ETHC 445 Week 4 Greater Good Analysis

Grace J.
August 7, 2025August 7, 2025
CU BSN, ETHC-445

Student Name

Chamberlain University

ETHC-445 Principles of Ethics

Prof. Name

Date

INTRODUCTION

This paper explores the ethical dilemma surrounding the allocation of a scarce resource: a kidney transplant. The case involves three patients, each with unique personal histories and religious beliefs, ranging in age from 11 to 55 years old. The ethical question at the heart of this study is: who among these patients should receive the kidney transplant?

WHO SHOULD GET THE KIDNEY?

After evaluating the three candidates, my recommendation is to prioritize patient two for the kidney transplant. This patient is a 55-year-old divorced woman with two children, facing imminent death within one month without the transplant. Her situation presents a critical urgency compared to the other patients.

REASONS FOR CHOOSING PATIENT TWO

Several factors support the selection of patient two as the transplant recipient:

Patient	Age	Survival Time Without Transplant	Survival Chance Post-Transplant	Additional Notes
1	11	Longer	Has financial resources (~$1M)	Can potentially afford transplant elsewhere
2	55	1 month	Highest among the three	Has dependents (two children)
3	N/A	2 months	Moderate	Has already had two transplants

Patient two not only has the highest likelihood of survival with the transplant but also faces the most immediate risk of death without it. Patient one’s financial ability to seek alternative treatment reduces the ethical imperative for prioritization. Patient three, with an estimated two months to live and prior transplants, can endure a brief wait.

ETHICS OF EGOISM

The ethical principle of egoism, which prioritizes self-interest, is illustrated in this scenario by patient three. Despite her parents’ religious and cultural opposition to organ donation, she has sought and received two kidney transplants for her own benefit (Rachels, 2018). This demonstrates ethical egoism, where actions are justified by their benefits to oneself, sometimes regardless of communal or cultural values.

UTILITARIANISM IN THE SCENARIO

Utilitarianism emphasizes maximizing overall happiness and treats each individual’s happiness as equally important. In this case, however, utilitarianism faces challenges because only one kidney is available, which cannot be divided. Therefore, although the principle calls for the greatest good for the greatest number, a decision must be made favoring the candidate whose transplant will result in the greatest benefit (Jonsen, 2012). This means the choice may deviate from strict utilitarian ideals to accommodate practical realities.

HOBBES ARGUMENT

According to Hobbes, individuals might resort to violence to obtain what they desire (Messerly, 2015). While this transplant scenario does not involve physical violence, conflict among decision-makers is possible regarding who should receive the kidney. Hobbes’ idea that the less powerful can overcome the stronger by forming alliances is relevant here: collaborative decision-making bodies could check the influence of dominant parties, leading to a fairer allocation process.

CONCLUSION

Ethical decisions are inherently complex and subjective, often varying based on individual values and societal norms. Determining the most appropriate candidate for a kidney transplant among these patients brings moral challenges to the forefront. To mitigate biases and favoritism, legal frameworks and ethical guidelines have been established to govern such life-and-death decisions, ensuring equity and justice in organ allocation.

REFERENCES

Jonsen, A. R. (2012). The ethics of organ transplantation: A brief history. AMA Journal of Ethics, 264-268.

Messerly, J. (2015, May 1). Summary of Hobbes’ political and ethical theories. Retrieved from Reason and Meaning: https://reasonandmeaning.com/2015/05/01/hobbes-political-and-ethical-theories-in-two-pages/