Answer:

(a) From a utilitarian perspective, should you agree to donate her organs? Provide an analysis.

Utilitarianism, as a form of consequentialism, is concerned with the consequences of actions, the end results, and not necessarily the grounding conditions from which the action has been formed. If we directly consider significance of organ donation, the greatest utility is that it leads to the satisfaction of the greatest number of patients awaiting transplantation.

• A utilitarian would argue that organ donations save lives because when citizens continue to donate their organs, more lives are spared.
• Organ donations not only save lives but also money and time. For example – If organ donations became prevalent, the organ recipient would no longer need dialysis. Since there is no need for dialysis the cost to use the machine would lessen; this means that the cost of equipment would decrease, saving money and reducing pain. The process of organ transplantation is life changing and time is crucial.
• However, the right action would be in the form of action that creates the conditions whereby the greatest number of donations can be achieved.
• Thus the managerial efficacy of utilitarianism seems suited to organ donation and to the other ethical questions in modern medical practice with limited resources and increasing demands.

(b) From a Kantian perspective, would refusing to donate one’s organ violate a moral duty?

Kant’s principles of ethics are typically invoked in order to put forward strict restrictions on what should be allowed. In the case of organ transplantation, Kant often cites in favor of a prohibition of all organs sales. Kant expressly forbids not only the sale but also the voluntary donation of one’s own, even if this donation is obtained without any coercion or even friendly pressure applied upon seller or the donor.

• Also Kant considers that one does own one’s body, which means that there is a duty of self – conservation. Of course this duty is not absolute, but needs to be qualified. More precisely, it does not extend to a right to throw other people from a lifeboat in order to save one’s own life. Kant limits the duties and rights resulting from the duty of self-conservation to the duty to protect oneself against illegitimate threat and the duty not to harm one’s own body.

• But in the given case study, demand is for organ donation consent upon death. So according to Kant principle she should sign the consent form.
• If we develop an ethical approach following thoughts of Kant, we can establish a three- principle-approach in hierarchical order in this case:
a) Principle of human dignity
b) Difference principle (maximising the life-conditions of the worst-off)
c) Balancing benefits and harms.

• If we follow this line of thought, there are good reasons for establishing opting out regulation together with incentives for all parties involved in the donation. Human dignity is very much linked to a protection of life. The life of everyone whom human dignity is attributed should be protected as far as possible.