Arguably, utilitarianism is a framework on ethics which focuses on the results or outcomes of actions undertaken. Organ transplant is an essential aspect in which the demand and supply of the organs is a life-and-death situation. In this scenario, it is hard to act swiftly and make the decision in an ethical manner. The situation does not give a chance to waste time; acting in a fast way will help save the life of the recipient. According to utilitarian, acting ethically means taking action and making decisions that benefit individuals by minimizing the bad and maximizing the good. In making decisions based on utilitarian, it is necessary to identify courses of action available, analyze those who will be affected, and finally choose the beneficial action.
In making decisions on organ transplant, I would probably caution against putting much focus on utilitarian as an issue of the goal of the decision maker. As a decision maker, the ultimate tendency is to be utterly self-centered; in that the right action to be taken should promote own happiness. In carrying out decision of organ transplant, there are many questions, challenges and barriers, which in most cases lead to death (West, 2004). As a decision maker on the issue, utilitarianism is not concerned on what is good for me, but rather cares about the greatest good for the utmost number.
The roles to be undertaken during decision making on transplant is to elaborate to parties involved on the impacts of the transplant. Hence, the ultimate goal of the transplant is to satisfy the greatest number of people. Undoubtedly, the utilitarian approach is realistic; this is because it aims in maximizing the utility of the individuals who enjoy the happiness. On the other hand, those who suffer benefit by reduction of harm. In this case, the wishes of both beings are balanced (Ham & Rick, 2006)
Based on utilitarian ethics, it is beneficial and economical to carryout transplant. This is because the person receiving the organs enjoys life and be happy, and can suffer. Nevertheless, the death does not feel any pain. Certainly, in making the decision the wish of those patients intending to survive through transplant should be put into account. Furthermore, the decisions should not neglect the relatives fear and wishes. In making swift decisions, the harm and pain of the relatives should be minimized.
In making decisions, there are conflicting consideration between medical utilitarianism and social utilitarianism. Socially, when making decisions I would focus the good that transplant would do which includes social and economic usefulness of the recipient. On the other hand, medical utilitarian would focus on the benefit that will come from those people waiting for the organism (West, 2004). In making decision, advocating for transplant and forgoing other issue is crucial; individual who receive organs benefit medically through, reduction of morbidity, preserving life, reduction of suffering, as well as relief from pain.
In making a decision, I would be caution the recipients and relatives against which result to aim. It implies that, picking a goal ahead of time and working backwards in justification of the goal picked. In which, any utilitarian would aim at producing the greatest good. Consequently, in making decisions on the organ transplant it puts into consideration the pain and pleasures of individuals (Ham & Rick, 2006). But, it is exceedingly difficult as a decision maker to measure the quantitative degree of the outcomes. For example, issues of human suffering and human life are cannot be measured. In order to maximize utility, the community should always create incentives for all potential donors in the future. This helps recipients not to opt out, making decisions difficult. The decisions on transplant are a life and death situation; hence decisions should be made swiftly. The ethical, and moral nature of decisions made are based on how good is the outcome.
References
West, H. (2004). An Introduction to Mill’s Utilitarian Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge Press.
Ham, M & Rick, H. (2006). Culturally Relevant Ethical Decision-Making in Counseling.
London: Sage.
