ABSTRACT
The debates concerning the allocation of resources to the provision of expensive, life-saving treatment such as transplantation have recurred repeatedly over the past two decades and show no promise of abating. The problem of determining whether and to what extent resources should be invested in transplantation is considerable. Proposals for the general support of transplantation are restricted by various elements of the human condition. Individuals are at a disadvantage or an advantage as a result of the outcomes of two major sets of forces that can be termed the natural and social lotteries. An interest in social insurance mechanisms directed against losses at the natural and social lotteries is usually understood as an element of beneficence-directed justice. One will have encountered again one of the recurring limitations on establishing and effecting a general consensus regarding the ways in which society ought to respond to the unfortunate deliverances of nature.
