Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Transplant denial for disabled child
The Anchoress has the story (and links). And, USA Today reports that advocates for people with special needs have taken up the cause.
MOJ readers and bloggers are, I am confident, deeply committed to radical human equality, and so would reject any claim that the life of a disabled child is "worth" less than that of anyone else. That said, we owe it to ourselves to ask (I'm thinking of my teacher Guido Calabresi's book, Tragic Choices), what considerations are we allowed to take into account, and what mechanisms are we permitted use -- given our commitment to human equality -- for allocating much-needed but (presumably) scarce goods like organ transplants? We could say, of course, that there's a line, and people get in it and wait; when someone's turn comes up, that's it, and the needed organ is theirs. But, we don't say that (at least, I don't think we do). If not, why not, and should we?
UPDATE: Prof. Charles Camosy, whose work has been discussed several times here at MOJ, is quoted in this news story about the case.
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2012/01/transplant-denial-for-disabled-child.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
I think we need to approach this specific case with great caution, since we truly don't know the facts. From the little I know, though, it does seem that dialysis is an alternative to a kidney transplant, so some of the more sensational headlines (e.g., CBS News: "Mom says disabled daughter denied life-saving kidney transplant") are misleading. Also, it sounds like the girl is not merely mentally retarded but has physical problems as well.
Clearly judgments have to be made when there are fewer kidneys than there are people who need them. I don't think we would find it outrageous if someone with, say, serious heart disease and a life expectancy of a year was denied a kidney transplant in favor of someone who was, aside from kidney problems, healthy, with a normal life expectancy.
Here is part of the article with a quote from Charles Camosy:
**********
Camosy said that while it's true that there are shortages of kidneys and other organs, the criteria used to make transplant decisions "should not ever devalue those that are mentally disabled."
"This is a growing movement that transcends liberal or conservative that says this kind of life, because it's so vulnerable, it deserves special protection," he said.
**********
Whether Camosy meant it, that seems to hint not merely at equal treatment of the mentally disabled, but special treatment.
Perhaps it is mistaken to confuse the *moral* worth of a life for the value of a life. The moral worth would be the same for everyone, but the value—as determined in, say, a wrongful death suit—would not be.