The Dilemma of Selecting a Suitable Recipient - Case Study Example

The Dilemma of Selecting a Suitable Recipient I want to reiterate the need to view proper course of action in terms of its consequences. Thus, any physician confronted with the dilemma of selecting a suitable recipient among three patients must concentrate on the consequences of his/her actions. “An action is morally right if it benefits the majority.” Thus, as a physician I made the difficult decision of performing the heart transplant to Lisa. My decision is justified by utilitarianism’s emphasis on the “greatest happiness for the greatest number of individuals”.

Lisa’s father, Dr. Jonathan Doe, offered 2 million dollars for the hospital if a heart transplant is undertaken to his daughter. The 2 million-dollar donation of Dr Jonathan Doe will greatly benefit the hospital. It will improve the facilities of the hospital and increase the scope of research on cause and treatment of different illnesses. Thus, it will enable the hospital to respond to the needs of a greater number of patients. In addition, it is expected that more patients will be given appropriate treatment and medications if I conduct heart transplant to Lisa.

However, my decision to conduct a heart transplant to Lisa denies Jerry and Ozzie of the chance of survival. The three children of Jerry aged 14, 16 and 19 will be denied of a provider and a father. However, they may receive monthly support from the death insurance and pension of their father. Two of Jerry’s children can still avail financial support from his pension, while all of them can survive through his insurance. In addition, there is still a higher likelihood that Joanie can find a job or start a business through the insurance that she will receive after Jerry’s death.

This justifies my decision to conduct heart transplant to Lisa instead of Jerry. The heart transplant to Lisa also denies the youth of knowledge and experience possess by Ozzie in overcoming substance problems. He has agreed to serve as a counselor-mentor for a year in a particular organization if he gets the heart transplant. Undeniably, this will benefit a great number of youth who are confronted with drug and alcohol problems. This number is incomparable to the patients that will be benefited if Dr Jonathan Doe donated 2 million dollars in the hospital.

In addition, there is no assurance that Ozzie will be effective as a counselor-mentor in inducing change among the youth. Thus, it makes it reasonable to undertake heart transplant to Lisa rather than to Ozzie. As a physician, I don’t have the right to impose life or death among patients; however, under the given circumstances, it is essential for me to choose an action that maximizes the greater good of the majority. This decision entails that sacrifices are made by some individuals to promote the greater good.

I am presenting this explanation behind my decision with the hope that you will understand why I opt to undertake a heart transplant to Lisa. I have undertaken this action without any intention to harm anyone, but only to promote the interest of the majority. In addition, this is to verify that I recognize my responsibilities as a physician and that I am fully liable for my action. ReferencesShoskes, D. A. (2010). Kidney and Pancreas transplantation: A practical guide. USA: Springer.

Stein, A., Higgins, R., & Wild, J. (2008). Kidney transplants explained. USA: Class.