Ethical models in bioethics: theory and application in organ allocation policies
- PMID: 21196904
Ethical models in bioethics: theory and application in organ allocation policies
Abstract
Policies for allocating organs to people awaiting a transplant constitute a major ethical challenge. First and foremost, they demand balance between the principles of beneficence and justice, but many other ethically relevant principles are also involved: autonomy, responsibility, equity, efficiency, utility, therapeutic outcome, medical urgency, and so forth. Various organ allocation models can be developed based on the hierarchical importance assigned to a given principle over the others, but none of the principles should be completely disregarded. An ethically acceptable organ allocation policy must therefore be in conformity, to a certain extent, with the requirements of all the principles. Many models for organ allocation can be derived. The utilitarian model aims to maximize benefits, which can be of various types on a social or individual level, such as the number of lives saved, prognosis, and so forth. The prioritarian model favours the neediest or those who suffer most. The egalitarian model privileges equity and justice, suggesting that all people should have an equal opportunity (casual allocation) or priority should be given to those who have been waiting longer. The personalist model focuses on each individual patient, attempting to mesh together all the various aspects affecting the person: therapeutic needs (urgency), fairness, clinical outcomes, respect for persons. In the individualistic model the main element is free choice and the system of opting-in is privileged. Contrary to the individualistic model, the communitarian model identities in the community the fundamental elements for the legitimacy of choices: therefore, the system of opting-out is privileged. This article does not aim at suggesting practical solutions. Rather, it furnishes to decision makers an overview on the possible ethical approach to this matter.
Similar articles
-
Examining the potential exploitation of UNOS policies.Am J Bioeth. 2005 Fall;5(4):6-10. doi: 10.1080/15265160590953085. Am J Bioeth. 2005. PMID: 16109680
-
Complete lives in the balance.Am J Bioeth. 2010 Apr;10(4):37-45. doi: 10.1080/15265160903581718. Am J Bioeth. 2010. PMID: 20379920
-
On the possibility of "progress" in managing biomedical technologies: markets, lotteries, and rational moral standards in organ transplantation.Cap Univ Law Rev. 2003;31(1):13-69. Cap Univ Law Rev. 2003. PMID: 15214334 No abstract available.
-
[Ethical analysis of the decision-making process in occupational health practice].Med Lav. 2005 Sep-Oct;96(5):375-82. Med Lav. 2005. PMID: 16711638 Review. Italian.
-
Patient selection criteria for liver transplantation.Minerva Chir. 2003 Oct;58(5):635-48. Minerva Chir. 2003. PMID: 14603144 Review.
Cited by
-
Predicted Cure and Survival Among Transplant Recipients With a Previous Cancer Diagnosis.J Clin Oncol. 2021 Dec 20;39(36):4039-4048. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.01195. Epub 2021 Oct 22. J Clin Oncol. 2021. PMID: 34678077 Free PMC article.
-
Cure models, survival probabilities, and solid organ transplantation for patients with colorectal cancer.Am J Transplant. 2025 Mar;25(3):545-555. doi: 10.1016/j.ajt.2024.08.018. Epub 2024 Sep 5. Am J Transplant. 2025. PMID: 39182612
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical