Distributive Justice Cutting in line for Organ Transplants The case of Todd Krampitz begs the application of ethical concern in matters of organ donation. Todd Krampitz was diagnosed with liver cancer in 2004. The cancer had already spread throughout his body when he was diagnosed therefore his disease was rendered incurable; the only way out seemed to be a liver transplant…
After pulling some strings, his family was able to arrange a liver for Krampitz. The donor heard about the need of his liver through the media campaign launched by Krampitz’s family. However, a liver transplant only bought Krampitz another eight months. Doctors had already foretold that due to the aggressive nature of cancer, the disease will not be cured even after a transplant. At the time Krampitz got a donor, there were 16000 other better suited candidates on the UNOS wait list. Krampitz was able to jump this queue of 16000, better suited candidates because of his publicity stunt. The question is, was it ethically correct for Krampitz to jump ahead of so many people only because he could? This publicity stunt may have found a donor who would not have been found otherwise but the ethical dilemma of distribution of organs is still there. This dilemma when viewed under Distributive justice can provide a better understanding and analysis of situations such as the one mentioned above. What Krampitz did is legal, technically speaking he never breached any law (Delvoye, 2004). It all boils down to the matter of ethics, how well Krampitz’s case weighs on the moral scale? Distributive justice pertains to ‘fair’ distribution of economic resources among widespread community (Maiese, 2003). This distribution revolves around three factors, number or resources, the procedure and the pattern of distribution (Maiese, 2003). Distributive justice applies to organ donation because there are simply not enough for everyone (Center for Bioethics, 2004). Going back to Krampitz’s case, the procedure, pattern as well as the number of resources (healthy livers available for transplant) all seem to be against Krampitz. What Krampitz did is a violation of ethics, knowing that he was dead anyway, regardless of the transplant. Still he jumped ahead of 1600 people and got himself a healthy liver. Critically speaking, for his own survival he had to take every chance to save himself which is not wrong. But when you’re a citizen, you are part of the social fabric, people are knitted together to keep the society strong. Otherwise, the law of ‘survival of the fittest’ prevails and that means chaos. The matter of distributive justice in healthcare is not a matter of consequential theory. It is not about creating an equitable society; it is about what is in the best interest (mutual interest) of everybody. The idea of Distributive Justice arises in cases of organ donation because there is a wide gap between the supply and demand of human organs. Human organs for transplantation purposes are very scarce. This shortage begs a more just distribution of organs. Distributive justice aims to provide a fair distribution of scarce resources such as human organs. The distributive justice theory employs various criteria to judge and rightfully prefer one individual over another in matters of organ distribution. The theory measures the overall utility of choosing the recipient of an organ. There is another side to this story, the supporters of Krampitz’s case. They say that the media campaign launched by Krampitz found a person who with his own will agreed to donate the liver, therefore adding another donor to the pool of donors. Had this person not reached by Krampitz’s family, he would have chosen not donate at all. This makes the case very strong for Krampitz. Krampitz identified ...
Cite this document
(“DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/other/11665-distributive-justice
(DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 Words)
“DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 Words”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/other/11665-distributive-justice.
The corrective end calls upon the law of torts seeks to seeks to contain wrongful acts though the enhancing the moral conceptions of responsibility and agency for the wrongful acts done , so as to ensure there is reparation for the alleged harm. The distributive end seeks to apportion liability and risks so that rewards and burdens are apportioned to partied based on what they deserve, so that individuals may reap their benefits and faults, and bear burdens proportional to their activities.
John Rawls theory of justice as fairness is defended as the best conception of justice in the community. He pioneered the discussion of distributive justice and has been described as an indisputably the most influential political philosopher of the 20th century.
This judgment will require the defendant to financially compensate the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s legally recognizable costs will have to be settled by the defendant. In some cases, the plaintiff may also be awarded punitive damages and may also obtain an injunction.
The concept takes into account the goods available for distribution, the distribution process and the resultant allocation amongst the members of the society (Lamont 34). Distributive justice, unlike the just process, emphasizes the outcomes of the distributive process.
The two related issues that are debated in distributive justice are the amount of means to be distributed and the degree of intervention of the state for its distribution. The degree of state intervention may vary according to the distribution of the material goods.
The goal of the Justice System is to try to resolve and satisfy all these issues for the members of society. Injustice can result in disappointment, or rebellion. The different spheres articulate the principles of justice and fairness in their own manner resulting in different kinds and concepts of justice.
where each member is able to get whatever resources are available to the society without let or hindrance in the sense that some members of the same society would be given preference over them (Carens, 1981). Of course there are subtle variations and a difference of opinion in
Generally if a patient is diagnosed with an organ failure, the concerned hospital then decides whether that organ could be replaced. If it is found to be possible, the hospital then takes the further step of helping the patient for a transplant. The