However, this creates a conflict of morality. He comes to the conclusion that there is a flaw in utilitarianism unless you change the parameters completely. In this way, killing one person to save two, and doing so regularly, would be fine. He uses the example of Y and Z dying. Y needs a heart transplant. X needs a lung transplant. If a recently deceased person was a donor, Y and Z can be saved. Y and Z then ask: why don't we just kill a suitable donor? Medical procedures to save Y and Z are available, and in other medical treatments, the doctor's failure to do so would be tantamount to killing the two patients. So, by not killing an innocent "donor" for the needed heart and lungs, the doctor chooses to kill Y and Z. Harris raises objections to killing one to save two and ultimately the Lottery of Survival comes out. The survival lottery puts everyone on a level playing field to be chosen. In this situation we should make sure that everyone is aware that their life chances increase because organ donation no longer depends on the few people who become organ donors. Those who object to being chosen in the survival lottery would be tagged