Ethics chess is complicated, but ignore it at your peril!
Ethics chess is the process by which one considers the likely chain of events that follow from an act, and tries to predict the ethical dilemmas that may result before they occur. Debbie Stevens and Jackie Brucia didn’t play ethics chess. This is what happened to them.
When Stevens was exploring the possibility of returning to the Atlantic Automotive Group, where she had worked previously, she met with Brucia, her former and potential boss, and somehow got on the topic of Brucia’s health problems. She needed a kidney transplant, and had found a donor, though it was not yet certain that the kidney would be hers. Stevens said that she might be willing to contribute her own kidney if that donor didn’t work out.
Later, Stevens was hired by Brucia,and two months later, in January of 2011, Brucia called Stevens into her office and told her that she had lost her organ donor. “Were you serious when you said you would be willing to give me one of yours?’ Brucia asked. “Sure, yeah,” Stevens says now. “She was my boss, I respected her. It’s just who I am. I didn’t want her to die.’’ It wasn’t exactly a direct donation, but Stevens donated her kidney to a stranger who matched up well with it so Brucia could be advanced on the list and get a better matched kidney from another source. Nonetheless, Brucia got a healthy kidney because Steven’s gave up one of her own.
Then, in order, she…
- Questioned the amount of time Stevens was taking to recuperate…
- Berated and reprimanded her for her work when she returned…
- Had her transferred to the Atlantic Automotive Group’s equivalent of a branch office in Hell, and
- When Stevens complained, fired her.
Now Stevens is suing, alleging that her hiring was a sinister plot, a back-up plan to get Brucia a kidney if all else failed. “I decided to become a kidney donor to my boss, and she took my heart,’’ Stevens has told the press.
Great line.
So what’s going on here?
My guess is that Stevens made the initial offer as an easy way to ingratiate herself with a possible employer, never thinking she would be asked to deliver an actual kidney. I think that Brucia probably would have hired her anyway, but that the kidney offer didn’t hurt. I think that Brucia felt that it also wouldn’t hurt to ask Stevens if the offer still stood, once her other donor flamed out. I think that Stevens felt pressured to give up her kidney, having made the offer and then accepted a job.
I think once she had the kidney, Brucia felt it was essential that the rest of the staff not believe that there was quid pro quo deal being carried out, or that Stevens would get special treatment from Brucia. I think Stevens expected “gratitude” from her boss for, in her view, saving her life, and thus expected at least more consideration, certainly not less. I think Stevens’ resentment that she was, if anything, being treated worse than her fellow-staff members showed in her work, and that she created inherent tension in the office, hence her banishment to Outer Mongolia. I think her complaints raised the cloud of a serious and ongoing dispute that Brucia believed could only be resolved by severing ties with Stevens. And so Stevens was fired.
This epic mess could have been averted at many junctures. Stevens’ offer was an unethical job interview tactic, the equivalent of a bribe. Because of that tactic, Brucia had an immediate conflict of interest: she shouldn’t have hired Stevens, and having hired her, should never have brought up the previous offer. As Stevens’ boss, she exercised sufficient power over her to make the request feel more like a demand: Stevens was, in effect coerced. Should she have said no? Absolutely; or, if she really, genuinely wanted to give up her kidney for altruistic reasons, she needed to resolve to either quit her job or transfer to another office. If Stevens didn’t raise these alternatives before the transplant, it was Brucia’s duty to raise them, because the supervisor-employee relationship between the two women was bound to be disrupted and corrupted by the gift of the kidney.
Brucia had good reason, as a boss, to go out of her way to show Stevens no favoritism; Stevens, as a human being, had every reason to expect better treatment. This is why conflicts of interest are so devastating; they complicate relationships and duties so much that it can become impossible, literally impossible, to determine what ethical conduct is.
If Stevens had become a detriment and a liability to the office, Brucia had to fire her. The fact that Brucia had a healthy kidney because of her generosity should have been a non-factor in the decision. But would Brucia have fired an employee in the same circumstances who hadn’t given her a kidney, because she wouldn’t be going out of her way to prove that she wasn’t allowing her personal life to interfere with her workplace judgment? Who knows? An existing conflict can cause an individual to over-react to fight against the conflict too.
At a certain point in some relationships, the failure to play ethics chess and think ahead about how some actions can make future ethical conduct all but impossible results in lose-lose traps. Once Brucia accepted a kidney from her employee, she could no longer be both grateful and fair, objective and compassionate. Maybe it was all a dastardly plot, but I doubt it: after all, Stevens could have said no.
