Transplants after Class

Shannon made a comment in class that it was hard to argue about this case because there shouldn't be a choice made in the first place. I agree. While I argued under the assumption that a decision must be made, whether we like it or not, I have a really hard time believing that either option is even acceptable. It brings back the dirty hands argument, I think. Is it possible to even make an ethical decision in this situation, or are the policy makers bound by their positions, stuck with dirty hands no matter what they do? I took a utilitarian argument for the most part in this particular case, which would mean that to be consistent I would argue that there aren't really dirty hands because it was the better of the choices. On the other hand, taking a step back from the whole situation, I'm less utilitarian and more egalitarian. I strongly believe that Rawls would have been for universal health care. Axl remarked in class that he believes it would be wrong to force people to pay taxes for the health problems of other people. I think it's easy for a person who has not had any major health problems to make this argument. However, under the original position, not knowing whether you will be rich or poor, healthy or sick, it seems that any rational person would be willing to risk paying taxes to have their life saved. Many have the assumption that if someone really wanted health care they could work hard and achieve it. These people still have the impression that it's easy to pull oneself up by their bootstraps. I can't even stress enough how much luck really has a play in the bootstrap stories we hear. For every person who works their way up the social ladder, there are hundreds more who work just as hard with little luck. The idea that we should be responsible for our own health and anyone who truly works hard can pay for themselves is not looking at the whole picture. As Jenna pointed out in discussion after class, it seems to be an excuse for people to not have to pay for other people's problems. Nic brought up the question of moral obligation, and it plays in here perfectly. Are we morally obligated to help people who are dying if we can? By all means, yes. If we can pay some of our "hard earned money" to save lives through health care then I think it is completely unethical to be unwilling to give up some of our luxuries. I find it utterly offensive and elitist to argue that those who can afford health care deserve it more than those who can't.