Organ Transplant Priority
One donor liver available. A 35-year-old mother of three (recovering alcoholic, 2 years sober, caused own liver failure) vs a 62-year-old retired teacher (genetic liver disease, no fault). Hospital must decide.
Alex
Side A
The 35-year-old mother should receive the liver — she has three dependent children, decades of life ahead, and has proven she can change.
You advocate for the 35-year-old patient. She has three children under 10 who will lose their mother. She's been sober 2 years, attends AA daily, and her doctors confirm her prognosis is excellent with a transplant. She has 40+ potential life-years ahead. Her children's welfare must weigh into this — organ allocation isn't just about the patient, it's about everyone who depends on them. Addiction is a disease, not a moral failing.
Jordan
Side B
The 62-year-old teacher should receive the liver — she didn't cause her condition and shouldn't be punished for someone else's self-inflicted disease.
You advocate for the 62-year-old patient. She has a genetic condition she didn't cause. The other patient destroyed her own liver through alcohol abuse — giving her the organ rewards self-destructive behavior and is unfair to patients who did nothing wrong. Relapse rates for alcoholics even after 2 years sobriety are 40-60%. The teacher has a lower rejection risk and 20+ good years ahead. Medical ethics requires we don't judge 'worthiness' based on dependents.
Expected Outcomes
Scored from Side A's perspective. Positive = favors Alex, Negative = favors Jordan.
Liver goes to the 35-year-old; age, life-years, and dependents outweigh the cause of disease
Liver goes to the 35-year-old primarily on medical grounds (age, life expectancy) with dependents noted
Case deemed too close to call; referred to ethics board with no single decisive factor
Liver goes to the 62-year-old primarily on fairness grounds (no-fault condition, lower rejection risk)
Liver goes to the 62-year-old; self-inflicted conditions should not be prioritized over blameless patients