If he follows the same protocol and gets considered under the same criteria, yes.

Doctors making moral judgements and withholding treatments based on their patients lifestyle has a pretty ugly history.

I would suggest the following limit, unless the state has already sentenced to death.

We have a justice system to make these calls. Let the doctors treat everyone and the justice system decide who lives and dies.

This. All these arguments over ethics miss the point. Doctors shouldn't be placed in the position of making morale decisions. Their job is to render care and given the grave consequences of malpractice, we should always expect them to do so to their fullest abilities. FULL STOP.

Let the legal profession handle how to deal with criminals. Punishment and medical care have no place existing together.

What happens if you decide to not transplant because of their past but it turned out they were wrongfully convicted?

To the top of the transplant list immediately pushing others down or “ohh.. awkward. we’ll treat you fairly from now on”?

> Is there a limit to this impartiality?

No.

> Should we have saved Hitlers life with a breakthrough transplant?

Yes.

It really is not complicated: Doctors are not in the business of judging their patients.

It’s not that simple. Doctors judge, at least in their own mind and that influences survival decisions.

> Doctors judge, at least in their own mind and that influences survival decisions.

That isn't intentional or desirable though. It's a flaw. Doctors are people and people are imperfect.

I have some bad news from you about where anesthesia data came from...