Memo on Granting Heart Transplants - Essay Example

Three candidates are waiting for a heart transplant. The first candidate is Jerry, who has 3 teenage daughters studying and an unemployed wife. He is the breadwinner in the family and is 5 years short of his retirement eligibility. His chances of living after heart surgery will be 10-15 years.

The second candidate is a 12-year-old girl named Lisa. Her father works in the same hospital and offered to donate or give 2 Million dollars if the heart will be transplanted to Lisa. Lisa suffered 12 years of lifelong health issues and her chances of living after the surgery are not good. The hospital needed money to finish the construction of the specialized facilities that could help a lot of patients.

The third candidate is Ozzie who happens to be a 38 years old homeless drug abuser. He is single and his heart condition is due to excessive intake of cocaine. He is also a volunteer in a certain charity and is teaching and helping troubled teens and giving them insights and wisdom against drug abuse and other issues. He signed a contract with the same charity and will continue working as a counselor-mentor if he will get the transplant.

Ethics is defined as the study of right or wrong conduct which focuses on moral situations (Ruggiero, 2008). In the situation above we can say that deciding on granting a heart transplant to only one of the three candidates is very difficult. There are a lot of things to consider. At first, when evaluating the three candidates, feelings deeply sympathize with Jerry. Jerry is the most suitable candidate to get the transplant because he is the one who has the highest chance of living years and he has 4 family members who will be benefited. His 3 children need his support for their education and his wife is unemployed. But in making an ethical decision, feelings such as sympathy are not reliable for analyzing moral issues (Ruggiero, 2008). When deciding by feelings, it is completely ignoring other people’s feelings (Ruggiero, 2008).

According to J.S. Mill and Jeremy Bentham who are the most famous teleological ethicists, the most ethical action is the one based on utility or consequence and is the one that gives the most benefits and least harm. When deciding on the principles of utilitarianism, we should consider everyone affected by the decision. In this situation, Jerry will directly benefit 4 persons, Ozzie will benefit the troubled children and Lisa will help the hospital finish the specialized facilities and will help a lot of patients.

Lisa’s condition may not be good after the heart transplant, but her father, an oncologist in the same hospital, will donate a big amount of $2 Million that will greatly help improve the hospital and will therefore serve and help more patients in the future. The benefit that Lisa can give is a long-term benefit to several patients. Granting the transplant to Lisa will boost Dr. Doe’s loyalty to the hospital and his loyalty to the patients.

Although Ozzie can help a lot of troubled children by serving as a counselor-mentor, his chances of recidivism to drug addiction are high. And if he does go back to the same lifestyle of abusing or even using drugs, he will die within months. Off-setting the benefits and disadvantages of giving the transplant to Lisa and Ozzie, Lisa has more benefits to offer and less harm. J.S. Mill and Bentham believe that acting ethically means maximizing good and minimizing bad (Utilitarian Ethics: A Framework for Making Decisions, n.d.). Under Utilitarianism principles, when deciding on ethical issues, it also includes determining relative impacts and evaluating the likelihood of particular consequences occurring.

Therefore, in the situation above, under Utilitarianism, Lisa gives the most number of benefits and therefore the most ethical action or decision among the three. The donation of $2 Million can help improve the services of the hospital to the patients not only for a year but for the long term. This will ensure benefits to countless patients who need the services of the hospital.