The federal system for allocating donated livers in the United States is often criticized for allowing geographic disparities in access to livers. Critics argue that such disparities are unfair on the grounds that where one lives is morally arbitrary and so should not influence one's access to donated livers. They argue instead that livers should be allocated in accordance with the equal opportunity principle, according to which US residents who are equally sick should have the same opportunity to receive a liver, regardless of where they live. In this paper, we examine a central premise of the argument for the equal opportunity principle, namely, that geographic location is a morally arbitrary basis for allocating livers. We raise some serious doubts regarding the truth of this premise, arguing that under certain conditions, factors closely associated with geographic location are relevant to the allocation of livers, and so that candidates' geographic location is sometimes a morally non-arbitrary basis for allocating livers. Geographic location is morally non-arbitrary, we suggest, since by taking it into account, the UNOS may better fulfill its central goals of facilitating the effective and efficient placement of organs for transplantation and increasing organ donation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
W.R.Kimet al., “OPTN/SRTR 2016 Annual Data Report: Liver,”American Journal of TransplantationSupplementary Volume 1 (2018): 172-253, at 177.
2.
See P. A.Ubel and A. L.Caplan, “Geographic Favoritism in Liver Transplantation – Unfortunate or Unfair?”New Engand Journal of Medicine339, no. 18 (1998): 1322-1325; J. F. Childress, “Putting Patients First in Organ Allocation: An Ethical Analysis of the U.S. Debate,” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 10, no. 4 (2001): 365-376; D.A. Axelrod, P.A. Vagefi, and J.P. Roberts, “The Evolution of Organ Allocation for Liver Transplantation: Tackling Geographic Disparity Through Broader Sharing,” Annals of Surgery 262, no. 2 (2015): 224-227; and B. Parent and A. L. Caplan, “Fair is Fair: We Must Re-allocate Livers for Transplant,” BMC Medical Ethics 18 (2017): 1-7.
3.
42 C.F.R. §121.8 (2011).
4.
See Ubel and Caplan, supra note 2; Childress, supra note 2; Axelrod, Vagefi, and Roberts, supra note 2; and Parent and Caplan, supra note 2.
See N.Koizumi, “Geographic Disparity in Access to Organ Transplant in the United States and Other Western Countries: A Prolegomenon to a Solution,”World Medical & Health Policy2, no. 2 (2010): 112-131.
See Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, supra note 11. Where these candidates have the same MELD/PELD score, candidates in the OPO's DSA are given priority over those outside of the DSA (though still within the region).
13.
See Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, supra note 11. For candidates with MELD/PELD scores between 15 and 34, candidates in the OPO's DSA are given priority over those outside the DSA (though still within the region).
14.
See Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, supra note 11.
15.
See Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, supra note 11.
16.
See Kim et al., supra note 1, at 205.
17.
See OPTN/UNOS Liver and Intestine Committee, supra note 5, at 1.
18.
See OPTN/UNOS Liver and Intestine Committee, supra note 5, at 6.
19.
See Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, supra note 11.
20.
See OPTN/UNOS Liver and Intestine Committee, supra note 5, at 2-3.
21.
See OPTN/UNOS Liver and Intestine Committee, supra note 5, at 3.
22.
J.Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Revised Edition (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999): at 11.
23.
See Rawls, supra note 23, at 63-64.
24.
See Parent and Caplan, supra note 2, at 3.
25.
See S. V.Shiffrin, “Incentives, Motives, and Talents,”Philosophy & Public Affairs38, no. 2 (2010): 111-142, at 122-123; and D. MacKay, “Immigrant Selection, Health Requirements, and Disability Discrimination,” Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 14, no. 1 (2018): 44-82, at 55-58.
26.
42 U.S.C. § 2000e. (1964).
27.
This is a central legal and moral argument for diversity affirmative action in US college admissions. See J. P.Sterba, Affirmative Action for the Future (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009).
See OPTN/UNOS Liver and Intestine Committee, supra note 5, at 6.
31.
See OPTN/UNOS Liver and Intestine Committee, supra note 5, at 6.