Several poor ethical choices by both parties resulted in a hopeless bind that was destined to cause unhappiness. Ethics involves thinking through the likely consequences of your actions. If you don’t think ahead and play ethics chess, you’re asking for trouble.
Or risking a kidney
Ethics Alarms 
I think you’re right.
What an absurd conclusion. How could anyone even begin to put a kidney donation alongside a low-level job at a used car dealership, as though they were remotely in the same realm of human intercourse. If you enable someone to LIVE another day, you are ENTITLED not to be chastised for missing work due to recovering from having only one kidney. All this drivel that you post about “ethics chess” reveals your sterile orientation towards the world. Kidney donation represents the highest level of human self-lessness (even if she thought she’d get a job out of it), and working at a car lot is the lowest level of hell. Jackie Brucia owes her everything!
THAT is ridiculous. The personal transactions cannot have any bearing on workplace discipline or standards. Do you not comprehend what a conflict of interest is? The company and the staff are not obligated to endure a sub-par employee because of a private benefit obtained by the boss.
When Brucia is working, she doesn’t get to work out her personal debts at the company’s expense. Who do you work for, the Mafia? Your lack of comprehension of how the personal and professional are supposed to be kept separate is dumbfounding. Yes, Brucia owes her everything. The company, however, doesn’t, and when she’s working, Brucia is the company.
This isn’t even a close call.
Sorry, Jack — you’ll note in the facts that Brucia was herself recuperating while she questioned why Stevens hadn’t returned to work. Further, Brucia conceded any high ground regarding ‘conflicts of interest’ when she accepted the kidney. The idea that this used car lot is some paragon of capitalist efficiency is patently ridiculous. Look again at the facts… Also, I read on your website that you and your wife are business partners. Can you honestly testify that your personal relationship has no bearing on your COMPANY?
Sorry, Madeleleine.… the company didn’t sign off on that deal, and its resources and policies can’t and mustn’t be used to pay Brucia’s debt. It doesn’t have to be a paragon of anything—the company is not Brucia’s personal resource to execute gratitude or indebtedness. This is so obvious, Business 101, that I should have to argue for it. Let’s say Stevens loaned Brucia money…would you take the same position? Paid her rent? Do you really advocate a workplace were management decisions on personnel are determined by bribes?
If you explain a scenario in which my obligations to my job and my family would be in similar conflict when my job contains my family and supports it, I’ll answer your last question. You can’t, because any deal my wife and I make regarding the company IS an agreement by the company. It’s an irrelevant example.
You seem like a pretty big douche and I hope when one of your organs fail nobody bothers.
I usually don’t allow this kind of comment, no matter who it’s directed at, but I gave this one points for precision. Besides, whoever wrote this needs encouragement to keep reading about ethics. And imagine how hard it is going through life with a name like Fuck You Jack.
“Fuck you Jack, party of four. Your table is ready”.
/every one turns to
stare/
Yeah…
that’s got to be hard.
Don’t you think? I know I would have changed my name, to something like “Fuck you Harry.”
Touche, Jack.
Maybe the “management decision” was NOT made in the best interests of the Company. Maybe the decision was made because Brucia wanted to get rid of the kidney donor, as seeing her every day made Brucia feel like she owed her something and made Brucia uncomfortable. You’re just assuming that the firing was done for the good of the Company. Brucia should have be fired for even bringing up the fact that she needed a kidney to Stevens, let alone coercing and allowing Stevens to donate on her behalf. THAT would have been in the good of the Company: firing Brucia for using the Company’s resources (an employee) for her own personal gain.
OK Boomer
Bite me!
One scenario, or influence, that may have been left out of this post, would be how each person recovered comparatively. First, consider that Brucia being the recipient probably felt better after her surgery given that she went from dying to recovering, and Stephens worse given that she went from healthy to recovering.
Even if all things are equal, people recover from trauma differently. Do an appendectomy on two healthy people and they’ll recover at different speeds. Part of Brucia’s logic may have been “I’m better now, why is she still recovering?” Thinking that she went through the same thing as Stephens likely desensitized her to what her employee was going through.
Good explanation Tim; I hadn’t thought about that aspect of the story. And on the other end, her donor, who might have pushed herself to return to work before she was ready under typical circumstances, may have felt she was entitled to take a bit more time to recover, since she had sacrificed her health for her boss,who would surely be sympathetic.
