Who deserves it?

[JuJube]

Senerio:
You are on the hospitals ethics board, and the hospital has a heart donor with 5 people there in the hosptal needing it. Whom do you think deserves the heart and why? Do you think God would agree with your choice ? and why. ALSO( you do not know the info in the parenthesis)

1. 32 year old who is a recovering alcoholic (that has a family and children and helps others in the AA program)

2. 40 year old missionary (that teaches the poor children in Africa and has HIV)

3. 22 year old reformed drug addict/prostitute (that visits schools telling their testimony to kids on the pitfalls of life and how to stay away from them)

4. 18 year old student (scholarship to college the next coming year)

5. 30 year old pilot (who flies medicine into the mountains of Mexico all of his own cost)

 

[RealSorceror]

Theres simply no way I can make this kind of decision and feel good about myself.
So, I'm gonna have to pass.

 

[Skaloop]

Senerio:
You are on the hospitals ethics board, and the hospital has a heart donor with 5 people there in the hosptal needing it. Whom do you think deserves the heart and why? Do you think God would agree with your choice ? and why. ALSO( you do not know the info in the parenthesis)

1. 32 year old who is a recovering alcoholic (that has a family and children and helps others in the AA program)

2. 40 year old missionary (that teaches the poor children in Africa and has HIV)

3. 22 year old reformed drug addict/prostitute (that visits schools telling their testimony to kids on the pitfalls of life and how to stay away from them)

4. 18 year old student (scholarship to college the next coming year)

5. 30 year old pilot (who flies medicine into the mountains of Mexico all of his own cost)

Well, #2 is out right away, due to age and existing disease.

As for the rest, it comes down to donor compatibility, urgency of need, and their position on the waiting list.

God's agreement would not factor into it.

Now, what's the info I don't know?

 

[bliz]

Currently the standard is to give the heart to the person who needs it the most and is in condition to survive the transplant and is able to take the anti-rejection drugs.
works for me.

 

[Mling]

Currently the standard is to give the heart to the person who needs it the most and is in condition to survive the transplant and is able to take the anti-rejection drugs.
works for me.

While "needs it the most" seems like it could become a nonsensical question (who doesn't need a heart? It seems a bit like asking who needs air most, vs who does pretty well with a pillow over their face), that works for me too.
Give it to the one who will die the soonest without it. The one who can make it another month or year may still end up dying, but things can be done, and another heart could turn up in that time.

If it was a liver, and the person was currently a heavy drinker, or something similar to that, I'd be tempted to skip them over if there is somebody else waiting who isn't going to mess up the organ. Seems like a waste: one person dies and donates an organ, two people need it and only one gets it, the other dies for the lack, and then the one who got it dies because he destroyed it.
I don't know if that's actually right, to do that, but I'd be tempted.
I don't think that "he flies meds to Mexico" or "she used to be (or even still is) a prostitute" should factor in at all. Like the OP points out, there's plenty of stuff we might not know.

 

[jayem]

I work in health care, and have served on an ethics committee. At our (and most all) hospitals, those decisions are made by the transplant service. The ethics committee would not usually be involved unless there was a some conflict among the members of the transplant team, or (as is much more common) conflict among family members of a potential recipient who may be incapable of giving consent for the procedure.

But as other posters have noted, the decision about which recipients are given priority for an organ are made strictly on medical grounds, primarily urgency of need, and overall likelihood of a successful outcome.

 

[JuJube]

Well, #2 is out right away, due to age and existing disease.

As for the rest, it comes down to donor compatibility, urgency of need, and their position on the waiting list.

God's agreement would not factor into it.

Now, what's the info I don't know?

what's in the parenthesis is the info not know.......but does it affect your decision? Thats is what is part of this whole thing. Does it affect you decision?

 

[Skaloop]

what's in the parenthesis is the info not know.......but does it affect your decision is what is part of this whole thing. Does it affect you decision?

Does what affect my decision? The info I don't know? No, it doesn't, since I don't know it. Could that info affect my decision if I knew what that info was? Possibly, if it were relevent.

