Introduction
One of the most morally challenging questions related to medical ethics is whether or not healthcare should be rationed. However, the scarcity of medical resources, both now and throughout the history of medicine, has made healthcare rationing inevitable and inescapable. The difficulty is allocating medical resources in a way that maintains the highest standards of medical ethics. In the realm of explicit rationing, attempts are undertaken to clearly define the principles and standards that healthcare providers must adhere to while making rationing judgments including the discussion on organ allocation. Organ allocation raises ethical concerns since it is difficult to employ the appropriate sets of criteria to identify which patients receive needed organs at a particular moment and which do not (Kates et al., 2021). However, in medicine, as in society in general, the primary purpose is to do what is best for all individuals. As a result, the ethical distribution of organs and other resources is a top issue.
Organ Allocation Should Be Based On Merit
There should be procedures that can be employed in the allocation process if there is a shortage of donor organs or new life-saving technologies. The optimal process would be based on the patient’s merit, which would allow for an evaluation of the usefulness that would be produced if the patient received the technology or organ. To do that, it will be necessary to consider the patient’s age, psychological condition, and compatibility.
Justification
The rationale for the recipient’s merit is to guarantee that no patients are discriminated against by examining allocation methods that are based on “merit,” or how well the recipient qualifies, frequently. Anyone interested in obtaining a transplant must first be assessed by a transplant program, which will then decide whether or not to accept that person as a candidate. Several critically ill persons stand to benefit from this move. This is done largely for the benefit of that group. Allocation based on merit guarantees that money is not the primary determinant of the process. It specifically assures that impoverished and critically ill patients are given priority over wealthier and less critically ill individuals when it comes to medicines. However, this does not imply that someone who is both affluent and rich will not be prioritized. The ideal allocation would optimize the overall quantity of (pharmaceutical) good, allocates it reasonably, shows respect for people and their choices, and is in conformity with any other ethical standard that may develop.
Justice, Honesty, and Fairness
In this sense, fairness refers to the equitable distribution of the benefits and drawbacks of organ donation. Equal consideration and care for each patient does not imply treating all patients equally, yet it is required. There will always be an ethical quandary when distributing organs based on social issues (such as race, class, or gender). In the United States, the rules and regulations regulating organ transplantation require that organs be assigned to satisfy two moral ideals: efficiency and equality (Snyder et al., 2018). Each organ-specific allocation algorithm’s criteria represent an effort to reconcile the frequently conflicting needs for the optimal use (i.e., utility or efficiency) and a fair distribution (i.e., justice or equity) of these finite, valuable resources. Besides, they represent historical as well as clinical realities and are subject to continual evaluation and adjustment, particularly in light of new data on crucial outcomes like graft and patient survival.
Conclusion
This policy creation process takes place in a setting with various distinguishing characteristics. The first issue is the chronic lack of organs in the United States, particularly kidneys. Second, geographic and racial/ethnic discrepancies in organ allocation continue. Third, there are key demographic and morbidity trends to consider: the aging of the American population and the looming burden of chronic and end-stage renal disease (Snyder et al., 2018). The problem of fulfilling the moral principles of efficiency and equality in such a society is enormous. A focus on the optimum use of organs may worsen existing disparities. Too much focus on equality may result in inefficiencies and waste in the distribution of a resource whose availability is limited and demand is increasing.
References
Kates, O. S., Stohs, E. J., Pergam, S. A., Rakita, R. M., Michaels, M. G., Wolfe, C. R., Danziger-Isakov, L., Ison, M. G., Blumberg, E. A., Razonable, R. R., Gordon E. J., & Diekema, D. S. (2021). The limits of refusal: An ethical review of solid organ transplantation and vaccine hesitancy. American Journal of Transplantation, 21(8), 2637-2645.
Snyder, J. J., Salkowski, N., Wey, A., Pyke, J., Israni, A. K., & Kasiske, B. L. (2018). Organ distribution without geographic boundaries: A possible framework for organ allocation. American Journal of Transplantation, 18(11), 2635-2640.