Welcome.
Thank you for participating in this exercise. This assessment is designed by the Prindle Institute for Ethics to help us understand how students navigate complex, real-world dilemmas. Your responses will directly help us improve our educational programs.
What to Expect: You will be presented with a short case study detailing a difficult professional or personal situation. After reading the case, you will be asked to make a single, binding decision between two options. Once you make your choice, you will be asked to explain your reasoning.
Guidelines for Your Responses:
- There is no single “correct” answer. These cases are designed to be difficult and messy. We are not grading you on which option you choose; we are entirely interested in the thought process behind your choice.
- Show your work. We want to see the full scope of your reasoning. When asked to give your reasons, please list every genuine consideration that factored into your decision, no matter how major or minor.
- Format clearly. When giving your reasons, please use a numbered list or hit “Enter” to start a new line for every distinct reason you provide. This helps us read and understand your thought process clearly.
This assessment should take approximately 10–15 minutes to complete. Your specific answers will remain confidential and will be used for internal program evaluation.
Please read the following case carefully:
Dr. Amara Osei directs the transplant program at a regional hospital. A liver has become available. Two patients match.
Patient A is 34, has two young children, and developed liver failure from a genetic condition. She has been on the list for eleven months. Her tissue match is good; projected five-year survival is 67 percent.
Patient B is 58, has been on the list for four years, and developed liver failure from alcohol use, though he has been documented sober for six years. His tissue match is excellent; projected five-year survival is 78 percent. He is the sole caregiver for a disabled adult brother.
Regional allocation protocol ranks by time on the list, which favors Patient B. The protocol permits directors to deviate when documented medical factors warrant it.
The hospital’s transplant program is currently under review by the regional health authority, which has flagged the program’s five-year survival rate as below the threshold for continued certification. Deviations from protocol are reviewed quarterly by a board, and that board has overturned two of Dr. Osei’s decisions in the past two years.
The liver must be allocated within six hours.
Please list the reasons and considerations that support the decision you just chose. *
Write each distinct reason in its own field. Press Enter or the + button to add a new reason.
Now, please list the reasons and considerations that would support the other decision (the one you did NOT choose). *
Write each distinct reason in its own field. Press Enter or the + button to add a new reason.
Assessment Submitted
Thank you for completing the Moral Imagination Assessment. Your responses have been recorded and will be used to improve our educational programs.
You may close this window.