Question

Two men on the same service are awaiting a keratoplasty (cornea transplant) because of chemical burns on their eyes. One is an alcoholic street person with other serious health problems. The other is prominent lawyer with a wife and three children. A donor's eye becomes available, and by coincidence both men's circular segments of the cornea match the donor’s. The physician makes his decision on the basis of first-come, first-served and transplants the cornea to the alcoholic.

the question is:

Is it ethical to use the procedural rule first-come, first served when one patient promises to have better medical results than the other? (The alcoholic has more serious health problems.)

Answer 1

In my view, it is ethical to use the procedural rule even when one patient promised to have better medical results than the other. From the deontological perspective, morality should be viewed in terms of duties, obligations and what is the right thing to do. To be ethical, one has to perform actions that are required by a universal law that has good intent and is carried out for the sake of duty. In this case, the alcoholic has been promised a medical procedure owing to an established rule of first-come, first serves. To break this rule would mean committing an act of injustice towards the alcoholic, despite the expected outcomes.