Heart Recipient Decision

This document discusses the decision-making process for selecting a heart recipient based on Utilitarian Ethics. It explains why Lisa was chosen over Jerry and Ozzy, considering factors such as potential benefits to the community and the individual's life experiences. The document also references the ideas of John Mill and Hobbes and Locke.

You Decide Presentation

To: Peer Review Committee
From: xyz, Lead Surgeon
Date:
Re: Heart recipient decision
We have received the information of availability of a heart. There are three potential matching
candidates, 12 years old Lisa, 55 year old Jerry and 38 year old Ozzy. All the aspects of these
candidates were reviewed and I decided that Lisa would be the most suitable recipient of the
heart. This decision was taken on the basis of Utilitarian Ethics which aims to accomplish the
greatest good for the most number of people; or that the decision is built upon the good of the
outcome (Cahn, 2016). John Mill has proposed the ideas on Utilitarianism that, two
consequential ideas follow, one of which is that every arrangement of society must link the
interests of people with the interests of the entire community (Mill, 2017). So, in the given
scenario when deciding the recipient of the heart, I recognized that Lisa would be the best
candidate. If she will have the heart, it will not only benefit her to live life for more years but
also the general benefit will the community as the $2 million donated by his father would help in
improving the condition of the hospital which is much needed. An improved hospital setting with
better technology, resources and facilities can help thousands of people subsequently. Hobbes
and Locke state that goal is to build and sustain the conditions for all the aspects of society which
lead to peace. Given their idea, while making this decision, I made the decision that
demonstrated a good for more individuals than just Lisa.
Jerry and Ozzy are the declined benefiters. Jerry is an old family man and he was refused the heart for
several reasons. It is believed that receiving heart would bring him and his family immense

happiness but still the happiness and satisfaction of the thousands of people benefitting from $2
million would be even more for them. In addition, considering Jerry’s age, it is believed that he
has already lived a full life which included great moments on his personal and professional life.
Lisa is yet to explore life and live those moments. Moments which Lisa may never get a chance
to explore and feel without this heart. I put faith that Jerry would receive another heart soon and
his family would remain hopeful and peaceful.
Ozzy is homeless and has a history of drug abuse. He has been refused the heart transplant as from
utilitarian view, if Ozzy receives the heart, it would only bring happiness from to himself and
may be few individuals whom he has been volunteering at the shelter (Thomson, 2013). Other
criteria such as no family, history of drug abuse and chances of going back to drugs, wasted life
and didn’t live life’s precious moments are considered while refusing him the heart. Lisa being a
child who did not get the chance to experience life and who has parents must be chosen over a
drug abuser despite his attempt of life transformation.
Therefore, the utilitarian theorists propose to take the decisions on the basis of number of people getting
benefitted and given happiness (Mulgan, 2014). So, by donating the heart to Lisa, the
community, Lisa herself and his parents are getting the benefits.
References
Cahn, S. M. (2016). Seven Masterpieces of Philosophy. New York: Routledge.
Mill, J. S. (2017). A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive: Being a Connected View of
the Principles of Evidence, Methods of Scientific Investigation (Classic Reprint). London:
Forgotten Books.
Mulgan, T. (2014). Understanding Utilitarianism. London: Routledge.

Thomson, J. J. (2013). Goodness and Utilitarianism. The American Philosophical Association
Centennial Series (pp. 157-172). PDC.