The case:
A very wealthy and popular rock star named Bob Crane has ruined his health through the excessive use of drugs and alcohol. Having come to the end of possible treatments, his doctor has informed him that without a liver transplant, he will not live more than six months.

Crane’s condition is widely publicized, and thousands of fans rally near his home and in front of the hospital during his frequent visits there. The press follows the story closely and keeps Crane in the news on a daily basis.

Somehow, one month after the announcement of Crane’s condition, a matching donor is found, and surgery is successfully performed.

Not long afterwards, articles begin to appear, questioning the means by which Crane so speedily obtained the much needed liver. Conflicting reports emerge, and before long, the story is dropped.

Questions:

1. If you knew that Crane had risen to the top of the transplant list because of his wealth and power, how would you respond?
2. What are the short term and long term consequences of the possible favoritism shown to Crane? Consequences for whom?
3. What criteria should be used in determining the distribution of donated organs?
4. Should individuals be permitted to sell their organs?
5. What responsibility does the media bear for the way in which Crane’s case was handled? For the possible favoritism he was shown?
6. If a loved one of yours were in need of an organ, and you had the power to manipulate the system, would you do so—even if it meant circumventing the established rules?

Last | Ethics Contents | Next