There is always at least two stories to most everything. In This case anyone giving up a kidney to preserve someones life, deserves special treatment! Not being fired should be one. Deprived of medical insurance and a job is an intorallable act in this case. I sincerely doubt she was sitting on a couch eating bon bons all day. Any time someone is invited to re3spond to a situation on a news show or a newspaper the shows me a huge GUILT Factor
“This case anyone giving up a kidney to preserve someones life, deserves special treatment!” Yes, John, by the individual, not by the COMPANY she works for, The company owes the donor nothing. Brucia, as boss, is acting on the company’s behalf. Same with being fired: if she deserves to be fired, her boss has to fire her, and their relationship has no bearing on it. I have fired close friends. I would fire relatives. The fact that some people can’t is why nepotism is usually banned.
Sorry, if someone gave me a kidney and then didn’t do their job, I’d do their job for them — since their kidney is doing my job for me. Your heartlessness is pretty mind-boggling, John. Ethics refers to the complexities of human decision-making — your idea of ethics is just how to justify capitalism. Your attitude is the one that forecloses on the homes of the elderly in the interests of profit, or that fires someone just when their wife is having a baby. Where is the role of compassion in your “chess game” of corporate profits?
Stop saying “sorry”, my name is Jack, not John, Nancy, and your comment is nonsense. What do you mean, “you’d do their job”—and yours too? How would you manage THAT and meet your obligations to your employer, who is now paying one employee to do nothing, and another who can’t do her own job. What does that have to do with capitalism? How do you calculate that it’s ethical to unilaterally decide that an employer has to pay the costs of a completely personal arrangement that has no connection to the work place? Compassion is swell, but it is hardly compassion to make someone else pay for yours. That’s not fairness. You aren’t doing ethical analysis, you’re just applying raw emotion. Foreclosing on the homes of the elderly in the interests of profit [banks often lose money on foreclosed homes], or that fires someone when their wife is having a baby [ so a company should, for example, keep a cheat, a liar, a sexual harasser or an embezzler on the payroll because his wife is having a baby? ] have nothing to do with the substance or issues of this problem.
You seem to think theft is ethical, somehow. Your solution, “do their job for them” is romantic but hogwash—it doesn’t work. If ethics can’t work, it’s not ethics, it’s a pipe dream.
This has exactly nothing to do with capitalism, and everything about creating conflicting loyalties that can’t be resolved. You are hopelessly confused.
I am not sure why you are assuming the validity of the second bullet point? your entire logical series then follows this assumption. Do we have proof that Stevens was a bad employee, that she wasn’t qualified for the position, that she was taking too much time to recuperate, that she was abusing the relationship with her boss? I apologize, I haven’t read an external source.
I could very well see a scenerio where Brucia hires Stevens on the basis of wanting to ask for the kidney; Brucia waiting two months then asking for the donation. Waiting a few months, and following a series of calculated steps proceeded to fire Stevens. Brucia couldn’t make the case of firing her immediately after the surgery, but had to build a case (late recovery, bad job, complaining too much, etc.). You agree that Brucia was unethical in her joining (even competing) in the ethical chess game, so why wouldn’t she follow through with her unethical behavior and lead Stevens down the path of manipulation to swipe her kidney?
Because it’s a ridiculous long-shot, that’s why. Why would anyone assume that a virtual stranger would give them a kidney?The employee should have said no, and figured to. If she refused and was THEN fired, she would have a slam dunk law suit. It’s possible, but it’s the most unlikely scenario.
YES, I’m assuming the boss was not some kind of a psychic Machiavelli, and behaved like a normal person in an ethical dilemma. The fact is, very few employees think they are at fault when they are fired, and this one had reason, though mistaken, to feel she deserved special treatment. That’s the most likely fact pattern. It’s still all speculation.
I have to disagree with your assessment. I think it’s more likely that Mrs Brucia harbored a deep resentment at Ms Stevens because of her indebtedness to her. Mrs Brucia did abuse the privilege of employing Ms Stevens therefore there is a de facto quid pro quo. Ms Stevens may be ignorant but Mrs Brucia is abhorrent and a people user. Mrs Brucia used Ms Stevens like a piece of toilet paper. She got what she needed and flushed her.
I think it is always unwise to assume diabolical motives when normal human foibles are available as explanations for the same conduct. The two knew each other: monsters are usually easy to spot. Your scenario is possible, and would make a good movie, but again, it’s not very likely.
