Greater good analysis

John Doe, Patient One, is in late stage of kidney disease. If he does not receive a new kidney, then he is predicted to die within a week. Doe is 45, single, and has no children. Doctors theorize that Doe damaged his kidney by not following a low-salt diet. Doe inherited one million dollars and is known for giving money to charity. Without a transplant, he will probably be forced to spend all his money searching for a kidney outside of the usual legal channels. Patient Two is Jane Doe (no relation to John). Patient Two is a mother of two children (ages 21 and 24). She is divorced and 55 years old. She developed kidney problems due to eating a high-fat and high-sugar diet. If she does not receive a kidney within one month, doctors believe she will die. Patient Three is an orphan. This orphan lives in a state facility. She was born with a genetic condition that constantly damages her kidney. The only known approach to her condition is to provide her with a kidney transplant every so often. She is 11 and has already undergone two kidney transplants. She will perish in two months if she does not receive another transplant.

All three patients are at the same hospital. The hospital only has one kidney to give out. The orphan’s birth parents were known to be of a religion that is opposed to organ donation. The other patients come from religions that do not oppose organ donation. Who should get the kidney? Why should that candidate receive it over the others? Devise a course of social action and a solution for this case by using the ethics of egoism and then utilitarianism to a key moral conflict involving health care in this case. Appraise the interests of diverse populations (in terms of ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.) and how they relate to the case.

Writing Requirements (APA format)
Length: 3-4 pages (not including title page or references page)
1-inch margins
Double spaced
12-point Times New Roman font
Title page
References page (minimum of 2 scholarly sources)