32.
See OPTN/UNOS Liver and Intestine Committee, supra note 5, at 22-26.
33.
See OPTN/UNOS Liver and Intestine Committee, supra note 5, at 24.
34.
See OPTN/UNOS Liver and Intestine Committee, supra note 5, at 22. See also D.A.Dubayet al., “The Impact of Proposed Changes in Liver Allocation Policy on Cold Ischemia Times and Organ Transplantation Costs,”American Journal of Transplantation15, no. 2 (2015): 541-546; and S.E. Gentry et al., “The Impact of Redistricting Proposals on Health Care Expenditures for Liver Transplant Candidates and Recipients,” American Journal of Transplantation 16, no. 2 (2016): 583-593.
For a promising approach to measuring OPO effectiveness, see D.Goldberget al., “Changing Metrics of Organ Procurement Organization Performance in Order to Increase Organ Donation Rates in the United States,”American Journal of Transplantation17, no. 12 (2017): 3183-3192.
37.
L.Bernstein and K.Kindy, “New York Organ Collection Agency, Nation's Second-largest, Threated with Closure,”The Washington Post, July11, 2018.
38.
This principle is similar in structure to a specific version of John Rawls's “difference principle,” namely, the “lexical difference principle.” See J.Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Revised Edition (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), 72.
39.
R. H.Thaler and C. R.Suntein, Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008): at 34-35.
40.
See Thaler and Sunstein, supra note 35, at 175-182; and D.MacKay and A.Robinson, “The Ethics of Organ Donor Registration Policies: Nudges and Respect for Autonomy,”American Journal of Bioethics16, no. 11 (2016): 3-12.
41.
W.J.Chonet al., “When the Living and the Deceased Cannot Agree on Organ Donation: A Survey of US Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs),”American Journal of Transplantation14, no. 1 (2014): 172-177.
42.
K.Ladin, G.Zhang, and D.W.Hanto, “Geographic Disparities in Liver Availability: Accidents of Geography, or Consequences of Poor Social Policy?”American Journal of Transplantation17, no. 9 (2017): 2277-2284, at 2278.
43.
See Ladin, Zhang, and Hanto, supra note 42, at 2278.
44.
See Ladin, Zhang, and Hanto, supra note 42, at 2278.
45.
See Ladin, Zhang, and Hanto, supra note 42, at 2279.
46.
See Ladin, Zhang, and Hanto, supra note 42, at 2279.
47.
See Ladin, Zhang, and Hanto, supra note 42, at 2279.
48.
See Ladin, Zhang, and Hanto, supra note 42, at 2279.
49.
See Ladin, Zhang, and Hanto, supra note 42, at 2279.
50.
See Ladin, Zhang, and Hanto, supra note 42, at 2278-2279.
51.
See Ladin, Zhang, and Hanto, supra note 42, at 2277.
52.
See Ladin, Zhang, and Hanto, supra note 42, at 2281.
53.
See Ladin, Zhang, and Hanto, supra note 42, at 2282.
54.
See Ladin, Zhang, and Hanto, supra note 42, at 2281.
55.
See Ladin, Zhang, and Hanto, supra note 42, at 2279-2281.
56.
For defense of this claim, see D.MacKay and M.Danis, “Federalism and Responsibility for Health Care,”Public Affairs Quarterly30, no. 1 (2016): 1-29.
57.
See Ladin, Zhang, and Hanto, supra note 42, at 2282.
58.
See Ladin, Zhang, and Hanto, supra note 32, at 2282.
59.
For a good overview of different forms of prioritarianism and the distinction between health-related and global well-being, see D. W.Brock, “Priority to the Worse Off in Health Care Resource Prioritization,” in R.Rhodes, M.Battin, and A.Silvers, eds., Medicine and Social Justice: Essays on the Distribution of Health Care (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012): 155-164.
60.
See D.Sharp and J.Millum, “Prioritarianism for Global Health Investments: Identifying the Worst Off,”Journal of Applied Philosophy35, no. 1 (2015): 112-132.
