Kidney Disease (Hospital committee)

There were two negotiations tonight; however, we did not have time time to debrief the first one - so I will wait to discuss that particular negotiation. It consisted of a prosecutor and defense attorney discussing sentencing options for a client who is accused of beating his wife. The second one, which I will briefly discuss, involved seven patients who were dying from kidney disease and who were all vying for one of the three dialysis machines at the town hospital.

I really enjoyed this negotiation because of two reasons.

1) I happen to enjoy working on committees and discussing solutions to problems.
2) This negotiation had problem-solving characteristics in which many different methods could be applied in doing so.

I know the point of negotiating in this class is to improve our interpersonal skills as it relates to negotiation, but I really do get into the negotiations more when they involve some kind of value judgement to be made. Dawn and I first met to discuss this problem we were presented with. A retired athlete, a factory worker, a model, a housewife, a CEO, a whiz kid, and a doctor were all vying for three dialysis machines - without which - they would die in two weeks. After a few minutes, we stated our reasons for why we picked our individual members that we chose. Dawn's main reason dealt with children. My main reason was potential impact on society (you can replace an occupation, but you cannot replace potential or parenthood). So, in a way, our reasons somewhat matched up. We ended up choosing the two individuals who had children, and the whiz kid (whose potential to help society was great, and who had not "experienced" life yet). A lesser, but just as logical approach, involved the fact that each of the other four individuals had the finances to go elsewhere for treatment if they really wanted to live. The three we chose - did not. Based on these personal values, this seemed to be an easy choice. Of course, the choice became alot harder once we met as a committee and met with the individuals who were dying - in person. It is always different when the problem is not at a distance ... but actually in your life. After doing so, however, the committee (which consisted of all five classmates) came to the same solution that my group brought to the table ... and for similar reasons. I believe that our committee worked well together. Naturally, a couple of us "talked" more than others. But, there was no argumentation. It was basically an ordered presentation of values used to make certain judgements - and then attempts to find where values used might intercept (or agree). It was fun.