Mr. Marshall,
Slightly off topic here, but in my experience, modern ethical monsters are normally not at all easy to spot. Especially if they have attained some level of authority they have become very adept at camouflage and concealment. I don’t believe that diabolical motives are the ones that we typically have to be concerned with anyway. We are much more likely to be confronted with the “easy way” of ethical shortcuts than the metaphorical maniac with the machete.
Thanks,
Yeah, you know, I second guess myself there as well. Sociopaths are persuasive and charming. Monsters are often not easy to pick out at all, the more I think about it. You are right.
Pingback: Ethics Chess Lesson: The Tale of the Kidney and the Ungrateful … « Ethics Find
If I parse you correctly; one possible solution if Stevens had to be fired anyways would be for Brucia to divert some of her paycheck to help get Stevens back on her feet.
I think you are missing the other big elephant in the room: the employer, Atlantic Automotive Group. Two employees leaving at the same time for extended medical leave (and if they used FMLA, they HAD to work with human resources on the paperwork) – I think that the employer was at least indirectly aware of what was happening. Granted, under HIPPA, they cannot require employees to disclose medical conditions, but typically, for medical leave more than 3-4 days in a row, they can require a doctor’s note.
It appears that AAG may have *ignored* this situation in the hope that they would not be considered legally involved if it went badly. While it appears that they were placed in a bad position, they should have at least obtained outside legal advise on how to handle this situation. There is an obvious appearance of potential employer/employee coersion – and that would definitely involve them as the employer.
I wish I had information on this, Sue. I think some early legal intervention would have been wise and great ethics chess, but in my experience, few companies, if any, would be this prescient or take the time to read the clues.
The coercion issue is tough one, given that the donor originally raised the issue and it was an open-ended offer. I agree that there is an element of power abuse, but it would be hard to prove that “did you mean what you said?” is any kind of an implied threat.
Atlantic Automotive Group (AAG) has over 20+ NEW Car dealerships across Long Island and is descibed as a BILLION dollar corporation.
Where, What and Who are the AAG Corporate Professionals ? And when and How where these professionals dealing with this quite obvious situation.
This is NOT simply a Brucia/ Stevens issue and involves Corporate Policies and Actions in what simply on bare description was a potential poisonous fruit …well before any surgery and certainly after. This is no used auto lot down the street but a major Billion Dollar Corporation with resources that THEY should have employed, wisely, in advance of such an extreme superior / employee transaction. If they ignored it, decided to save the money, let ‘things’ happen without involvement… that plan was wrong and now proves a failure by the corporate execs involved.
There is more here and we do not know if Ms Brucia was herself pushed. Nor do we know why she and Stevens had a falling out. What should be obvious to the nasty folk is that Stevens gave up a very healthy kidney and a healthy unrestricted diet to become a person with diet and health limits living with one kidney. I know people who did this and they are NEVER as Healthy again ! Nor can some deal with severe, strict diet and drink (alcohol especially) restrictions after a full healthy life style. There is also Psychological pressure that donors deal with, while the receptive person now have health and freedom tha they thought was forever gone. So Ms. Stevens is dealing with unforeseen health and mental issues and Ms. Brucia is apparently back to being a driven, healthy controler in a billion dollar machine.
There are human issues and a huge CORPORATE FAILING !!!!!
We’ll learn more certainly.
Certainly. Excellent perspectives that were not yet in the discussion: thanks. The post was concerned only with the relatiobship between the two women, not the corporate involvement, if any.
Stevens gave her kidney away like she was contributing dimes to a homeless man on the curb. The story, as we know it, makes little sense.
One can certainly split hairs here. One can argue that the kidney recipient was not the company, but any reasonable person can conclude that for all practical purposes, in that relationship, she was.
Brucia’s behavior is understandable in this context. She probably became increasingly uncomfortable in having Ms. Stevens around it reminded her of a time that she was vulnerable, rather than the iron lady of a boss that she imagines herself to be.
In the ultimate paradox, Brucia resented Ms. Steven’s gracious act because Stevens mere presence reminded her of a time when she was not fully in control. Rather than being grateful, Brucia became angry and did what she did to remove the source of her anger and discomfort. It is not an uncommon occurence, but it remains wrong and unethical.
If that’s the sole reason she fired Stevens, I agree. I would be shocked if this was true, because it not only makes her a sitting duck for a lawsuit, it also makes her look terrible in the process. My guess is that Stevens was fired for conduct or non-conduct that would get anyone fired who didn’t give away a kidney, and that her appeal to a jury will be based on the theory that the kidney allowed her greater leave to be inadequate. If that’s her case, she’d lose with me.
