I was in the copy room at PolyU's Hospitality & Tourism School and found this lying on the copier (I'm curious to find out which class this was for):
Heart Donor Game
Imagine your group is an Executive Committee in a hospital. Now your committee has to make a decision on deciding on setting the priority for who should get the heart that has been donated. The following 5 people are on the recipient waiting list:
1. Mr Tycoon, age 65, male with 6 sons and daughters, rich and famous. He has agreed to donate $1 million to the hospital if the hospital does the operation for him.
2. Ms Movie star, age 35, female, beautiful and influential with many young fans. She has donated $500,000 to build a shelter for the homeless.
3. Ms Housewife, age 40, widow, female with 3 children below the age of 7. No money, poor, relies on government social service to take care of her children.
4. Mr Young, age 20, male, 2nd year student in university. Only son in the family, hardworking youngster, works part-time to support the family, wants to be a policeman.
5. Mr Senator, age 45, male, married with 2 children. Just elected as Senator, highly respected and has a good reputation for fairness and fighting for people.
This question reminded me of the TV show Three Rivers. I'd argue for decisions like this to be made behind a veil of ignorance, where such personal details are stripped from a case file, leaving only medically relevant details.
But suppose the donor somehow gets to choose in which person s/her wants her or his heart to live on. Who would you give your heart to? I think I'd rather keep mine for someone who has no heart.