Joanna Marie Tulio BSN1-J

The Survival Lottery of John Harris

All over the years, organ transplants became the main hope of people to acquire a second

chance of living which prolongs an individual’s lifespan in which it may surpasses the estimated

time he/she had left in this world. According to the Uno’s Organization, estimated 700,000

patients all over the world applied for an organ donation every year and not almost half of it were

catered. In a result, more than 20 people a day die before the organs become available. In this

process, it undergoes a proper procedure where in organ transplants were authorized by the

donor and approval of a Doctor that specifies if the donated organ matches the blood and tissues

of a patient before proceeding to an operation. As we go further, we will discover that there are

some cases where sacrifices and violation of rights could be outdone just to save the lives of the

many. Where the diagnosis and perspective of Doctors were about to be tested, on how he/she

will provide action in embracing this kind of matter. This is where the Utilitarian principles

meddle, based on Investopedia.com, Utilitarianism is a virtue to improve one’s life better by

increasing the good things in the world and minimizing the bad things. As we seek thoroughly

from this topic, we will arrive at a conclusion in which answers the question, “What is Survival

Lottery about?” “According to Utilitarian Principles, is John Harris’ proposal for an organ

donation acceptable or not?”

In John Harris’ proposal for an organ donation called the Survival Lottery, he arrived at a

conclusion that sacrificing a healthy person’s life by removing his organs could save not only

one, but more people could benefit from it. This case arises a lot of issues and opinion that

contradicts a lot of Philosophers view about killing an innocent’s life (which he/she is not

obliged about). It will be considered as a Federal Felony. In contrary, it involves murder and by

any means the responsibility of the deaths of the patients should not be shouldered by the

doctors, instead it will be a cause of a natural death due to a disease. Yet, we could not remove

the fact that A (the innocent person that will be sacrificed) is much more innocent compared to X

and Y (persons that needs transplants) is also innocent in a sense that they do not deserve to die

because of a disease they developed. As the argument continues, X and Y started to put pressure
on the Doctors hand by making it as a neglect to his service by not finding an alternative way nor

accepting their proposal is considered killing a patient that can be compared to shooting a person

dead. The morality of a person will be determined in these circumstances if he decided to save

two lives that would cost one or save one that would cost two. Doctors are just persons who act

by providing treatments and care to patients who needs their specialization, they don’t have the

authority and power to overrule and appeal to custom to kill a person to save lives of many. Of

course, they also have good arguments which they obtain solutions by hauling by passers in front

of hospitals. Although, it may receive negative feedbacks and concerns from the netizens is

enough reason to dismiss this kind of idea.

Lastly, X and Z introduced the Survival Lottery scheme in which they will give every

person a number that will be sorted and encoded to a computer. Every time that there is a patient

who needs transplant, they will ask the central computer to pick a number, and that person will

be killed to save the lives of others, which may create an implementation as euphemism for

killing. With this kind of method, young ones will be the sacrificial lamb for the old ones and the

society will be crowded by the people who survived, or people who has been donated by an

organ. A hypothesis has been formulated that, if X and Z will die, it will be probably a cause of

the disease whereas if A died on the other hand, we could say that he was killed due to the

perpetration of men.

This proposal steals the rights of a person to live. The unbalanced decision will be

suffered by many and not a few due to the convenience circumstances they have on their side.

Why would others carry the misfortune that they, themselves created in the first place? If you

develop a lung cancer through smoking which gives you pleasure through the years of your life,

then why would you pass the burden and suffering to others to save yourself? Based on the

Utilitarian Principles, this outrageous act is inhumane on which they rejected, in a reason of, it

oversteps the sixth commandments of God as well as they hold the power of ending a person’s

life that only God can judge nor decide. It is irrational and crucial to think that this proposal only

revolves around sacrificing one another without concerns from the other person’s life. Utilitarian

principles are more into spreading good things and reducing bad thing things rather than doing
bad things to acquire good things in return. The Survival Lottery Scheme pays a lot of a great

price more than the benefits it can give. Your fate is determined, changing one’s course and

opportunities in life only creates a tangible kind of life.

Hence, these selfish acts can create numerous crimes and treacherous behaviors where

victims withstand the proposal through defensing their self. Once they gathered courage to

protect and voice out their rights to live every day, you will hear screams, guns, and footsteps

circulating every corners of your neighborhood. This supports, why John Harris’ proposal about

the organ donation called the “survival lottery” is not acceptable, basing on the Utilitarian’s

Principles. It would create a division, where equality does not meet the means of being a human,

that could dignify them through dictating how would their life ends.

In conclusion, John Harris’ proposal about the organ donation is pointless. It is a one-

sided decision that only derived from their own perspective and their own situation whereas the

life of the many will be put at stake. There is a lot of loopholes and risk that they would take

responsibility about or worst, which may be the source of the beginning of war. The survival

lottery scheme will not be acceptable not only from the utilitarian principles but also from the

principles of every human being that will be tarnished through the process of conducting this

proposal.