SvennoJ said:
It goes based on life expectancy. Which might not be fair but making the most 'use' out of the organ is the priority. |
I get what the goal and point is based on the way the system operates, whether I agree or not, but when it comes to who truly is more worthy of life or death, if someone has to make that choice, that's far beyond what the system takes into account overall. Is it really the best way, is a question to take into account.
In today's world, more and more, we're going beyond the 'basics of each sector'. Should what you do in your private time, non medically, matter when it comes to hospitalization? If so, then the same should apply to say, business/work. In today's world, what you said or did in private decades ago can ruin your business or career and more. The scope of 'what fits this sector' also tends to keep expanding in many sectors.
If the system just simply took who's first in line, it would be a more fair system, when it comes to privacy anyway. If you save who seems to be the 'good guy' based on their better health upkeep, but that guy is a really sick and twisted person who acts on it, while the lesser healthy 'bad guy' is a stand up guy who's work contributes vastly to society, but dies due to the wait, did you really do the right thing? What if perhaps they're both sick and twisted and act on it? What's worth saving and is there anything that isn't?
I basically just questioned how far should the privacy invasion go when it comes to who's worth saving and who's not, or at least who's more worthy of being given a better shot at life than someone else. It's a very difficult question to know when to stop the bleed once you go beyond just take who's next in line.