguments to defend his stance and to support his conclusion. This paper will discuss the premises and elements of Saunders’ argument and how these premises support his conclusion. Furthermore, this paper will discuss the effectiveness of Saunders’ argument, including its strengths and weaknesses. Lastly, it will discuss how someone with an opposing view might respond to his article,
When viewing organ donation from a moral standpoint we come across many different views depending on the ethical theory. The controversy lies between what is the underlying value and what act is right or wrong. Deciding what is best for both parties and acting out of virtue and not selfishness is another debatable belief. Viewing Kant and Utilitarianism theories we can determine what they would have thought on organ donation. Although it seems judicious, there are professionals who seek the attention to be famous and the first to accomplish something. Although we are responsible for ourselves and our children, the motives of a professional can seem genuine when we are in desperate times which in fact are the opposite. When faced with a decision about our or our children’s life and well being we may be a little naïve. The decisions the patients who were essentially guinea pigs for the first transplants and organ donation saw no other options since they were dying anyways. Although these doctors saw this as an opportunity to be the first one to do this and be famous they also helped further our medical technology. The debate is if they did it with all good ethical reasoning. Of course they had to do it on someone and preying upon the sick and dying was their only choice. Therefore we are responsible for our own health but when it is compromised the decisions we make can also be compromised.
First off, Berger states that this kidney transplant helped extend the precipitant’s life by at least ten years. This statement suggests that the harm the precipitant was in has been reduced. Since there is minimal harm being done, the ethical principle that is being demonstrated is non-maleficence. Secondly, another statement Berger makes is that the cost of this organ transplant is less than the cost of another treatment. Berger is taking into consideration the ethical principle of beneficence. The ethical principle of beneficence demonstrates that the benefits would outweigh the risks and costs. He is suggesting that the cost and benefits of obtaining an organ would exceed the costs and benefits if one were to choose a dialysis treatment. In continuation, another ethical principle that is explored through Berger’s statements is respect for autonomy. He examines this idea by stating that the patient and donor both have the right to do what they desire with their body. If the donor wants to receive a transplant that individual has the permission to allow it to happen. This type of approval is important because it gives the individual the respect of making decisions. Lastly, Berger mentions that allowing organ sales would most likely decrease the number of individuals who need organs because money as a payment would be a good encouragement for the individuals who are willing and able to sell their organs. This is a demonstration of another ethical principle called justice. Justice is an ethical principle that takes into account the pros and cons of a certain situation. For example, if the organ sale was legal, it is most likely that there would be an increase in donors. Since there would be an increase in donors, one who is seeking an organ would have a high chance of finding a match. Therefore more patients would not have to wait and there could be an increase in the lives
Arguably, “Death’s waiting list” discusses a crucial topic of our times, regardless of how sincere Satel is in her argument, she does provide alternatives worth further analysis and consideration, after all, incentives are not that appalling to winning someone’s consent. Further research and public poles should be set up to take a deeper look into such alternative systems, yielding with insight to whether Satel’s suggestions potential in remedying this shortage of organs. While her argument might not be ideal, it does shed the light on this rising issue, and provides us with a place to start looking for solutions.
To kill or let live will explore the utilitarian views of John Stuart Mill, as well as the deontological views of Immanuel Kant on the thought experiment derived from British Philosopher Philippa Foot. Foot had great influence in the advancement of the naturalistic point of view of moral philosophy. The exploration of Philippa Foot’s Rescue I and Rescue II scenarios will provide the different views on moral philosophy through the eyes of John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant. John Stuart Mill’s moral belief centers around utilitarianism; utilitarianism basically states that actions are morally right if the produce the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people. Immanuel Kant’s moral belief centers around deontology, or the obligation and duty to do the right thing.
It’s important to realize that many Americans believe organ donation should simply be just that, a donation to someone in need. However, with the working class making up roughly 60% of society it’s extremely unlikely that a citizen could financially support themselves during and after aiding someone in a lifesaving organ transplant. The alarming consequence, says bioethicist Sigrid Fry-Revere, is that people waiting for kidneys account for 84 percent of the waiting list. To put it another way Tabarrok explains, “In the U.S. alone 83,000 people wait on the official kidney-transplant list. But just 16,500 people received a kidney transplant in 2008, while almost 5,000 died waiting for one” (607). Those numbers are astronomical. When the current “opt-in” policy is failing to solve the organ shortage, there is no reason compensation should be frowned upon. By shifting society’s current definition regarding the morality of organ donation, society will no longer see compensation for organs as distasteful. Citizens will not have to live in fear of their friends and family dying awaiting an organ transplant procedure. A policy implementing compensation would result in the ability for individuals to approach the issue with the mindset that they are helping others and themselves. The government currently regulates a variety of programs that are meant to keep equality and fairness across the
However, as a result of this situation, some major issues may arise. For instance, relatively healthier people will stop going to the hospitals and many would fear that a transplant operations might be performed, etc. Hence, a rule utilitarian will say that we should follow the opposite rule and don't simply harvest the organs of healthy people to give them to the ones who are sick. For a rule utilitarian, it would be completely immoral for any surgeon to kill the normal man and in this case the sixth man. Of course, it is also possible that the act utilitarian ...
