I need help in understanding what the viewpoint would be of a virtue ethicist in deciding who should receive a liver transplant. There are 5 candidates:
Bob- is 40 years old unemployed, homeless with a severe drinking problem and a criminal record.He was the first to sign up for the transplant
Joe- is 42 years old, extremely wealthy business man. He was the last to sign up for the transplant. he has offered a $100 million donation to the hospital.
Sarah- 26 years old single mother of 6 school aged children
Karen- 60 years old renown Noble Prize winning medical researcher currently working on AIDS research.
Chris- 8 years old who is the sickest of the 5 and will more than likely die within a week without the transplant.
I think that my mind keeps going back to a consequentialist viewpoint on this. I think that Bob would be out for certain because his character is not one of virtue and his illness is caused by his irresponsible unhealthy extreme lifestyle. He also would not have the social support needed for his immuno-suppressant follow up care. I also think that a virtue ethicist would think that Sarah should not be a recipient because she may have problems with follow up care as well because of the 6 school aged children and only 1 income. How will she be able to contribute tangibly to society with the rigorous after care that is needed after a transplant. I am not sure if I am on the right path or not and I have no idea about the 2 candidates. My first thought is to go with the 8 year old because he has the longest life ahead of him to be able to contribute to the community and society as a virtuous human being.