Samantha Wargo

Kidney Allocation

The paper that I chose about ethics is titled, Should Children Be Given
Priority in Kidney Allocation? It is not necessarily a paper that says children should
not but rather a paper that explains the basis for children getting priority and
questions whether it is in fact ethical. The paper begins by stating that it is not
unethical because the United States does explicitly give priority to children with
certain rules. With kidneys, children can receive adult kidneys and adults can
receive a child kidney, either would be sufficient. The article mentions the rules and
guidelines they base this priority on and analyze whether or not those do make
sense and are ethical. For instance, one basis is looking at the amount of life to still
be lived. Someone who is an adult at maybe 50 years old might not have as long of a
life expectancy as someone who is 10 years old might. Another circumstance is that
children are developing, so being on dialysis and in kidney failure could be
detrimental for their growth. But, with an adult, dialysis does not affect growth
because they are already grown at that point. One line between this is the case of a
child at 17 versus and adult at 19. How can you ethically decide that one has a
longer life expectancy than the other when they are so close in age? This whole topic
relates to the code of ethics for physicians, which mainly demonstrates providing
access and good medical care for all. There is one whole chapter dedicated to organ
donation and all that goes with that. Physicians have to be ethical for the donor
(deceased or live), the organ involved, and the receiver of the organ. A physician
cannot just pick a recipient, there is a list that is decided and patients are scored all
the same. So thinking about prioritizing children first, how is that actually ethical
when physicians take the oath to uphold every person to the same health care
regardless of age, race, religion, or status?