Discrimination

The term "discrimination" has a very negative connotation; however, it means nothing more than "distinguishing." If we had unlimited means $($financial$,$ personnel, space and equipment, availability of organs for transplantation$),$ decision$-$making would be simple: every patient would receive the treatment that benefits him or her the most. However, because our possibilities never are and never will be unlimited, we must decide to whom to give priority:

To a younger patient. All other disease outcome predictors being equal, is age an appropriate criterion for choosing an expensive treatment?

To a female patient with underage children $($as opposed to a woman without children$).$ To a famous sportsperson $($as opposed to an anonymous patient$).$

To a physician.

Task

Present priority criteria for organ transplantation. Since these criteria were widely discussed and published, they may be regarded as legally binding. Questions:

Is it ethically acceptable to use additional criteria when deciding priority treatment access?

Is any discrimination by default a negative one?

When is discrimination ethically admissible and when not?