While allocation of scarce organs according to medical urgency may seem intuitively just, reasoning from the moral perspective of equal access to healthcare, other criteria can be shown to take precedence.
Equal access to health care, e.g., liver transplantation, is not guaranteed when only medical criteria are employed.
Even though the situation of the patient might not be medically urgent, there can be medically urgent reasons to rank her higher than candidates whose need is more urgent.
Listing Jehovah's witnesses for blood free liver transplantation is a realistic option if they are upgraded to a high urgency position.
Despite the counter-intuitiveness of this conclusion, justice demands moving the Jehovah's witness ahead of patients whose need is more urgent when his condition still allows him to have a blood transfusion free transplantation, the risks of which are comparable to those faced by candidates not requiring transfusion without the use of blood products.
|Title of host publication||ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION: ETHICAL, LEGAL AND PSYCHOSOCIAL ASPECTS - TOWARDS A COMMON EUROPEAN POLICY|
|Editors||W Weimar, MA Bos, JJ Busschbach|
|Place of Publication||D-49525 LENGERICH|
|Publisher||Pabst Science Publishers|
|Number of pages||5|
|Publication status||Published - 2008|
|Event||International Congress on Organ Transplantation - Ethical, Legal and Psychosocial Aspects - , Netherlands|
Duration: 1-Apr-2007 → 4-Apr-2007
|Other||International Congress on Organ Transplantation - Ethical, Legal and Psychosocial Aspects|
|Period||01/04/2007 → 04/04/2007|