In response to aforementioned arguments against the paper published by Moss and Siegler (1991), I would like to propose a stripped-down version of the moral responsibility argument, where the permissibility of patients suffering from ARESLD right to compete equally for other patients depends only on whether they are currently abstinent and the perceived ability of the patient to abstain from alcohol for a long period of time or the proven decreased probability that the patient will recede back to alcoholism. For example, a man suffering from ARESLD who has been known to regress back to alcoholism after therapy and had an extensive history with the disease should not be eligible for liver transplantation in the foreseeable future or be at a …show more content…
In response to the classification of alcoholism as a disease, using the stripped-down version of the moral responsibility argument would provide a positive reinforcement for good behavior because the argument would recognize the conscious efforts made by the patient to fight the disease. Furthermore, by utilizing guidelines that depend on the current abstinence and the perceived ability of the patient or refrain from alcohol in the future, physicians no longer play such a large part in judging patients as it would become apparent in ARESLD patients as to who should be eligible for equal competition. Additionally, there would be a decreased chance of patients falsifying information to stake a higher claim as continual abstinence for a long period of is not something that can be falsified. It is important to note that my argument does not establish the stripped-down version of the moral responsibility argument as the most medically efficient nor the more socioeconomically friendly proposal, but only focuses on a possible revision of the moral responsibility argument presented by Moss and Siegler