Should Alcoholics Compete Equally For Liver Transplantation

This paper seeks to determine whether it is morally sound to exclude alcoholics from the transplant waiting list or if alcoholics should be placed in a lower slot on the list. One side argues that alcoholics should get equal access to new livers and that all should be placed on the waiting list regardless of the reason that they are in need of a new liver. The other side believes in what is known as maximum benefit, or the idea that alcoholics should not be excluded from the list, but should be placed behind many others, resulting in a very small chance of receiving a new liver. In their paper “Should Alcoholics Compete Equally for Liver Transplantation”, Alvin H. Moss and Mark Siegler seek to determine just this. Moss and Siegler argue the second view, maximum benefit, and say that alcoholics should be placed at the bottom of the transplant waiting list. They claim that because liver transplants are a “non-renewable, absolutely scarce resource” they should go to those who have a greater chance of having a full life after receiving a new liver. (Moss, Siegler pg. 224). I will expand on Moss …show more content…
One of the “four basic tenets” of Utilitarianism is maximization, or the idea that the more beings who are positively impacted, the more morally sound an action is (Pence pg. 9). A Utilitarian would say that those who have been unfortunate enough to fall victim to a failing liver due to a disease such as hemochromatosis, the over-absorption of iron in the body, or cancer, both diseases that the patient has no control over, are more endowed to receive a new liver as long as they have lived a previously morally sound life. Lifestyles that a Utilitarian would find morally sound would include physicians, teachers, or other instructors who help to save or educate others, therefore abiding by the tenant of maximization of those positively