A few points:
1) Brucia didn’t actually get the kidney. Stevens donated to a pool. That donation somehow improved Brucia’s odds. http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/04/24/kidney-donor-wants-organ-back-from-boss-who-fired-her/
2) Stevens previously quit due to personal reasons. That is, she considered her job less important than her non-work life. While this may be fine, she may have again put personal interests ahead of her employer’s. http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/120424_kidney_complaint.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody
3) Your insight is apt. The complaint states that Brucia said Stevens should not expect special treatment due to the donation.
4) The critiques following transfer came from an entirely different individual, from an environment in which Stevens admitted lack of comfort. Moreover, it looks like 2 weeks prior to termination, she was offered a return to the earlier position, but it seems as if she declined that offer. Thus, it is not clear that Brucia is responsible for the termination, though she may be responsible for the transfer.
5) Stevens may have a decent retaliation claim and failure to accommodate claim. If the performance issues arose from lack of a kidney (Brucia aside), and the employer did not accommodate (in fact, made things harder), then they may be liable. However, I may have missed it, but I don’t think Stevens requested an accommodation, which burden is hers to initiate. Legal outcome is a toss-up at this point.
Great research, Jay—I hadn’t seen the complaint. Thanks.
They should not have entered into this transactions without resolving the conflict of interests first. However, now it was done and boundaries were overstepped anyway, it would have been the right thing to do for Brucia, as Stevens’ boss, to do whatever she can to keep Stevens employed in the company she hired her in. I assume this is why ethics is not just a ‘game’, sometimes a moral ‘sense’ plays a role as well. The ‘right thing’ to do in this case would have been for Brucia to help out Stevens as much as possible, maybe helping her pay her bills, keeping her employed or at least help her find another job if Brucia could not find it in her to keep her at AAG. The women saved her life, after all. But I agree with you Jack that people should think things through before they enter ethical swamps.
I donated a kidney to someone I’d never met in 2007. At the time, I was working for a small community newspaper. (I was a newbie by comparison. Had only been there a year whereas most of the staff were long-timers.) When some of my co-workers learned of my plan, which involved a trip downstate at considerable expense, they did a series of fundraisers. Overall, I think they raised about $10,000, which paid all my travel and living expenses during my “tour de donation.”
About 18 months later, I quit the job and I have since completely lost touch with everyone at the paper. Should I have remained there out of gratitude? Without their help, I may have had to back out of the donation.
I am transient by nature. As such, I have also failed to stay in touch with the recipient. She, likewise, is similarly disinterested because LIFE GOES ON.
I have also divorced the man I was married to at the time of my donation, even though he accompanied me on my mission and told me every day how “proud” he was of my donation. I have since taken up with a fellow living donor. (Not that that’s relevant, really. It just is.)
I experienced a MASSIVE amount of depression after the donation. Should I blame someone for that? If so, who and to what extent and what should be my compensation for having acquired this condition?
Personally, I am embarrassed for Stevens. She undermines her case by sitting for media interviews, crying for the camera, using over-the-top quips, etc. Ethical questions of this nature should not be settled by viewers of Fox News, whose headline reads, “Kidney donor wants organ back from boss who fired her.”
The original ethical argument and these responses have really given me food for thought. It seems that in many ways the American workplace has had more porous boundaries. American workers in all trades and professions are spending more time doing work because the internet and our countries love affair with smart phones and computers. This is both a positive and a negative. Along with constantly being in our thoughts it seems that the case of the Boss-Stole-My-Kidney the workplace has indeed invaded the body of an American worker. I have always had an issue with my healthcare being dependent on my employer; because being healthy is an integral part of being a good worker. But generally most companies I have worked for try to find the cheapest healthcare policy, the one that will help the employer save money; not the one that is best for its employees.
So I guess I have 2 questions:
HR would have had to approve both of these women’s procedures, how could they not have seen a conflict of interest for the company?
If Ms. Bruscia was doing work during her recovery time, or pre-op, on her computer, etc..while she was in the hospital, could that put the Autogroup in a vulnerable legal position?
1. I guess I don’t see the company’s conflict of interest. One employee donated a kidney (to some one else); another, who was already being treated for kidney issues, got a medical procedure that she needed. What’s the conflict? The boss has a personal/ professional conflict, and that’s all.
