This paper aimed to determine the criteria participants use to make decisions about scarce medical resources (allocation to use a kidney machine). It varied information about patients on 4 factors (sex, smoking, employment status, community service). It also set out to see if decisions made in groups differed from aggregated decisions of those made alone. In the first study, participants completed a simple questionnaire requiring them to rank-order sixteen hypothetical patients. In the second study, a group discussion (in groups of three participants) preceded the group putting an agreed rating on the identical questionnaire. Participants favoured patients who were employed, non-smokers and participated in community service. This suggests that participants adopted a utilitarian moral ideology. Participants' smoking habits interacted with the hypothetical patients' smoking habits, indicating in-group favouritism. In the second study it was found that when the decision was made in a group of three it amplifies the decision made by an individual. In this sense there was clear evidence of group polarization.