After reading The “Most Dangerous Game” we, as a class, were asked whether or not it is considered correct to kill someone but, like a ballot, there were mixed results. This can branch out into a wide variety of topics ranging from abortion to downright murder. “Most Dangerous game” is a short story about a man named Rainsford who gets saved after a boat crash. The man who saved him, General Zaroff, is a hunter. A trait both share in common. However, Zaroff kills humans rather than animals in that the hunt is more thrilling. Of course, there is a disagreement on the subject matter to further the plot. Rainsford is completely opposed to the idea of killing his own kind. We also analyzed the film, “The Hunger Games”. Katniss Everdeen was forced into an arena where the only way to stay alive was to kill others. Both pieces of literature are a survival of the fittest test. Both had justifiable reasons for killing and it made reputable, however morbid, sense.
To show that consequentialism squares with the commonsense moral rules used by deontology or “moral absolutism,” Nielsen assumes, as many do, that outside of cases where one may has to choose the lesser of two evils, consequentialists generally make the same moral decisions as deontologists. He alluded to this general understanding when he wrote that “a consequentialist has very good utilitarian grounds for being so appalled” at acts like the “judicial execution” or “punishment, torture, and killing of the innocent,” but we should consider this assumption to be a premise in his argument so that the argument will be represented here with its full force.
Nadiminti, H. (2005) Organ Transplantation: A dream of the past, a reality of the present, an ethical Challenge for the future. Retrieved February 12, 2014 from http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2005/09/fred1-0509.html
“In everyday life, men and women make decisions that affect the life and death of existing people. They decide whether to join the army; whether to donate blood, a kidney, or bone marrow to a child; whether to give money to Save the Children instead of buying a new sweater; whether to decline a life-saving blood transfusion; whether to drive a small fort on walls that may protect passengers in a crash but often kills those in less substantial vehicles” (Borgmann 23).
“The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson was written in 1948. The story takes place in a village square of a town on June 27th. The author does not use much emotion in the writing to show how the barbaric act that is going on is look at as normal. This story is about a town that has a lottery once a year to choose who should be sacrificed, so that the town will have a plentiful year for growing crops. Jackson has many messages about human nature in this short story. The most important message she conveys is how cruel and violent people can be to one another. Another very significant message she conveys is how custom and tradition can hold great power over people. Jackson also conveys the message of how men treat women as objects.
One of the most important and prevalent issues in healthcare discussed nowadays is the concern of the organ donation shortage. As the topic of organ donation shortages continues to be a growing problem, the government and many hospitals are also increasingly trying to find ways to improve the number of organ donations. In the United States alone, at least 6000 patients die each year while on waiting lists for new organs (Petersen & Lippert-Rasmussen, 2011). Although thousands of transplant candidates die from end-stage diseases of vital organs while waiting for a suitable organ, only a fraction of eligible organ donors actually donate. Hence, the stark discrepancy in transplantable organ supply and demand is one of the reasons that exacerbate this organ donation shortage (Parker, Winslade, & Paine, 2002). In the past, many people sought the supply of transplantable organs from cadaver donors. However, when many ethical issues arose about how to determine whether someone is truly dead by either cardiopulmonary or neurological conditions (Tong, 2007), many healthcare professionals and transplant candidates switched their focus on obtaining transplantable organs from living donors instead. As a result, in 2001, the number of living donors surpassed the number of cadaver donors for the first time (Tong, 2007).
In this paper I will be using the normative theory of utilitarianism as the best defensible approach to increase organ donations. Utilitarianism is a theory that seeks to increase the greatest good for the greatest amount of people (Pense2007, 61). The utilitarian theory is the best approach because it maximizes adult organ donations (which are the greater good) so that the number of lives saved would increase along with the quality of life, and also saves money and time.
Organ Transplants are one of the greatest achievements in modem medicine. However, they depend entirely on the generosity of donors and their families. Surely every compassionate person should jump at the chance, to donate their gift of life when they die! We should all be united in realising the massive positive effect a simple donor organ can have on a community! Then conclusively, looking at it from this angle, every human alive would feel it his or her unquestionable duty to donate their organs when they die?