Corneas in the Congo Essay Example

10 recipient children, and our small aid agency. Below is the Cost-Benefit Analysis that would further help in determining whether accepting the corneas coming from the executed criminals is valid or not. Matrix:

Primary Stakeholders

Short-Term Consequences

Long-Term Consequences

Costs Benefits Costs Benefits

1. 25 non-recipient adults Not everyone is given a chance to have corneas therefore some of them might get jealous.

2. 15 non-recipient children Basing on how children react, they would also want to have cornea transplant because other children can have it.

3. 10 recipient children They may feel burdened by the thought of giving a lot of medical supplies in exchange for the corneas. They will regain their eyesight They might get blind again if the poor water condition can’t be address.

4. Small Aid Agency We must give away our medical supplies in exchange for the corneas. We can’t able to accommodate incoming refugees which is greater in number if most of our medical supplies are given away.

It becomes an achievement for us because somehow we’re able to help the 10 recipients.

II. Analysis:

In this case, Congo was in a state wherein civil war is dominant while our agency is working with 50 fifty blind people in the camp and so it is our duty to cater their needs based on their condition. It just so happened that the corneas being offered were only 20 pieces which is equivalent to only 10 recipients at a cost of 10 cases of medical supplies and a truck. Having these facts being laid down, we must now analyze whether

it is valid to accept the 20 corneas or not.

In civil wars, it is evident that a lot of people are affected by any kind of attacks which result to injuries and if not treated, most of them die. Therefore, medical supplies are really important when civil wars are present like what is happening in the Congo. We may have 50 blind people who are in need of cornea transplant but it is said that despite their inability to see, they were able to cope up with this kind of condition. In terms of measuring the number of people that are being helped between the recipients and the other victims of the civil war, it is obvious that there are more people we can help if we keep the medical supplies in times of treating their injuries.

If we are to help those blind refugees, the lives of more people are being sacrificed compared to them being helped whose lives are not at stake. The medical supplies are basically a need for the other victims because it is a chance to regain back their lives but the cornea transplant is more likely a want because it demands to desire for more than what is enough.

Moral Judgment:

Therefore, we conclude that we won’t accept the corneas. It is invalid based on the utilitarian perspective in which the benefits are overweighed by the costs.

III. Personal opinion:

Yes, the prisoners were being used as means to an end because the corneas coming from them weren’t given voluntary but they were carefully executed by prison wardens thus it is against

their will. It is clear that the prisoners were used as means to attain monetary benefit which is definitely an immoral act. It doesn’t justify the end because the execution of the prisoners has a motive behind it. Yes, it made them liberal but the new practice wasn’t morally executed and definitely an act of injustice.