Module 13/2

Your Name

Instructor Name

Course Number

Date

Philosophy: Module 13/2

Part 1

Yes, lifestyle should definitely be considered during the allocation of life-saving resources. At present, there is already a scarcity of organs available as opposed to the organs needed. People requiring the allocation of such life-saving resources have to wait for years on the donor lists, with many dying before it is their turn to obtain an organ. Thus, under the normative ethical relativism, which decides the moral standpoint based on the situation, choosing to transplant already scarce organs into individuals afflicted with alcoholism and drug abuse, with their present being as a result of such addiction is downright wrong.

Part 2

Normative ethical relativism is perfectly applicable on the situation being presented. The liver would definitely not improve the quality of life of someone with a drinking problem. Despite being the sole care-taker of two young boys, the odds are not in his favor.

According to ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"aLfE1uqn","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Zhu et al.)","plainCitation":"(Zhu et al.)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":657,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/0omESN17/items/SKIFCQ44"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/0omESN17/items/SKIFCQ44"],"itemData":{"id":657,"type":"article-journal","title":"Contemporary policies regarding alcohol and marijuana use among liver transplant programs in the United States","container-title":"Transplantation","page":"433-439","volume":"102","issue":"3","author":[{"family":"Zhu","given":"Jiaming"},{"family":"Chen","given":"Ping-Yu"},{"family":"Frankel","given":"Marla"},{"family":"Selby","given":"Robert Rick"},{"family":"Fong","given":"Tse-Ling"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2018"]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} Zhu et al., someone afflicted with the need behavior when they suffer from an alcohol-related end-stage disease, giving them a liver would have a detrimental effect of cost-effectiveness.

The alternative of the stance that is giving the liver to the man for the sake of his boys does have altruistic principles associated with it. However, there is no guaranteeing that the man will be able to completely give up drinking following the liver transplant.

The biggest criticism to my position is the fact that the man has to care for two young boys who have lost their mother. No child should have to grow without two parents and every life is worth saving.

Given this situation, who would you consider is a better candidate for the liver, one that has two young children to look after but he is not suffering for any need-based ailment that has hurt his body. Or, one that may revert back to his old ways and would once again become a part of the donor list. No child should have to grow without both parents, however, there is no guaranteeing that the boys’ parent is going to change.

Works Cited

ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {"uncited":[],"omitted":[],"custom":[]} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Zhu, Jiaming, et al. “Contemporary Policies Regarding Alcohol and Marijuana Use among Liver Transplant Programs in the United States.” Transplantation, vol. 102, no. 3, 2018, pp. 433–39.