Consequentialist Perspective:  

This theory that suggests an action is good or bad depending on

outcome. It provides a clear and practical guidance on the situation to take actions. According to this
theory, while morally evaluating an action, we should only consider the way it affects the world –
how much benefit and how much harm it produces. All other considerations are morally irrelevant.

Taking the healthy specimen’s parts, killing him, and then install them in his patients will result in
saving the life of the five patients of David. Hence, the consequence of the action is positive in this
situation. In light of Utilitarianism the right action leads to most happiness of greatest number of
people. In this case, taking the healthy specimen's parts to save the lives of five patients would
produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. The harm caused to
the healthy specimen when weighed against the benefit of saving the lives of five patients, is less
according to Utilitarianism approach. A concern here is the consideration that, “Ends justify Means”.
According to Preference Utilitarianism this approach is right since an action is morally superior to its
alternatives if it brings about a state of affairs in which more preferences are satisfied than any
alternative action. Installing the healthy patient’s body parts in the Patients of David will save five
lives while taking just one. But this is the limitation or drawback of Preference Utilitarianism
approach since it is recommending the exploitation of an unwilling innocent in order to serve the
greater good.

But at the same time another consequence of this action would be leading to death of a
healthy person. This person is at no fault and taking his organs would clearly be a violation of
his rights and be a grave offense. It is not ethical or legal to kill a healthy person to save
another person by donating their organs. Organ donation must be done voluntarily and with
the consent of the donor or their family members after their death. In most countries, the law
prohibits the killing of a healthy person for organ donation or any other reason. Organ
donation is an altruistic act, where a person donates their organs after they have died or, in
some cases, while they are still alive, but only if it is safe and with their informed consent.
Donors must be declared brain dead or have suffered irreversible loss of brain function, and
the organs must be removed in a way that does not cause harm to the donor's body. The
ethical and legal principles of organ donation require that the donation process is voluntary
and based on informed consent, and that the rights, dignity, and welfare of both the donor and
the recipient are respected. The decision to donate organs is a personal one and should be
made with careful consideration and discussion with family members and healthcare
providers. In light of these points it would be clearly unethical and not right to take away the
healthy specimen’s parts to save the other 5 patients…… considering the long-term
consequences of taking the healthy specimen's parts, such as the potential impact on organ
donation rates and public trust in the medical profession is also to be understood in light of
this act. It can damage public trust in the medical profession and decrease the likelihood of
organ donation. Additionally, the ethical implications of taking organs from someone who
did not consent raises concerns about bodily autonomy and medical ethics….. Again there is
no assurance that on donating the organs and installing them in his patients, David will be
able to save their lives. Biological processes take their own course. the quality of life of the
patients who would receive the transplants. If the patients' quality of life would not
significantly improve, then taking the healthy specimen's parts may not produce enough
happiness to justify the harm caused to the healthy specimen…. The consequentialist
approach may also require a consideration of the potential harm caused to the families of the
healthy specimen… Furthermore, the principle of non-maleficence, which requires that we do
no harm to others, also applies to organ donation. Taking organs from a living donor without
their full and informed consent, or in situations where their life is already precarious or
doomed, would violate this principle.
In this case, taking the healthy person's life would cause harm to that individual and violate
their right to life. Therefore, it cannot be justified on consequentialist grounds, as the negative
consequences for the person being killed would outweigh the positive consequences for the
five patients receiving organs. Instead, it is important to explore alternative solutions, such as
seeking out other potential organ donors, exploring alternative treatment options, or
advocating for policies that increase the availability of organs for transplantation. These
solutions can promote the well-being of all individuals involved, without violating anyone's
rights or causing harm.

DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS : In deontological ethics, , the focus is on the nature of the

action rather than based on the consequences of the very act. It tends to fit well with our
natural intuition about what is or isn't ethical.

Taking the organs and killing a healthy individual cannot be morally good no matter how
many lives it can save, since it is morally wrong as it violates Article 2 of the human rights
act which guarantees that that nobody, including the Government, can try to end your life.
This is justified by Kant who argued that moral obligation is a rational necessity: that which
is rationally willed is morally right. In deontological ethical theory, inspired by Kant, the
foundation of morality is respect for autonomy in oneself and in others. Individuals should be
treated as ends in themselves and not merely as means to an end. This principle demands that
we recognize the inherent worth and dignity of every individual and respect their autonomy,
by not using them merely as a means to achieve our own ends…… Taking the healthy
specimen's organs without their consent would treat them solely as a means to save the lives
of the five patients. This violates the principle of respect for persons and treats the healthy
specimen as a mere object, rather than a person with inherent value and dignity….. No one
can lead to a denial of a person’s right to life no matter for whichever greater good it might
be…. taking the healthy specimen's organs without their consent would violate the
deontological principle of respect for persons, which is a core tenet of many deontological
theories, including Kantian ethics.

Therefore, the Deontological Perspective gives a more strong argument that taking the
healthy specimen's organs without their consent is morally wrong and unethical, no matter
the consequences or potential benefits it might bring to the five patients. Hence, in this light it
is imperative to search for alternative solutions and options that will respect the dignity and
autonomy of all the individuals being sought in the process