Or does that fact that there are unknown factors affect my decision? Again, as I don't know what they are, they cannot have an affect.

 

[Futuwwa]

I would roll a die. None of them deserves it more than the others, and I don't see how preferring one over the other would serve a greater good better than choosing any other.

 

[momalle1]

You should have waited with the additional information.

I would say the first person that came for it. There must be some reason God brought them to me first.

 

[Futuwwa]

...and if I roll a dice, there must be some reason why God let the dice land on a particular side

 

[JuJube]

Does what affect my decision? The info I don't know? No, it doesn't, since I don't know it. Could that info affect my decision if I knew what that info was? Possibly, if it were relevent.

Or does that fact that there are unknown factors affect my decision? Again, as I don't know what they are, they cannot have an affect.

Being on that panel. If you were to have the first part of the information, how would you choose. Now, take into consideration the information in the parenthesis. Would that change your decision.
This was part of an ethics question that was presented to us. Just wanted to see what you all would say. We all had the same questions. I quess I will dole out more as we go. But there were reasons as to how the info was given. Gosh, it's just a question yall.

 

[Skaloop]

Being on that panel. If you were to have the first part of the information, how would you choose. Now, take into consideration the information in the parenthesis. Would that change your decision.
This was part of an ethics question that was presented to us. Just wanted to see what you all would say. We all had the same questions. I quess I will dole out more as we go. But there were reasons as to how the info was given. Gosh, it's just a question yall.

Ah, now I see. The only thing that would change my stance would be the HIV status of #2. If the alcoholic was not a recovered alcoholic, I would be less likely to choose him (especially since I know of someone who got a transplant but wouldn't stop drinking and gave himself further problems, essentially wasting the new heart). Ditto for the reformed druggie/prostitute.

Other than that, things still stand as before. Urgency of need, donor compatibility, and spot on the waiting list.

 

[Bombila]

Skaloop's got it, as far as my opinion goes: "Urgency of need, donor compatibility, and spot on the waiting list."

With or without the added information, the only questionable was the recovering alcoholic, who might not be able to recover from a transplant. But if the surgeons judged that he could, and he was most urgent, compatible, and next on the list, he'd get the heart.

These things usually throw in a convicted child murderer or two to tweak one's moral fibre; or is that in the next set of information?

 

[justanobserver]

Senerio:
You are on the hospitals ethics board, and the hospital has a heart donor with 5 people there in the hosptal needing it. Whom do you think deserves the heart and why? Do you think God would agree with your choice ? and why. ALSO( you do not know the info in the parenthesis)

1. 32 year old who is a recovering alcoholic (that has a family and children and helps others in the AA program)

2. 40 year old missionary (that teaches the poor children in Africa and has HIV)

3. 22 year old reformed drug addict/prostitute (that visits schools telling their testimony to kids on the pitfalls of life and how to stay away from them)

4. 18 year old student (scholarship to college the next coming year)

5. 30 year old pilot (who flies medicine into the mountains of Mexico all of his own cost)

If I was sitting on the board and what is described is all the info sans the stuff in the pragraphs, then I would decide as to the youngest and fittest as the best choice as well as tissue compatibility, blood typing, etc.

I would have to assume there can be other organ/tissue damage with the recovering alcoholic/addict (I am a recovering alcoholic/addict so I can relate), the 40 yr old is mainly due to age as well as the 30 yr old.

So, just on the choices given - I would say the 18 yr old.

just my opinion only.

 

[loudatheist101]

You believe that your God has the power of the universe. Then he should have the power to save 5 good people's lives.

 

[momalle1]

...and if I roll a dice, there must be some reason why God let the dice land on a particular side

Could be!

 

[momalle1]

You believe that your God has the power of the universe. Then he should have the power to save 5 good people's lives.

What makes you think he doesn't?

 

[Skaloop]

What makes you think he doesn't?

That five good people die every day. So clearly, God doesn't save them.

 

[loudatheist101]

God doesn't save the *thousands* of those people everyday. Wonder why...