Age-Based Organ Allocation and the Definition of Death
This paper addresses two interrelated bioethics topics: age-based prioritization in organ allocation and competing definitions of death. The first section evaluates the "fair innings" and "prudential lifespan" theories, assessing Bernard Williams's critique that age-based allocation reflects a quantity-over-quality bias and arguing instead for a non-biased allocation system. The second section explores how high-profile cases such as Terri Schiavo have intensified public debate over what constitutes death, contrasting clinical death with whole-brain death and examining the ambiguity introduced by life-sustaining technology.
- Age-Based Prioritization in Organ Allocation: Overview of age-based organ allocation debate
- Fair Innings, Prudential Lifespan, and Williams's Critique: Williams critiques quantity-over-quality age bias
- The Case for a Non-Biased Allocation System: Argument for a fair, characteristic-neutral system
- Public Policy and the Meaning of Death: Schiavo case sparks public definition-of-death debate
- Clinical Death Versus Brain Death: Two definitions: no pulse vs. brain-dead
- The Ambiguity of Whole-Brain Death: Technology and personhood blur brain-death boundaries
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Directly engages competing theoretical frameworks — Williams's critique versus Daniels's defense of age rationing — and clearly identifies the tension between them.
- Uses a concrete, relatable example (a 25-year-old versus an 85-year-old competing for an organ) to illustrate abstract ethical principles, making the argument accessible.
- Extends the logical critique of age bias to a broader conclusion: any single characteristic (age, quality of life, race, gender) introduces unfairness, supporting a call for a neutral allocation system.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative ethical analysis: it introduces two theories side by side, uses a scholarly critique (Williams on "fair innings") to expose the limitations of a competing view (Daniels), and then synthesizes both to argue for a third position. This move — acknowledge, critique, synthesize — is a standard technique in applied ethics writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper is divided into two numbered sections. Section 1 covers organ allocation ethics, progressing from theory exposition to critique to a normative conclusion. Section 2 shifts to the definition of death, moving from a policy-motivation case (Schiavo) to dual definitions of death and finally to the philosophical ambiguity created by medical technology. Each section stands alone but shares an underlying concern with how medicine and ethics define the boundaries of human life.
Age-Based Prioritization in Organ Allocation
The "fair innings" account and the "prudential lifespan" account support age-based prioritization in organ allocation by suggesting that there is a certain amount of time that people should live. For example, if a young man of 25 dies, it is viewed as a tragedy because he was so young — he died before his time. But if an old man of 85 dies, it is viewed differently: then it is his time.
Fair Innings, Prudential Lifespan, and Williams's Critique
Williams argues that this is a biased kind of thinking that considers quantity of years rather than quality of life. The 25-year-old could have a far worse quality of life than the 85-year-old, but that consideration does not enter into many people's judgments. Thus, if a person were asked who should receive an organ for transplant, most would answer that the young man of 25 should receive it because he still has many more years ahead of him, whereas the man of 85 has had a good run and should not be given an organ when there is a younger person who could make better use of it. This is how the theories of fair innings and prudential lifespan are applied in practice.
The Case for a Non-Biased Allocation System
Williams is correct to assert that this represents a biased treatment of patients, and his argument makes more sense than Daniels's position — that age rationing is prudent in some cases. Daniels's theory reflects the very age bias that Williams dissects in his assessment of the fair innings account, and this is why age-based prioritization in organ allocation continues to be supported by some. However, if one applies a genuinely fair standard and takes quality of life into consideration, age-based allocation does not hold up.
Yet one must also ask: why should a person receive an organ based on quality of life rather than age? Each criterion represents its own form of bias. There should be a non-biased system in place — one that does not regard age, quality of life, race, ethnicity, gender, or any similar characteristic. Such a system would be the only truly fair mechanism for deciding who receives an organ and who does not.
Public Policy and the Meaning of Death
The stimulus for intense public policy discussions about the real meaning of death typically arises when a high-profile case such as that of Terri Schiavo emerges and causes a massive divide among the public — some arguing she should be fed and not starved, others contending she should be allowed to die. It is a deeply polarizing and emotionally charged topic.
Clinical Death Versus Brain Death
Two meanings of death have emerged from these discussions. The first is that death occurs when a person has no pulse and is no longer breathing — this person is clinically dead. The second is that a person can have a pulse but be brain-dead, and when the entire brain is dead, that constitutes another definition of death. This refers to whole-brain death — not merely the loss of higher brain function, as was the case with Terri Schiavo.
When some portion of the brain remains active, the person may still exhibit responses such as eye movement, which suggest a form of life. These two ways of defining death — clinical death with no pulse and the concept of brain death — have set the stage for ongoing public and medical debate, since brain death is far less clear-cut, particularly when a pulse is still present.
References
Veatch, Robert M. "The Definition of Death: Problems for Public Policy." CIB, 432.
Definition and Criteria of Death. Retrieved from
Philosophical Debates About the Definition of Death: Who Cares? Retrieved from
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.