Question

"What do you mean, you don't know who he is?" asked Dr. Bridewell, the head of the Oakbrook Hospital Renal Unit. He was unconscious when the police brought him to the ER. We started the IV, stopped his bleeding and patched him up. But he still hasn't recovered consciousness. The police think it was a hit and run driver. Dr. Kathy Mc Dowel spoke in a precise, matter of fact voice. Dr. Bridewell always frightened her, but she was determined not to show it. He didn't have any identification? No. They think somebody came along and robbed him. He was wearing jeans and a sweatshirt, nothing that gives any clue as to his background. Both of his kidneys were hopelessly damaged. But his general physical condition is good, and we think he's a good candidate for a transplant. You know we've got someone declared brain dead. Yes, and we've done an HLA match. We're going to have only one kidney to transplant because the other one is shot. But I've got a candidate, too, so we have to decide which patient get the kidney. Who's the other candidate? A Mrs. Benson. She's a woman in her early sixties who's on the school board. Her husband's a rich lawyer, and both of them move in high social circles. She does a lot of work now with a foundation that helps minority children in school. She also happens to be a good candidate physically for a transplant. So you'll choose her over my patient? Dr. McDowell felt herself getting angry. I didn't say that. How old is this guy? Early or middle thirties. He's in good physical condition. But we don't know anything about him, said Dr. Bridewell. He might just be a drifter passing through town. He's probably not a member of the community this hospital is supposed to serve, the one that pays bills and makes donations. Not that we know of, Dr. Mc Dowell admitted. But we don't know for sure, do we? said Dr. Bridewell. Who gets the kidney? Two people need it. There is only one. Should there be a consideration of the worth of each potential recipient and their contributions to society? Would such considerations be morally correct? How would someone respond to this question using the ethical principles of: Natural Law theorist

Answer 1

Natural law ethics suggests that everyone in this world has an inherent right that’s bestowed by nature or God as some people believe and it shouldn’t be violated at any cost. This could be understood by human reasoning which is what we normally call the sixth sense. So, it wouldn’t ethical to differentiate people who are rich, socially placed in high class, racially considered superior or even someone who give donation to the foundation. Thus, the man who they treat as no one should also get the equal treatment on par with anyone else.

Thank you for your question. Please rate if you like the answer.