2. Legal question,and beyond the purview of the blog.
Could it be that the business culture in many car dealerships are wanting in the area of ethics? Just a thought.
As a kidney donor (10 years ago) who has since read a lot on the subject I would like to add one fact that seems to have not been considered in the articles and postings I have read so far:
— The recipient of a transplanted organ (whether from a living or deceased donor) must take notable amounts of anti-rejection drugs. The dosages are large right after the surgery and then are gradully reduced until the minimum amount and the right medication is determined. Some of those drugs cause serious psychological side-effects in some recipients. Some families have reported that the normally nice recipient behaved like a “monster” of unkindness until the anti-rejection meds were changed/reduced. As the story indicates that the recipient was still “recovering” when she is reported to have behaved very badly it is POSSIBLE that she was suffering from the psychological side-effects of the massive anti-rejection drug regimen. If a person acts in a way that is judged to be unethical during the month after major life-changing surgery and while taking massive dosages of necessary prescribed drugs with possible psyshological side-effects it may be prudent to take her/his temporary physical/mental condition into consideration.
Fr. Pat Sullivan
Excellent point, Father.
During the year after my son’s transplant, he had to be hospitalized twice for violent mental health episodes. He was 13-years-old at the time. Today, at 21, he’s one of the most docile individuals I know.
Christine
I’ve come of of steroids before and I didn’t notice that I was irritable. Be things as they may, you still have to own your behavior. You’ve got to call a spade a spade. Mrs Brucia’s behavior was appalling.
Years ago I worked at a company where the owners got word that one of their employees had stopped on a lightly-traveled bike path to assist someone who was injured and helped them get to a place where they could call for medical help (the victim couldn’t walk unassisted). Unbeknownst to that employee, the person he helped was one of the company’s clients, thus the report back to the owners.
The owners gave that employee a significant bonus and company-wide acclaim for what he did. The reason: they wanted to recognize and encourage that kind of selfless, ethical behavior in their employees because they valued it.
My point?
I think I disagree with Jack’s assertion that Stevens’ company had no reason at all to give her special treatment. If that company values ethical behavior at all it should have done everything it could to make the experience easier, because she’s a “keeper”. In fact, we should ALL do whatever we can to encourage ethical behavior in others.
The irony of the post right above mine is not lost on me, either.
–Dwayne
(Okay it’s no longer right above mine now. The one I’m referring to is from Jessie.) –Dwayne
After doing a little research, I have discovered that the auto dealer in question has had ties to organized crime. That puts an entirely different spin on things.
Why?
You mean, why didn’t the boss just send Big Murray out to TAKE someone’s kidney?
It was unethical for her boss to ask for the kidney in the work environment, specially from a subordinate. Brucia should also be fired for misconduct, she conducted this “transaction” if you will, on company time, and it could be argued she coerced the employee to donate a kidney. She may not have received Stevens kidney directly, but she directly benefited from Stevens donation by being placed higher on the recipient list. Brucia misappropriated company resources (the employee) for personal gain. Stevens could easily say she feared retaliation for not donating her kidney, but instead suffered it regardless. Brucia would have to argue and have concrete proof that Stevens was abusing the situation. IMO needing adequate time off for kidney surgery is not difficult to comprehend. If she were slated say, 2 weeks, and they were calling her within a week, the company was not reasonable to do that after giving prior approval of time off. In addition to that, I hope they have documentation of her supposed issues with her work. If she was that bad she would have been let go long before she were fired and long before she donated a kidney. That being said I’d never donate a kidney to someone who was not family.
As the problems involved in this case might possibly discourage someone from thinking of donating a kidney to a non-family person, I would just like to mention that through http://www.kidneyregistry.org one may donate a kidney to a stranger in need and (if the donor so wishes) have no knowledge of who the recipient is, nor any contact afterwards. While this removes the personal satisfaction that might result form knowing the recipient it also removes the dangers involved in the case cited. As an added bonus, the kidney registry will try to give the donated kidney to a patient who has a willing but incompatible donor. That incompatible donor agrees to then pass along his/her kidney to another stranger selected by the registry. Again the registry chooses another patient who has a willing but incompatible donor, and so on down the line. Some of these “chains” have resulted in 6 or more otherwise impossible transplants, but one donor who gives but does not receive is needed to start off the “chain”. This info does not, of course, have to do with the ethics of the case cited but I wanted readers to know that there are ways of helping while avoiding “conflicts of interest”.