Of-course not.

Although it may be a more efficient and even just allocation of resources, it

would still be a moral monstrosity to authorize such a transplant. The reasoning here is that non-
maleficence takes precedence over the other ethical principles. It is safe to argue for the primacy of
morality, but medical ethicists rarely question why this should be the case. What authorizes doing no
harm first? Much of this reasoning appears to be based on strong intuitive appeals. Nonetheless, these
intuitive appeals are subject to significant criticism, as there may be some additional intuitions
illustrated by other cases in which it does not appear to be so clear that non-maleficence should take
precedence.