"The criminal law does not specify that persons convicted of crimes, much less those suspected of crimes, should lose access to lifesaving medical care as a result of their crimes," Allen said. "Social worth criteria as a material principle of resource allocation has always been full of problems, and this is just another example."
The other potentially problematic facet is the fact that the recipients of the organs were not United States residents. Some said this promotes unfairness by allowing these patients to draw from a limited organ pool to which they would never contribute.
UNOS currently allows medical centers to use up to 5 percent of donated organs to save the lives of foreign nationals.
"Whether to allow foreigners to get American organs for transplant is more controversial," said Jeffrey P. Spike, associate professor of Medical Humanities and Social Sciences at the Florida State University College of Medicine in Tallahassee.
"I think the current 5 percent rule is acceptable, but I also think it is acceptable to put some conditions on who we take."
The composition of this 5 percent may be another issue of concern altogether. Caplan noted that those who are in need of organs must first gain admission to the center. And money, he said, is necessary in order to secure this admission. "It's what I call the wallet biopsy," he said.
Admission into some organ transplant centers can cost up to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Those who have the ability to pay get in the door and on the organ transplant list. And when it comes to foreigners, those with the ability to buy in to the system purchase the right to donated American organs.
"The fact that foreign nationals with money can get organs in the U.S. and an American citizen -- who might well be an organ donor him or herself -- without insurance or funds to pay for an organ cannot illustrates the hypocrisy of a system that pushes altruism of the donors," said Joan L. McGregor, professor of bioethics at Arizona State University in Tempe.
"Maybe we should just be honest about the fact that we have a market in medicine and not be shocked by these occurrences," she said.
If anything, ethical experts said, the case highlighted in the Los Angeles Times could result in policy changes aimed at increasing the fairness of organ distribution policies.
"A few carefully worded restrictions might be added to the UNOS policies as a result of this case," Spike said.
But whatever the policy, ethicists and doctors agreed that the physicians should not be the ones who are saddled with the responsibility of selecting who gets organs and why.
"Doctors are supposed to care for patients regardless of the lifestyle, likes and dislikes, habits and profession of the patients," noted Ian R. Holzman, chief of the Division of Newborn Medicine at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York. "Last I heard, we provide medical care for prisoners and enemy combatants."
"I don't want doctors making criminal justice decisions," said Jonathan Moreno, director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. "They have enough problems."