Øverland Gerhard
University of Melbourne, Melbourne.
Bioethics. 2007 Sep;21(7):355-63. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2007.00570.x.
In 1975 John Harris envisaged a survival lottery to redistribute organs from one to a greater number in order to reduce number of deaths as a consequence of organ failure. In this paper I reach a conclusion about when running a survival lottery is permissible by looking at the reason prospective participants have for allowing the procedure from a contractual perspective. I identify three versions of the survival lottery. In a National Lottery, everyone within a jurisdiction is a candidate for being a donor for everyone else, disregarding all differences between individuals' eventual possibility of needing an organ. In a Group Specific Lottery, it is a question of running a lottery among members of a specific group who share the same probability of getting organ failure. In a Local Lottery one randomises among individuals who are already in need of a new organ but who happen to be compatible and in need of different organs. While the first is vulnerable to considerations of fairness, it is difficult to perceive a feasible way to implement the second option that does not come with a host of unwelcome consequences. I argue, however, that it is permissible to run Local Lotteries.
1975年，约翰·哈里斯设想了一种生存彩票，通过将器官从一人分配给更多人，以减少因器官衰竭导致的死亡人数。在本文中，我从契约的角度审视潜在参与者允许该程序的理由，从而得出关于何时允许实施生存彩票的结论。我确定了生存彩票的三个版本。在国家彩票中，一个司法辖区内的每个人都是为其他所有人捐献器官的候选人，而不考虑个人最终需要器官的可能性之间的所有差异。在特定群体彩票中，是在具有相同器官衰竭概率的特定群体成员中进行彩票抽奖的问题。在本地彩票中，则是在已经需要新器官但恰好相互匹配且需要不同器官的个人中进行随机选择。虽然第一种容易受到公平性考量的影响，但很难找到一种可行的方式来实施第二种选择而不带来一系列不受欢迎的后果。然而，我认为实施本地彩票是允许的。
