Read/review the following resources for this activity:

• Textbook: Chapters 7, 8 (he Elements of Moral Philosophy Authors: James Rachels, Stuart Rachels

Publisher: Mcgraw-Hill Education)

• Minimum of 2 scholarly sources (in addition to the textbook)
• Narrated PowerPoint TutorialLinks to an external site. (Make sure to review this tutorial before you begin recording.)

Instructions

For this week’s assignment respond to one of the following options, and include Option 1, 2, or 3 as part of your heading.

Option 3: John Doe, Patient One, is in late stage of kidney disease. If he does not receive a new kidney, then he is predicted to die within a week. Doe is 45, single, and has no children. Doctors theorize that Doe damaged his kidney by not following a low-salt diet. Doe inherited one million dollars and is known for giving money to charity. Without a transplant, he will probably be forced to spend all his money searching for a kidney outside of the usual legal channels. Patient Two is Jane Doe (no relation to John). Patient Two is a mother of two children (ages 21 and 24). She is divorced and 55 years old. She developed kidney problems due to eating a high-fat and high-sugar diet. If she does not receive a kidney within one month, doctors believe she will die. Patient Three is an orphan. This orphan lives in a state facility. She was born with a genetic condition that constantly damages her kidney. The only known approach to her condition is to provide her with a kidney transplant every so often. She is 11 and has already undergone two kidney transplants. She will perish in two months if she does not receive another transplant.

All three patients are at the same hospital. The hospital only has one kidney to give out. The orphan’s birth parents were known to be of a religion that is opposed to organ donation. The other patients come from religions that do not oppose organ donation. Who should get the kidney? Why should that candidate receive it over the others? Devise a course of social action and a solution for this case by using the ethics of egoism and then utilitarianism to a key moral conflict involving health care in this case. Appraise the interests of diverse populations (in terms of ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.) and how they relate to the case. Consider whether differing ethical beliefs globally might or not agree with what you say.

For all the options:

Cite the textbook and incorporate outside sources, including citations.

Consider whether differing ethical beliefs globally might or not agree with what you say.

You will submit the following:

• An audiovisual presentation that presents one of the options above. Be sure to give equal time to each element. Doing a PowerPoint presentation with audio recorded on the slides is preferred. Please refer to the Narrated PowerPoint Tutorial located in the Required Resources in this assignment.
• Please provide a transcript of anything said in the recording aloud that does not appear as text on a slide. This transcript can be provided as a Word document or placed in the Notes section on the PowerPoint slides.
• The link or a scan of the article mentioning any health technology, social technology, or case you are reporting on. If you made up the case, please indicate that in your report. If you choose to do option #3 (the case about a shortage of transplant kidneys), your article would likely be an article about the shortage of transplant organs, or a shortage of people signing up to be transplant donors, or the status of educating people about being donors, etc.

Requirements

• Length: 7 minutes narrated presentation
• Slide length: 4-6 slides (not including title slide, conclusion slide, or references slide)
• Title slide
• Conclusion slide
• References slide (minimum of 2 scholarly sources cited in APA format; not narrated)

ANSWER

Ethical Dilemma in Organ Transplantation: A Case Study Analysis

Introduction

In this presentation, we will explore an ethical dilemma involving the allocation of a single kidney to three patients with varying medical histories and personal circumstances. This scenario raises complex questions about distributive justice, ethical principles, and the challenges of making decisions that uphold the interests of diverse populations. To address this dilemma, we will apply the ethical theories of egoism and utilitarianism, considering their implications in the context of organ transplantation.

Scenario Overview

John Doe, Patient One, is in the late stages of kidney disease, with a life-threatening prognosis without a transplant. Jane Doe, Patient Two, faces a similarly critical situation due to kidney problems caused by her dietary choices. Patient Three, an orphan with a genetic kidney condition, requires regular transplants to survive. With only one available kidney, the hospital must decide which candidate will receive it.

Ethical Analysis using Egoism

Egoism advocates for actions that maximize one’s self-interest. From an egoistic perspective, each patient’s individual interests are central. John Doe’s philanthropic history and ability to contribute to society through his wealth could lead to an argument in his favor. However, egoism can be criticized for prioritizing self-interest over the greater good, potentially leading to unequal allocation of resources.

Ethical Analysis using Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism, on the other hand, promotes actions that maximize overall happiness or well-being. In this context, the utilitarian approach would focus on the greatest benefit to the collective. Given the short life expectancy of the orphan and the urgency of her situation, providing the kidney to her may yield the highest utility. This approach, however, may raise concerns about the potential suffering of John and Jane Doe.

Balancing Ethical Principles

The ethical analysis must consider the diverse interests and beliefs of the involved populations. Ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation, and cultural factors can influence perspectives on organ transplantation. While the orphan’s birth parents opposed organ donation, the other patients’ religions do not share the same stance. Balancing these interests requires sensitive consideration and potentially prioritizing a course of action that respects the broader ethical principles while addressing individual circumstances.

Conclusion

The scarcity of available organs creates ethical dilemmas that challenge healthcare professionals, policymakers, and society as a whole. The case of organ allocation presented here highlights the intricate interplay between egoism and utilitarianism, as well as the necessity to balance diverse interests and beliefs. The allocation decision should strive to reflect ethical principles while accounting for the medical urgency and potential impact on individuals and communities. By fostering open dialogue and considering differing ethical beliefs globally, we can work towards a more just and equitable approach to organ transplantation.