Abstract

The distinction between stakeholders and shareholders frequently employed in business ethics can illuminate challenges faced by a bioethics advisory panel. I use the distinction to reflect back on the work of an advisory panel on which I served, a panel on US transplant policy. The panel hearings were akin to a shareholders’ meeting, with many stakeholders absent. In addition to ‘hearing out’ the shareholders who were present, the panel had duties to absent stakeholders to insure their interests were included in public discussion. While panel efforts to include stakeholder perspectives rightfully framed its report, such duties should have framed its operating procedures more robustly. The stakeholder/shareholder distinction also offers a critical prism on the actual evolution of organ allocation policy, which the panel failed to influence. Current policy embodies a compromise among shareholders that obscures major stakeholder interests. This results in under‐attention to likely medical benefit of transplant, compared to other allocation criteria. Recognition of duties to stakeholders amidst pressures of shareholders complicates the notion of ‘consensus’ for an advisory panel. Consensus framed on terms defined only by shareholders, not stakeholders, may be an inadequate measure of public interest.