[shimmeringfaerie]

Originally Posted by BDF

It's not something I'm "happy" about... but if there's a choice between giving this 3 year old a kidney, and giving another person a kidney who's going to live a full, productive, and hopefully happy life... then it only makes sense to give it to someone where it'l reap the most benefits for everyone.

But your argument is based entirely on assumptions. Firstly, you are assuming that this girl won't live as long as whoever does get a kidney. Without being able to see the future, we can't know that. We can't know that the child who does get the kidney won't be hit by a car the very next day.
Secondly, we can't know that the child who does get the kidney will have a happier or "better" life than this girl. In fact, I would argue that they probably won't. Living until only 10 or 20 means that this girl won't face a lot of the unhappiness and stress that people who live for longer do and since she'll know that she won't live long, she will probably focus on being happy.
And thirdly, we don't know that another child getting this kidney would be more beneficial for everyone. The child who does get this kidney could grow up to be a horrible person, a criminal, anything. Or this girl could make a positive difference in a lot of people's lives.


Basically, I don't understand why the donation shouldn't be run on a first-come, first-serve basis. I can understand not giving a liver to someone with an alcohol addiction, but I don't think that this is the same. I do not feel that giving a kidney to such a young girl could ever be a waste even if she won't have a normal lifespan.