SHOULD not BE PRIORITISED ACCORDING TO EqualityDoctor or Arbiter?

Group Members

The doctor must play an inappropriate/unethical role of judging others.

FOR AGAINST

Strengths:- Undermines the doctor-patient relationship. Patients may lose trust & withhold information. Utilitarianism: can the doctor really do the best for the greater good if the doctor-patient relationship is undermined?

Each person is considered of equal worth and equal access to health care should be given, regardless of variable need.

FOR AGAINST

Strengths:- There are many other non-controllable factors that may contribute to the disease, making it impossible to allocate the organ fairly.-The argument of utilitarianism in undermined as a characteristic of this principle is impartiality: each person’s welfare counts equal.Weaknesses: - argued that people who participate in risky health behavior are contributing to their illness therefore could be considered as unequal according to the principles of justice - To whom should we do good? Giving an organ to a patient with an unhealthy life-style means someone else will miss out.

Although there are strong arguments on both sides of this debate, we believe the arguments against the prioritisation of organ transplants are more strongly supported, by a wider range of ethical principles. Deontology supports that it is not the doctor’s role to choose who lives and dies, but to treat each individual patient equally. Autonomy validates one’s choice to live and enjoy life’s risks, as well as a patient’s right to request treatment. To deny a patient treatment due to their lifestyle choices is not in the patient’s best interests and causes them harm, thus opposing the principals of beneficence and non-maleficence. We believe a system for prioritisation for organ transplants should based on other factors, such as the likelihood of benefit for the patient and the urgency of treatment.

Research, poster & speech: Juliette Roex, Emma Lane, Kate Seagrim, Ned Young, Jaya Lindsay

organ transplants lifestyle

factors

Demand

Supply

?Who should receive the organ?

For Against

Non-Maleficenc

e

Respect for Autonomy

Deontology

Utilitarianism

There is a personal right to engage in risky behaviour and any life involves some health-risk

FOR AGAINST

Strengths:

ForAgainst

Universality

Respect for Autonomy

Utilitarianism

ForAgains

t

Universality

Non-Maleficence

Beneficence

Deontology

Justice

Utilitarianism

- Patient has the right to make their own choices, even if they are harmful.

If one person is allowed to risk their health by engaging in a dangerous sport, than other people should be allowed to risk their health by smoking

- A transplant could do more

good in a patient who does not

undertake risky behaviour

- The doctor’s duty is to treat patients, irrespective of the cause of illness.- Patient has a right to make decisions for themselves- Refusing to treat a patient based on past lifestyle choices is doing harm.

- Judgment by the doctor may

result in greater good for a

greater number

- scarce resources should be allocated on an equal and fair basis

Egalitarianism

- Priorities must be set to obtain the best outcomes for the greatest amount of

people- “equals should be treated

equally and unequal's should be treated unequally.” When

resources are limited it is necessary to define certain

circumstances under which a

person may not be considered

equally

-It is the doctors duty to provide patients access to health care, regardless oftheir background. - Act for the good ofothers, meaningevery patient who wishes to have atransplant, should receive one.- denial of access to organs based onlifestyle factors could cause considerable harm to the patient.- If organ transplants are prioritised based on risky lifestyle, then all health care should be prioritised accordingly.

Conclusion

Right to Risky behaviour