The Ethics of the Survival Lottery: Arguing for and Against Saving Terminally Ill Patients

Abstract

Harris Report How would you argue against Y and Z in Harris' paper? Why is it difficult to argue against them? According to Harris's report, Y and Z are terminally ill patients whose lives are in danger through no fault of their own. To save their lives, Harris emphasizes the need for a survival lottery that is randomly selected healthy donors whose organs would be transplanted to save the ill as they stand at risk with respect to unavoidable natural hazards. Killing and letting die proves open on Harris report whereby P "survival lottery" would lose a life to save the terminally ill patients. To express the value of life, one can argue against Y and Z by suggesting their dedication to their survival. Since they are both sick and would lose their lives if nothing is done, why not either Y or Z surrender their life for the sake of the other? On the contrary, why not respect nature and wait upon the creators' will and gracefully embrace the result? Killing is a sin, and a violation of human rights as life proves a human right entitled to all. The need to carry their cross is essential for Y and Z without causing any other party harm at their expense. Arguing from such a perspective exposes Y and Z to the danger of losing their lives. Harris objects in totality, arguing that such victims are defensible thus require the proper attention from the relevant bodies. Harris cites that "restricting lottery to terminally ill patients violates their right to equal concern and respect with the rest of society." Such a stand makes it very hard to confirm any argument against Y and Z as being defenseless makes them vulnerable and demands attention from all to ensure...