<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19154">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>"The main down side I can see under these assumed circumstances is whether
one is permitted to risk one?s life to save another (one might consider the
imminence of the risk to life and in fact if there is any at all in some cases)
which is an issue well elaborated upon in the halachic literature."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Isn't there another downside (assuming full consent, no coercion etc. which
is an assumption that very well might not be justified); i.e., that rich people
whose condition is not as serious as that of poor people will live and the poor
people will die? Take this example: doctors say rich person should
live at least three more years with dialysis; poor person will die within a
month. Is it just/moral/halachically permissible (three possibly
differing/conflicting standards) for the rich person to get the transplant and
the poor person to die, when, if the poor person got the transplant, both of
them might have lived (albeit the rich person having to undergo additional
dialysis)?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Joseph Kaplan </DIV></BODY></HTML>