Lizzy Melton
Dr. Epright
Medicine Morality and Culture
19 October, 2016 In this paper I will argue that a traditional God Squad would not consider Rhonda Ryder as a fit recipient for a kidney transplant based on criteria composed of various psychosocial factors. In the popular opinion of a God Squad, Rhonda is not a fit candidate because of her past employment as a prostitute, her history of drug abuse, and her minimal level of contribution to society. Therefore, I claim that the God Squad overemphasizes psychosocial factors such as employment, race, and individual contribution to society. Finally, I will argue that the main goal of a God Squad is to be a responsible steward of a scarce resource. Therefore, the most important criteria to …show more content…
Initially, this sounds like a simple task, however, the God Squad must determine how to distribute scarce resources with minimal knowledge of the patient’s individual case. Most likely members have little to no knowledge of the actual intensity of the surgery or the medical repercussions of the procedure. Additionally, the God Squad has no universally set criteria to determine which factors to consider when evaluating a patient’s case. As a result, the God squad constructs their own criteria based solely on psychosocial factors. Permitting the God Squad to have control of the transplant list sounds potentially problematic, however, the utilitarian approach claims that the members of a God Squad are the most qualified to make such decisions. “Since physicians are not uniquely qualified to make such judgments, leaving decisions to an individual physician or committee of physicians would not be the best approach. Therefore, a committee of a diverse group of society might be better.” (pg) Utilitarianism can also be used to further explain the extended use of psychosocial factors to determine if a patient is suitable for the …show more content…
They take into account factors such as occupation, prior compliance to medical treatment, and age. In particular, past behavior is one of the best methods to determine present behavior. Therefore, according to a utilitarian view, past behavior can predict if a patient will be compliant and successful during a kidney transplant. A second factor that the God Squad considers is the individual’s contribution to society. By evaluating the level of contribution to society the God Squad attempts to prioritize those whose contributions would be missed the most by society. For example, a God Squad would claim that a neurosurgeon has priority over a crossing guard. With this mindset, the God Squad would argue that a neurosurgeon, who saves the lives of many, should have priority over a crossing guard, who simply stops traffic. The neurosurgeon should be valued over the crossing guard because the neurosurgeon has contributed a greatly to society by preserving lives. Finally, the God Squad takes into account several additional factors such as race, and financial state of the individual to determine who is the best fit for the
Dr. Epright
Medicine Morality and Culture
19 October, 2016 In this paper I will argue that a traditional God Squad would not consider Rhonda Ryder as a fit recipient for a kidney transplant based on criteria composed of various psychosocial factors. In the popular opinion of a God Squad, Rhonda is not a fit candidate because of her past employment as a prostitute, her history of drug abuse, and her minimal level of contribution to society. Therefore, I claim that the God Squad overemphasizes psychosocial factors such as employment, race, and individual contribution to society. Finally, I will argue that the main goal of a God Squad is to be a responsible steward of a scarce resource. Therefore, the most important criteria to …show more content…
Initially, this sounds like a simple task, however, the God Squad must determine how to distribute scarce resources with minimal knowledge of the patient’s individual case. Most likely members have little to no knowledge of the actual intensity of the surgery or the medical repercussions of the procedure. Additionally, the God Squad has no universally set criteria to determine which factors to consider when evaluating a patient’s case. As a result, the God squad constructs their own criteria based solely on psychosocial factors. Permitting the God Squad to have control of the transplant list sounds potentially problematic, however, the utilitarian approach claims that the members of a God Squad are the most qualified to make such decisions. “Since physicians are not uniquely qualified to make such judgments, leaving decisions to an individual physician or committee of physicians would not be the best approach. Therefore, a committee of a diverse group of society might be better.” (pg) Utilitarianism can also be used to further explain the extended use of psychosocial factors to determine if a patient is suitable for the …show more content…
They take into account factors such as occupation, prior compliance to medical treatment, and age. In particular, past behavior is one of the best methods to determine present behavior. Therefore, according to a utilitarian view, past behavior can predict if a patient will be compliant and successful during a kidney transplant. A second factor that the God Squad considers is the individual’s contribution to society. By evaluating the level of contribution to society the God Squad attempts to prioritize those whose contributions would be missed the most by society. For example, a God Squad would claim that a neurosurgeon has priority over a crossing guard. With this mindset, the God Squad would argue that a neurosurgeon, who saves the lives of many, should have priority over a crossing guard, who simply stops traffic. The neurosurgeon should be valued over the crossing guard because the neurosurgeon has contributed a greatly to society by preserving lives. Finally, the God Squad takes into account several additional factors such as race, and financial state of the individual to determine who is the best fit for the