Julesroges

 From my research on the topic I realized that it is pretty obvious that gaming the organ transplant waiting list is pretty unethical. In order to create a more complex argument, I will further my research on the role of the hospitals and organ allocation organizations. I will research how organizations try to prevent doctors from manipulating the waiting list and how they enforce their rules. The responsibilities of the organ allocation organizations to those waiting for organs conflict with the doctors' responsibilities to their own patients. I believe the rights of the organizations handling organ donations outweigh those of the doctor because the system is responsible for many lives that are waiting on the list for an organ.  How the four pillars factor in this topic:  justice - system needs to make sure that it is working fairly in who gets the organ and when.  beneficence - system needs to do good and ensure they save the most lives possible non-maleficence - doctors aren'

 My topic will be on whether or not doctors should manipulate the organ transplant list in order to help their patient receive an organ. In order for a person to move up on the waiting list for an organ transplant, their disease must be more severe than others. A doctor can help a patient move up on the list by giving them more intense treatment to make it seem like their disease is more severe. However, this can come into conflict with the pillars of non-maleficence and justice. First of all, by increasing the strength of treatment, this can negatively affect the patient and could possibly end up killing them. The doctor has to risk inflicting some harm on the patient just for the chance to receive and organ and survive. Second of all, when a doctor helps their patient move up on the waiting list, by effect they are bumping others down on the list. Some people may have been patiently waiting for an organ so it is not just for doctors to scheme their patients way up on the list. A pati

 I find myself taking a position in favor a paternalistic approach. I am pretty far left on the spectrum since I support the use of mandates, such as vaccine and mask mandates in order to promote the common good. It is essential for the government to step in and require everyone to help play their role in stopping the spread of viruses. I believe that during pandemics, such as COVID 19, it is necessary for the government to act as a parents as many people act like children and refuse to do the "right" thing. For example, many people refused to get vaccinated or wear masks because of their political views. In times when people put themselves over the common good I believe it is the government's job to step in and limit their freedom in order to do what is in the best interest of everyone. The biggest weakness in my argument is that vaccine mandates may not always be in the benefit of the people because some believe there are adverse effects from them. If these vaccines can