You Decide

The most challenging ethical issues in health care are those concerning organ transplants. However, it remains the duty of every individual in healthcare to rise above these difficulties and painful medical choices, and fulfill all their responsibilities to the best of their knowledge. This Objective is, unfortunately, not achievable unless we factor in the role of the society in the delivery of patient care and treatment. In light of this, I find myself in a situation where I have to make a critical decision, one that is both challenging and unfair, but necessary nevertheless. This memorandum aims to substantiate the reasoning behind the choice as regards who will receive the presently available heart.

The factors consistently considered in this choice include; the urgency of treatment, compatibility, the transformation effect on the recipient, the likelihood of positive outcomes and, the duration of the benefits resulting from the procedure (Duda, 2019). The applicants are Lisa, a 12-year-old girl with lifelong medical conditions; Jerry, a 55-year-old family man and; Ozzy, a 38-year-old male with drug abuse issues. From a medical point of view, Lisa, among all other candidates appears more fragile and in dire need of medical assistance. Also, because of the urgency of the situation and sensitivity of a heart transplant, determining Ozzy’s state of health might be difficult, especially since there is a high chance that his body will reject the organ due to substances in his system. Jerry’s health overall health might also be wanting, but it remains agreeable that the little girl’s case remains highly sensitive and her future probably depends on this decision.

John Stuart’s ethics advocate for choices that result in a greater good, an outcome that benefits a considerable portion of society (Driver, 2019). It is undisputed that children will always come first to all right-thinking members of a community. It, therefore means that the decision to put Lisa’s treatment in this situation would result in an outcome of great significance to the society. She is a young individual, who although with lifelong health issues, shows promise of a long life ahead of her. With over five decades, Jerry continues to share his contributions, wisdom, and ideas to the world, but, although painful and unfair, I feel that in this emergency, it is fair and prudent that we consider Lisa who is yet to enjoy life. I believe the decision presents the society with a better outcome than in all other candidates, at this moment.

Immanuel Kant proposed that we should do the right thing, no matter the consequences or outcomes because it is the right thing to do (Csus, 2019). With his concepts in mind, I ask myself if another individual, with careful consideration, would make a similar decision under the same conditions, and the answer is affirmative. The moral worth of this decision is dependent upon our desire, as human beings, to protect minors and those individuals unable to fight for their survival. This philosophy, therefore, bolsters this choice that I painfully make.

Although both philosophers argue with concepts that exist in extreme ends, they both agree that the decision to give allocate Lisa this presently available organ is morally correct. Firstly it will have immense benefits to society and, secondly, it is inherently right. In light of this, I conclusively conclude that the neediest patient at this moment of emergency is Lisa and she should, thus, receive the available organ plant immediately. It is my faith in all factors considered, that this decision was morally correct, it will provide Lisa with the most benefits for the most extended period possible, and that it is for the greater good.



Csus. (2019). KANTIAN ETHICS. Retrieved from

Duda, L. (2019). National Organ Allocation Policy: The Final Rule. Retrieved from

Driver, J. (2019). The History of Utilitarianism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Summer 2009 Edition). Retrieved from