Question

In Munson’s Unsuitable, why does Munson argue that the transplant team did not deceive Rob? Do you agree with Munson? Explain why or why not. If one was to argue that the transplant team deceived Rob, do you think the deception was justified? Explain why or why not.

Answer 1

The transplant team was merely protecting the right of the person (autonomy) as a living donor.

Munson’s argument was that, although the action from Rob’s step father to allow Caroline to believe that he was ‘unsuitable’ as a live donor for physical reasons was ungenerous and uncourageous he wasn’t wrong.

Rob had no legitimate claim for it even if Alan was his stepfather. Alan without protection of consent and confidentiality might have felt forced to undergo surgery because of pressure from Caroline. Alan’s rights eventually helped him avoid facing any fear of negative consequences for the refusal to becoming a donor.

There are ethical principles that require people to do the right thing but don’t require them to be moral heroes.

The reasons for agreeing with Munson:

1. Everyone has the right to choose what is right for he and what is not. That is his individual independent choice.
2. Alan had to weigh the options and the things he had to undergo. The complications, the pain of going through surgery, the risk of whether Rob will make it or not, the risk of him facing his own death etc.
3. There needs to be sufficient time on Alan’s side to deliberate but unfortunately he had no luxury of it in that situation.

The reasons for not agreeing with Munson:

The only reason which seems valid is that Caroline was not give an opportunity to understand the situation or her husband’s actions. She was manipulated to see her husband as a hero. The team did not have a policy to let her know how her husband became ‘unsuitable’.

Even if we were to think the transplant team deceived Rob it is justifiable act. As they knew better about unwilling participation from many live donors who were just manipulated to go through the processes as they were choosen by the family members. There was a tendency to manipulate the weakest and least valued members of family to become the live donors. To privacy of informed consent helped these targeted victims to refuse to become donors without having to suffer from reprisals from family members.