Organ Transplant Ethics: Justice and Beneficence
This paper examines the ethical challenges of allocating a scarce donor liver among four candidates — Michael, Mario, Emily, and Anita — using the principalist framework in bioethics. Drawing on the principles of justice, beneficence, autonomy, and nonmaleficence, the paper systematically evaluates each candidate's medical suitability and moral claim to the organ. It argues that genuine distributive justice is unattainable when only one organ is available for multiple patients, and that decisions must be grounded in medical compatibility rather than emotional, financial, or social criteria. The paper concludes with a recommended course of action prioritizing thorough medical assessment and the principle of first-come, first-served placement on the donor list.
- Introduction: The Organ Allocation Dilemma: Frames the ethical tension among four candidates
- Applying the Principalist Framework: Introduces principalism as the analytical method
- Autonomy and Confidentiality in Context: Explains why autonomy is secondary in this case
- Justice and Beneficence as Central Principles: Analyzes distributive justice and doing no harm
- Evaluating the Candidates: Weighs each candidate's eligibility and lifestyle factors
- Recommendations for Resolution: Actionable steps for the healthcare team
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It systematically applies all four principalist bioethical principles — autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice — to a concrete clinical scenario, demonstrating disciplined use of an ethical framework rather than relying on intuition.
- The paper honestly acknowledges the limits of the available data, noting that a truly informed decision cannot be made without more complete medical information, which adds intellectual credibility.
- It resists simplistic conclusions by complicating apparently easy exclusions (e.g., Michael's alcoholism as a disqualifying factor) through reference to the disease classification of alcoholism.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper exemplifies principle-based ethical analysis: each relevant bioethical principle is introduced, defined, and then systematically tested against the facts of the case. This method — associated with Beauchamp and Childress's principlist approach — shows how abstract moral norms translate into concrete clinical guidance. The paper also models appropriate epistemic humility by flagging informational gaps before reaching conclusions.
Structure breakdown
The paper is organized into three major movements: a problem statement that frames the ethical tension and narrows the candidates; a resolution section that walks through each relevant ethical principle in turn; and a recommendations section that translates the analysis into actionable steps. This problem–analysis–recommendation structure is well suited to applied bioethics case studies at the undergraduate level.
Introduction: The Organ Allocation Dilemma
Organs are rare and expensive resources. Distributing them equitably remains one of the most pressing dilemmas in bioethics. Given that the dying patient did consent to organ donation, the primary ethical dilemmas in this case arise when determining the recipient. The case presents four different options, two of which — Michael and Mario — seem relatively easy to rule out. Mario is an infant who may not be a suitable candidate, and Michael has a history of liver disease due to alcoholism. Emily and Anita, however, both seem equally suitable candidates for the liver.
This case raises several moral questions. If every patient is deemed equally worthy and valuable according to ethical principles like equity and justice, then how is it possible to favor one person over another? The answer requires first ruling out any potential recipient who might reject the organ due to underlying medical conditions or general incompatibility. In this case, ruling out Michael and Mario stems from their being less likely to successfully adapt to the new organ. It would be tempting to choose an infant based on a raw emotional response, but Mario's condition might not be resolved by the liver transplant. Further research would be needed into the implications of biliary atresia in order to determine whether the infant would have trouble with bile production even with a new liver.
In fact, the only way to make a truly informed decision in this case is to set aside any immediate emotional response to the four candidates and consider only which candidate would maximize the value of the liver. Value here is not a financial metric; it is instead related to medical compatibility and the likelihood of avoiding further complications after the transplant. Above all, this case illustrates the central importance of the ethical principle of justice in medicine. It also seriously challenges the healthcare team to apply the principle of beneficence equitably — in essence, pitting beneficence against justice.
Applying the Principalist Framework
Technological innovations — including those that have made organ transplants more common and safer — frequently give rise to new ethical dilemmas in medicine (Steinbock, London, & Arras, n.d.). This case shows how organ transplants, as beneficial and remarkable as they are, can also become a source of struggle for bioethicists and healthcare workers who face difficult choices, many of which are life-and-death matters. The principalist method avoids some of the pitfalls associated with adherence to a single ethical theory such as utilitarianism or deontology.
Ethical principles become guiding forces to help people make sound decisions in cases as troubling as this one. The primary ethical principles in medicine and healthcare include respect for autonomy, beneficence, and justice. Confidentiality and nonmaleficence are often added to form four guiding principles that can be applied to difficult situations ("Principles of Ethics," n.d.). These principles are grounded in values such as equity, respect for the individual, and altruism. A principle is "a fundamental standard of conduct from which many other moral standards and judgments draw support" ("Ethical Theory and Bioethics," n.d., p. 22). Applying these principles systematically makes resolving the organ donor dilemma more tractable.
Autonomy and Confidentiality in Context
The principle of autonomy is not central to this case, with one notable exception: Mario is an infant incapable of making the choice for himself. Mario's parents are legally and morally responsible for making decisions on his behalf. If the dying donor were suddenly to withdraw consent to harvest the organ, then the principle of autonomy would come to the fore. Otherwise, it can be assumed that all four adult candidates are fully cognizant of the ramifications of an organ transplant.
Confidentiality is likewise not the most important factor in this case. It would become relevant only if a member of the medical team had access to personal information about one of the patients that could not be disclosed in order to protect that patient's privacy. In the absence of such a scenario, neither autonomy nor confidentiality rises to the level of the case's central ethical tensions.
Justice and Beneficence as Central Principles
The two main bioethical principles at stake in this case are justice and beneficence. Resolving the conflict requires a cogent analysis of how to align these two principles. Unless three more livers become available, three of the patients will be denied an opportunity that could result in their premature death. The healthcare team cannot act in an equally beneficent way toward all four patients waiting for a liver transplant.
Doing no harm — the most important feature of the principle of beneficence — means carefully assessing the medical history of all four patients to determine which has the most acute need for the liver. It would not be beneficent to deny the liver to a patient who is at imminent risk of dying. The issue can be partially resolved by recognizing that some patients may be able to extend their lives and maintain good health by other means, and can afford to wait for a liver. The principle of beneficence also obliges the healthcare team to examine each patient individually and determine who would suffer the fewest complications from the transplant. The patient least likely to suffer consequences, and who also needs the liver most urgently, would be the most suitable candidate — though that determination cannot be made from the limited medical data provided in the case.
Ultimately, the principle of distributive justice becomes the central issue. Distributive justice refers to the "fair, equitable, and appropriate distribution" of resources in a society ("Ethical Theory and Bioethics," n.d., p. 25). Unfortunately, genuine distributive justice is impossible here. There is only one liver and four candidates. To adhere to the principle of justice, factors such as socioeconomic status, ethnicity, age, or ability to pay — as in Emily's case — cannot be taken into consideration. Social justice holds that each person is equally valuable.
The decision must be made purely on medical grounds. If all medical factors are equal, then the only way to make a decision aligned with the principle of justice is to resort to a first-come, first-served policy. Michael has been on the waiting list the longest — for one year. Whoever was placed on the donor list first may have a legal right to the organ, a consideration the healthcare team must also weigh.
References
"Ethical Theory and Bioethics." (n.d.).
"Principles of Ethics." (n.d.).
Steinbock, B., London, A. J., & Arras, J. D. (n.d.). Ethical issues in modern medicine (8th ed.). McGraw Hill.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.