I find that the case of Jane Doe provides valuable insight into how the problem of moral principles in medical ethics being at clash with each other could be mistaken for medical organizations’ errors. The case demonstrates how utilizing the paternalism autonomy in favor of beneficence and utility principles harmed the patient’s wellbeing. I think that the concept of informed consent is not present in this case as the informed consent procedure involves the disclosure of information to the patient. In the case of Jane Doe, the patient was deceived that the donor is a healthy young man.
The case details state that Gift of Hope Organ & Tissue Donor Network in Elmhurst and the University of Chicago knew that the donor was high risk. Moreover, the case details suggest that the organizations intentionally did not test the patient for HIV later. Therefore, I think that the organizations purposefully tried to disguise their mistake of accepting a high-risk man as a donor by an excuse of using beneficence and utility principles. It is likely that the organizations did not want to lose an organ transplant and decided to proceed with the operation rather than admit their mistakes. I assume that they concluded that a young woman has higher chances to deal successfully with the side effects of an infected transplant.