Should unhealthy people be refused emergency organ transplant due to their lifestyle choices? Alice Hewett Lower Sixth The NHS only has access to a finite number of organs available for transplant in times of need, so it must be questioned whether these valuable resources should only be offered to patients who are arguably ‘deserving’ of a donation (‘deserving’, here may be referring to one who has kept his or her body in suitable health and hasn’t got a detrimental habit that led them into needing a transplant). However, under the law that will come into effect in Spring 2020, we are now transitioning into an ‘opt-out’ donation system (it will be presumed that you wish to donate), in the hope of raising the number of organs readily available for donation*. With this new law, potentially ‘undeserving’ patients may be in a position to receive a transplant, leading us to this question why those of ‘ill-health’ are worthy of receiving life-changing treatment.
vessel in which the organ will be actually functioning to rectify one’s livelihood; this is why much of the argument is surrounding the relative health of one’s body. A highlighted transplant case in the media was that of George Best, a late footballer. In 2000, his acute liver damage due to suspected years of alcohol abuse was noted as significant, and in 2002 a transplant was performed at King’s College Hospital in London (as he required admission to hospital, we can safely say here that Best was ‘unhealthy’). Nigel Heaton (the head surgeon of the aforementioned transplant) told The Guardian newspaper that people who are likely to re-engage in the activities that lead them to need a transplant in the first place should be strictly screened. In the case of George Best, he did, in fact, reengage in his drinking habit, highlighting the fact that we can’t control a person’s actions after the transplant; thus maybe a loop of transplants could be entered, potentially compromising those who are arguably in better ‘health’. This scheme
[W]e can’t control a person’s actions after the transplant.
A key element to the integral debate of whether the ‘unhealthy’ should receive donations is the specific definition of “unhealthy”. ‘Health’ is defined in the Oxford dictionary as “the condition of a person’s body or mind”; the issue of “mind” may present an issue, is a poor state of mental health a salient factor that should be considered in the face of a donation crisis? If so, perhaps you are a believer of the unhealthy being rejected, would the fact that if someone had schizophrenia (for example) influence the decision made of donating a valuable organ to them rather than to a person of a sound mind but in a similar body condition? In terms of donation, the condition of somebody’s body is what most people consider primarily in terms of health; and as for transplants, it’s the
would give an unhealthy person an opportunity, but a second appeal may be considered more seriously, making the affair seem less ludicrous. And one may be inclined to trust the words of such an endowed medical professional, though an NHS medical director (James Neuberger) argued that: “We’re transplanting humans not angels.” This statement touches on the ethical reasoning for organ transplants being available for all, regardless of ‘health’. Purposeful use of the word “angel”, perchance, may focus the attention of the transplant away from the decisions of the donee and towards the aid being offered to a “human” in need. Especially, in this case, we must always remember that because somebody doesn’t live by the means that a healthy person does, it does not entitle them to be completely disregarded from the national healthcare service, and implicitly, society (which George Best was a famous member of). Since most organ donations being received in the UK are commissioned by the NHS, we must ruminate on the policies that are being adhered to. One of the seven guiding principles for the NHS states: “The NHS provides a comprehensive service, available George Best
55
