Resource 1 Of Health Care Ethics 6th Ed Mickey Mantle Receiv

Resourcech 1 Ofhealth Care Ethics6th Edmickey Mantle Received A L

Analyze the Mickey Mantle case involving expedited access to a liver transplant using the Seven-Step Decision Model. Discuss whether the healthcare system should make exceptions for heroes in such circumstances, considering ethical principles, medical facts, and societal values.

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical dilemma surrounding Mickey Mantle's expedited liver transplant highlights complex issues in healthcare resource allocation, the value of individuals, and societal perceptions of heroism. Applying the Seven-Step Decision Model provides a structured framework to analyze whether exceptions should be made for heroes like Mantle, especially given the nuanced context of medical ethics, fairness, and societal benefit.

Step 1: Recognize the Ethical Issue

The core ethical issue in this case is whether it is appropriate and justifiable to prioritize or expedite scarce healthcare resources, such as organ transplants, for individuals who hold societal significance, such as celebrities or heroes. Specifically, should Mickey Mantle have been moved ahead of others on the transplant list because of his fame and status? This raises questions about fairness, equality, and the criteria used for determining priority in life-and-death medical decisions.

Step 2: Gather the Relevant Facts

Mickey Mantle, a beloved baseball player and sports hero, received a liver transplant within two days, significantly faster than the typical 130-day wait. This expedited process was partially justified by his deteriorating health and societal importance. Mantle's history of alcoholism and the prognosis of 60% three-year survival contrasted with the standard rate of 78%, adding further ethical complexity. The transplant was facilitated by the Baylor Medical Center's team, and the decision to accelerate his treatment sparked debate about fairness versus compassion and acknowledgment of societal contributions.

Health care systems often allocate scarce organs based on medical urgency, compatibility, and likelihood of success. Exceptions for well-known or heroic figures challenge these principles, especially when the criteria for prioritization are ambiguous or subjective.

Step 3: Identify the Ethical Principles Involved

Several key ethical principles come into play:

• Justice: Fair distribution of healthcare resources. Prioritizing Mantle due to fame raises concerns about favoritism and inequality among patients.
• Beneficence: Acting in the patient's best interest. If expedited treatment increases Mantle’s chance of survival and offers societal benefits, beneficence supports timely intervention.
• Nonmaleficence: Do no harm. Delaying or denying treatment to other patients for Mantle's benefit might harm others, raising ethical questions about fairness and harm.
• Respect for Persons: Recognizing the intrinsic worth of every individual, which argues for equitable treatment regardless of social status.
• Societal Benefit: Considering the potential positive impact of Mantle’s survival on society, including inspiring others and contributing to cultural heritage.

Step 4: Explore Alternatives

Possible courses of action include:

1. Maintain Standard Allocation Policies: Reject special treatment and allocate organs solely based on medical criteria and fairness.
2. Make an Exception for Mantle: Expedite fate based on societal contribution and hero status, possibly setting a precedent for other deserving individuals.
3. Develop Clearer Policies for Exceptions: Establish criteria for prioritizing individuals with societal significance, ensuring transparency and consistency.
4. Focus on Increasing Organ Donation: Implement strategies to raise awareness and increase organ supply, reducing the need for exceptions.

Step 5: Make a Moral Judgment

Considering the principles and alternatives, a balanced moral judgment suggests that while recognizing the societal contributions of individuals like Mantle is important, healthcare resources must be allocated fairly and without bias. Exceptions based solely on hero status risk undermining fairness and could erode trust in the healthcare system. However, compassion and societal benefit should not be dismissed entirely; instead, they must be integrated into transparent, equitable policies that prioritize based on medical need while acknowledging broader societal values.

Step 6: Implement the Decision

The prudent course of action involves adhering to established medical criteria for organ allocation, emphasizing fairness and justice. Implementing policies that allow for exceptions only under clear, predefined circumstances—such as historical or cultural significance—can help balance individual needs and societal interests. Additionally, healthcare institutions should actively promote donation awareness to reduce reliance on exceptions.

Regular review and refinement of allocation policies ensure they remain just and equitable, accommodating societal values without compromising fairness.

Step 7: Reflect on the Decision

This analysis underscores that prioritizing based on societal status or heroism complicates ethical decision-making clouded by fairness concerns. Respecting all individuals equally upholds moral integrity but must be balanced with compassion and societal benefit considerations. Transparent policies, continuous ethical review, and public engagement are vital to sustain trust and justice in healthcare resource allocation.

In conclusion, while societal contributions and heroism are valuable, they should not override principles of fairness and justice. The healthcare system should avoid making exceptions based solely on fame or hero status, focusing instead on equitable criteria that serve both individual and societal interests ethically.

References

• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Childress, J. F., et al. (2002). Public health ethics: Mapping the terrain. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 30(2), 169-185.
• Daniels, N. (2001). Justice, health, and healthcare. The American Journal of Bioethics, 1(2), 2-16.
• Gillon, R. (1994). Medical ethics: four principles plus attention to relationships. BMJ, 309(6955), 184-188.
• Jonsen, A. R., Siegler, M., & Winslade, W. J. (2010). Clinical Ethics: A Practical Approach to Ethical Decisions in Clinical Medicine (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Kronick, R. (2019). Ethics in organ transplantation. Transplantation Reviews, 33(2), 51-55.
• Lo, B., & Silvers, A. (2015). Ethical Challenges in Organ Allocation. The Hastings Center Report, 45(4), 26–31.
• Persad, G., et al. (2009). Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 37(3), 317-333.
• Veatch, R. M. (2000). Ethical principles in the allocation of organs for transplantation. Critical Care Medicine, 28(10), 372-376.
• West, R. (2012). Ethical considerations in organ transplant priority. Journal of Medical Ethics, 38(4), 213-217.