In this paper I will explain that the God Squad’s central value, when determining who should receive the limited resource, was the value to society provided by the candidate. Due to this criteria, Rhonda Ryder would not be put on the list because her societal value included prostitution charges, case of syphilis, drug use, and multiple children with different fathers. However, I deem that the God Squad’s system is flawed insofar as it fails to consider how the resource could be used most effectively. I will also argue that the important value should be the prosperity of the organ and patient in order to ensure the organ is not wasted: killing two people. Therefore, I contend that Rhonda Ryder should be put on the list. There is good evidence that she will survive long term due to her youth, otherwise healthy, no other disease, and compliancy with her health care.
The God Squad was a committee of seven anonymous members who were given the difficult task of choosing which candidates with end-stage renal disease should receive dialysis, a life-saving procedure. Additionally, a medical team evaluated all of the possible candidates to ensure they were all medically adequate for dialysis prior to reaching the God Squad. As Shana Alexander explains, “These seven citizens are in fact a life or death committee, with no moral or ethical guidelines save their own individual consciences, they must decide... ‘who shall live and who shall die’” (Shana Alexander, 1993). With no sort of guidelines, the members of this anonymous committee were left to use their own idea of morals to determine who should receive the limited resource. As a result of this, the committee was forced to create their own central values on which they based their decisions. The God Squad’s central value was determined by the candidate’s value to society. Alexander also said, “They drew up a list of all the factors which they would weigh in making their selections: age and sex of patient; marital status and number of dependents; income; net worth; emotional stability…; educational background; nature of occupation, past performance and future potential; and names that could serve as references” (Shana Alexander). In other words, the committee based most of their decisions on the candidate’s possible contribution to society and rank in society. For example, the committee evaluated ideas such as: net worth, occupation, references, and income. All of which are related to a position in society. Due to the God Squad’s values, the patient, Rhonda Ryder, would not applicable for a place on the kidney transplant list. …show more content…
Rhonda Ryder is single woman with two young children from two different fathers. Furthermore, she does not show any prospect of having a job and was arrested two years ago for prostitution. Additionally, she was diagnosed with a virulent strain of syphilis that went untreated, which most likely resulted in kidney damage. For this reason, Rhonda Ryder would not show any evidence of “future potential” in the values of the God Squad. The God Squad centered their decisions around the candidate’s societal status and due to Rhonda Ryder’s status: income, net worth, occupation, references, etc. she would not be considered for a kidney transplant. The God Squad’s moral and ethical values are quite questionable because they did not have the best interest of the patient or a scarce resource in mind when considering the candidates. They used conditional terms and the deemed “importance” of a candidate over health and distribution of an important, limited resource. Therefore, the God Squad’s decisions were established through superficial, narrow ideas of a person and implied that social aspects were more important than well-being. Seeing that, medical teams had already sorted out those who were not viable candidates, the God Squad’s criteria was primarily based on social standards and contribution to society. Following this precedent, the God Squad favored the rich, well-off patients, and not necessarily the best candidate. However, this also brings in to question if members within the program paid their way in, rather than impartial voting: allowing an unfair advantage of the upper class. On the other hand, my value recognizes the importance of a scarce resource, like organs, and fixates
The God Squad was a committee of seven anonymous members who were given the difficult task of choosing which candidates with end-stage renal disease should receive dialysis, a life-saving procedure. Additionally, a medical team evaluated all of the possible candidates to ensure they were all medically adequate for dialysis prior to reaching the God Squad. As Shana Alexander explains, “These seven citizens are in fact a life or death committee, with no moral or ethical guidelines save their own individual consciences, they must decide... ‘who shall live and who shall die’” (Shana Alexander, 1993). With no sort of guidelines, the members of this anonymous committee were left to use their own idea of morals to determine who should receive the limited resource. As a result of this, the committee was forced to create their own central values on which they based their decisions. The God Squad’s central value was determined by the candidate’s value to society. Alexander also said, “They drew up a list of all the factors which they would weigh in making their selections: age and sex of patient; marital status and number of dependents; income; net worth; emotional stability…; educational background; nature of occupation, past performance and future potential; and names that could serve as references” (Shana Alexander). In other words, the committee based most of their decisions on the candidate’s possible contribution to society and rank in society. For example, the committee evaluated ideas such as: net worth, occupation, references, and income. All of which are related to a position in society. Due to the God Squad’s values, the patient, Rhonda Ryder, would not applicable for a place on the kidney transplant list. …show more content…
Rhonda Ryder is single woman with two young children from two different fathers. Furthermore, she does not show any prospect of having a job and was arrested two years ago for prostitution. Additionally, she was diagnosed with a virulent strain of syphilis that went untreated, which most likely resulted in kidney damage. For this reason, Rhonda Ryder would not show any evidence of “future potential” in the values of the God Squad. The God Squad centered their decisions around the candidate’s societal status and due to Rhonda Ryder’s status: income, net worth, occupation, references, etc. she would not be considered for a kidney transplant. The God Squad’s moral and ethical values are quite questionable because they did not have the best interest of the patient or a scarce resource in mind when considering the candidates. They used conditional terms and the deemed “importance” of a candidate over health and distribution of an important, limited resource. Therefore, the God Squad’s decisions were established through superficial, narrow ideas of a person and implied that social aspects were more important than well-being. Seeing that, medical teams had already sorted out those who were not viable candidates, the God Squad’s criteria was primarily based on social standards and contribution to society. Following this precedent, the God Squad favored the rich, well-off patients, and not necessarily the best candidate. However, this also brings in to question if members within the program paid their way in, rather than impartial voting: allowing an unfair advantage of the upper class. On the other hand, my value recognizes the importance of a scarce resource, like organs, and fixates