Zell Kravinsky: An Ethical Analysis

The author thought that this article would be of interest because it is rare for someone to donate a kidney to a stranger, it is even rarer for someone to be willing to donate both of their kidneys to strangers, 15 million dollars in cash donations to charity, and another 6.2 million of property donations. Zell Kravinsky is a unique case of selfnesses with his concern for the welfare of others. (Storm, 2003) The main ethical issue being discussed with the Storm article is whose life is more valuable. Zell feels that if giving his second kidney were to save more lives than he would be able to then the answer is clearly to give his kidney. He uses the example of saving a scientist who can cure AIDs versus his life, if the person being saved can do more good than he then why not donate his kidney. His family opposes his beliefs, feeling that he has already done enough and that the hospital has used Zell for their own benefits. (Storm, 2003) The family makes very good points, arguing that …show more content…
He has done calculations that indicate the chances of his children needing his kidney and the chances by that time his kidney being no good. Also his children more than likely will be strong matches with other relatives that would be able to donate a kidney if needed. In the end of the article Zell says something I found to be quite moving, he said “No one should have a vacation home until everyone one a place to live, no one should have a second car until everyone has one. And no one should have two kidneys until everyone has one.” Zell makes a moving point, however it is a very practical point, there would need to a huge change in donations and views on organ donation for this to happen. (Storm, 2003) Zell’s family and love ones get their evidence from what they have seen, from what they see Zell is being taken advantage of by hospitals and charities. Zell gathers his evidence on the notion of what helps the mass population versus the