According to John Harris, there may arise situations where it would be rational to kill a healthy person and use their organs for transplantation. The concept of “The Survival Theory” presents a scenario involving two sick individuals, Patient Y who requires a heart, and Patient Z who needs lungs. If a compatible donor were to pass away, Y and Z could be saved. However, Y and Z contemplate why they cannot simply kill a suitable donor instead.
The medical procedures required to save Y and Z are accessible and, in other medical scenarios, a physician’s failure to perform the necessary service would be deemed tantamount to murdering the two patients. Therefore, by abstaining from killing an innocent “donor” for the essential heart and lung transplantation, the doctor opts to eliminate Y and Z. Harris presents two counterarguments against the notion of sacrificing one individual to save two others. Firstly, the doctor’s selection of whom to sacrifice will be arbitrary, which is fundamentally unjust towards the innocent person who is being killed.
The author mentioned that implementing the Survival Lottery would cause fear and distress among the victims, witnesses, and society as a whole. However, a rule can be established to address these issues, and in doing so, the advantages will outweigh the drawbacks. The idea behind the Survival Lottery is to subject everyone to an equal chance of being sacrificed, such as using a computer to randomly select an individual from the pool of compatible organ donors. It is crucial that everyone is made aware that their chances of survival are enhanced by this proposal.
Organ donation will no longer rely on a small number of organ donors and a large number of people who die. Those who object to being selected in the lottery would be considered murderers. To illustrate, if we were able to witness this process on another planet, we would have no grounds to object as our current method would appear more brutal to them. Objections to the Lottery include concerns over reduced security, the idea of playing God, prioritizing killing over letting die, excessive demands on individuals, potential terror and distress caused by the lottery, and the inability of third parties to make life or death decisions. Only individuals nearing death should be considered for the lottery. Despite understanding both sides of the argument for and against the Survival Lottery, I personally oppose such a lottery.
Although I acknowledge the equal value of life for individuals in need of organ transplants, it raises a moral dilemma regarding sacrificing a healthy person’s life to save those with unhealthy hearts and lungs. Moreover, there is a risk that these organs might fail in the recipients, rendering the sacrifice futile. If we believe that a sick person deserves life as much as a healthy person does, then why should we consider the healthy individual less deserving? This is essentially what the Lottery implies.
Considering the consequences of prioritizing the survival of a healthy person over sick individuals is extremely important. Do we disregard those who are dying from illnesses other than organ failure, such as cancer, and cannot benefit from a transplant? By only saving those who require transplants, do we suggest that the lives of those who cannot be saved through this method have lesser value? This approach results in only a limited number of dying individuals being saved while the rest perish. To me, this seems unjust.
