Scenario 1: Justice And Age — Should An 89-Year-Old Patient

Scenario 1 Justice And Ageshould An 89 Year Old Patient Get A Heart T

Considerations of justice in healthcare often involve complex ethical debates, especially when allocating scarce resources such as organ transplants. The question arises whether age should influence the decision to allocate a life-saving heart transplant. Specifically, should an 89-year-old patient be prioritized over a younger patient, such as a 10-year-old girl, solely based on age or other ethical principles? These questions challenge the fairness and principles underlying medical resource allocation.

The principle of justice in healthcare emphasizes fairness, equity, and impartiality in the distribution of resources. It is often contrasted with principles like utility, which aims to maximize overall benefits, and respect for persons, which emphasizes individual autonomy and worth. When considering organ transplants, especially hearts, decisions are typically guided by criteria such as medical urgency, likelihood of success, and waiting time, but age can become a contentious factor.

One argument against prioritizing based on age is the concept of equal worth, where every individual should have an equal opportunity to benefit from scarce resources, regardless of age. From an ethical perspective rooted in egalitarianism, prioritizing younger over older patients may be viewed as discriminatory, potentially violating the principle of justice as fairness. Conversely, some argue that prioritizing younger patients might be justified under the "fair innings" argument, which posits that younger individuals should be given priority because they have had fewer opportunities to experience life (Persad, Wertheimer, & Emanuel, 2009).

In practical terms, transplant allocation systems often incorporate medical criteria such as the likelihood of success and the potential for regained quality of life, rather than age alone. Scientific data indicates that older patients generally have reduced post-transplant survival rates and higher complication risks, which could support age-based prioritization from a utilitarian standpoint (Kumar et al., 2015). However, this approach can be ethically contentious, as it may be perceived as age discrimination, undermining the principle of respecting all individuals' inherent dignity.

Ethically, many guidelines and organ allocation policies attempt to balance these considerations by using ranking systems such as the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) criteria, which prioritize based on medical urgency, time on the waiting list, and likelihood of success, rather than age explicitly. This approach seeks to adhere to the principle of justice by ensuring fairness while considering factors that influence outcomes.

Additionally, some bioethicists argue that age should be considered only as a secondary factor, if at all, because privileging one age group over another might perpetuate ageism and societal inequities. The overarching goal remains to maximize health benefits and fairness, acknowledging both individual needs and societal implications (Childress et al., 2002).

In conclusion, whether an 89-year-old patient should receive a heart transplant over a 10-year-old girl involves weighing the ethical principles of justice, fairness, utility, and respect for persons. Organ allocation policies tend to favor medical criteria and fairness principles over age alone, striving to balance ethical considerations with practical outcomes to ensure equitable access to life-saving treatments.

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical dilemma of allocating scarce medical resources like heart transplants raises profound questions about justice, fairness, and societal values. Age is a significant factor in these debates, especially when weighing the needs of elderly versus pediatric patients. This paper explores whether age should influence transplant decisions, considering ethical principles, medical success probabilities, societal values, and current organ allocation policies.

Fundamentally, justice in healthcare mandates fairness and equal opportunity. Deciding whether an 89-year-old should be prioritized over a 10-year-old involves balancing multiple ethical principles such as utilitarianism, egalitarianism, and respect for persons. Advocates for prioritizing younger patients argue that they have had fewer life opportunities and hence deserve more favorable consideration—the so-called "fair innings" argument (Persad et al., 2009). This perspective posits that everyone is entitled to a "full" life span, and those who have not yet achieved this should be given priority.

Conversely, a strict egalitarian perspective emphasizes unconditional fairness, asserting that age should not be a determining factor in healthcare decisions. From this perspective, each patient’s intrinsic worth and right to life should prevail, making decisions based solely on medical urgency and potential benefit, rather than demographic factors (Childress et al., 2002). This approach aligns with principles embedded in organ transplantation guidelines, which often focus on medical criteria such as survival likelihood, waiting time, and behavioral factors, thereby avoiding direct discrimination based on age.

Empirical data indicates that older patients generally face higher post-transplant mortality, increased complication rates, and reduced organ survival (Kumar et al., 2015). From a utilitarian standpoint focused on maximizing health outcomes, prioritizing younger patients with higher expected post-transplant survival could be justified. However, this utilitarian view risks marginalizing the elderly, framing age as the primary criterion for success rather than individual medical assessments and social worth.

Current organ allocation systems, such as those managed by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN), aim to balance fairness and utility. They prioritize based on medical urgency, time on the waiting list, and expected transplant success, intentionally avoiding explicit age-based criteria. This system seeks to uphold justice by treating individuals equitably, acknowledging that outcomes can influence moral and societal perceptions of fairness (Boyarsky et al., 2014).

Ethical considerations also extend to societal values about aging and the worth of life at different stages. Some argue that aging should not diminish a person's claim to life-saving treatment; others posit that society has a moral obligation to prioritize those who can benefit most substantially from transplantation. The notion of ageism—discrimination based on age—poses ethical challenges, as it can devalue the lives of older adults unjustly (Levy & Banaji, 2002).

In summary, the decision to prioritize an 89-year-old for a heart transplant over a 10-year-old involves balancing ethical principles of justice, utility, and respect for individual dignity. While medical success probabilities might favor younger recipients, organ allocation policies tend to emphasize fairness and medical criteria over age alone. Ultimately, a utilitarian approach, combined with a commitment to equitable treatment, guides current practice, although ongoing ethical debates continue to shape policies and societal perceptions of fairness in healthcare.

References

• Boyarsky, B. J., Garonzik-Wang, J. M., Paek, E., et al. (2014). Allocation of Deceased-Donor Kidneys According to the Kidney Donor Profile Index. New England Journal of Medicine, 370(7), 599–600.
• Childress, J. F., Faden, R. R., & Beauchamp, T. L. (2002). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Kumar, D., Riddell, J., & Fenton-Mersh, P. (2015). Outcomes of older kidney transplant recipients. Transplantation Reviews, 29(4), 234–240.
• Levy, B. R., & Banaji, M. R. (2002). Implicit ageism. Psychology and Aging, 17(4), 523–529.
• Persad, G., Wertheimer, A., & Emanuel, E. J. (2009). Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions. Lancet, 373(9661), 423–431.
• Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN). (2021). Policies for Organ Allocation. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
• Shenoy, C., & Pappas, P. (2018). Ethical considerations in organ transplantation: An overview. Transplant Infectious Disease, 20(4), e12903.
• Segev, D. L., & Cohen, B. (2018). The ethics of organ allocation and transplantation. Nature Reviews Nephrology, 14(2), 73–84.
• Varetić, L., & Martinović, K. (2011). Ethical dilemmas in organ transplantation. Croatian Medical Journal, 52(4), 447–453.
• Wailoo, A. J., & Maucioni, L. (2011). Ethical frameworks for organ allocation. Hastings Center Report, 41(4), 36–43.