You're both missing the point I made a few posts above though that the vaccination status is just one in a long line of factors, most of which are likely to have more impact.
It's not as simple as not vaxxed = less likely to survive
If you think that, then you're missing our point, which is that vaccination status is just one in a long line of factors, very few of which are likely to have more impact.
Again - what's your preferred, morally acceptable outcome? Because so far, all you've got, is that a person with a higher chance of survival dies instead / as well as the person with a lower chance of survival.
Other things being equal, not vaxxed = less likely to survive.
Please remember, (though I'm not sure you've even acknowledged this yet) it's a zero sum game. There's 1 heart involved here, multiple patients who've been refused it, and 1 patient who's received it.
You think it should have gone to the unvaccinated patient. The doctors with their actual knowledge of the suitability of all the patients, disagree with you.
The heart in question has not been thrown in the bin. It's been out in the chest of someone else. Someone with a better chance of surviving than the person you think should have had it.
Would also point out that the "slippery slope argument" is not always a fallacy, especially when it comes to moral quandries of this nature that rely on consistency of principles
Not always, no. But it 100% is in this case.
