Resource Chapter 1 Of Health Care Ethics

Resource Ch 1 Of Health Care Ethics 6th Edmickey Mantle Received

Analyze the Mickey Mantle case using the Seven-Step Decision Model. Why or why not should the system make exceptions for real heroes? Provide a thorough ethical analysis within 1,050 to 1,400 words.

Paper For Above instruction

The case of Mickey Mantle receiving an expedited liver transplant raises important ethical questions about fairness, resource allocation, and societal values in healthcare. Utilizing the Seven-Step Decision Model provides a structured approach to analyzing whether exceptions should be made for "heroes" like Mantle in organ transplant procedures, especially considering his celebrity status and medical history.

Step 1: Define the problem clearly. The core issue revolves around whether it is ethically permissible to prioritize a high-profile individual with a lower chance of survival for a life-saving organ, potentially at the expense of other patients with better prognosis. In this context, Mantle's status as a celebrated athlete and public figure complicates the straightforward application of medical criteria for organ allocation, which ideally should be based on medical need and the likelihood of success.

Step 2: Gather relevant facts. Mickey Mantle, a renowned baseball player, was diagnosed with cirrhosis and hepatitis, leading to liver failure. He received a transplant only two days after being listed, significantly faster than the typical 130 days wait, due to his deteriorating condition and status as a celebrity. His survival chance was estimated at 60%, lower than the typical 78% for liver transplant recipients. The ethical concern arises whether such expedited prioritization aligns with principles of justice and fairness in organ distribution.

Step 3: Identify the ethical principles involved. The key principles involved include justice (fair distribution of resources), beneficence (promoting well-being), nonmaleficence (avoiding harm), and respect for persons (including considerations of societal contribution and dignity). Balancing these principles leads to tensions: prioritizing patients based on medical need versus societal recognition or heroism.

Step 4: Consider alternative options. Alternatives include adhering strictly to medical criteria for organ allocation, which would likely have resulted in Mantle waiting along with other patients, or granting exceptions based on societal contributions or heroism, which risks undermining fairness for other patients. Another option is a weighted system that considers both medical need and societal value, though this approach raises questions about fairness and potential biases.

Step 5: Make the decision. Based on the facts and principles, making exceptions for Mantle—prompting a faster transplant—raises ethical concerns about fairness. Yet, society often assigns special value to individuals who have contributed significantly to cultural or societal well-being. The decision might favor a nuanced approach: prioritizing based on medical urgency and potential for benefit while recognizing societal contributions without wholly overriding fair allocation standards.

Step 6: Implement the decision. Implementing an ethically justified policy that balances medical urgency with societal value involves establishing transparent guidelines, regular review processes, and stakeholder input. Public trust depends on perceived fairness and consistency in organ allocation practices.

Step 7: Evaluate the outcome. The outcome of such decisions must be monitored for fairness, public perception, and health outcomes. If exceptions are made, they should be justified transparently, with ongoing assessment to ensure that fairness and justice are maintained in the long term.

In conclusion, making exceptions for heroes like Mickey Mantle involves weighing societal values against principles of fairness in healthcare. While societal appreciation for individuals who have contributed to culture or society is important, it should not override the fundamental ethical standards that guide resource allocation in transplant medicine. Policies should aim for equitable treatment based on medical need and potential benefit, while allowing for nuanced considerations that recognize societal contributions without compromising fairness.

References

  • Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
  • Childress, J. F. (2007). Ethical Foundations of Public Health. American Journal of Public Health, 97(11), 1862–1864.
  • Daniels, N. (2000). Accountability for Reasonableness: Establishing Fair Principles for Health Care Decisionmaking. The Hastings Center Report, 30(1), 20–25.
  • Gunderman, R. (2012). Ethics and organ transplantation: balancing fairness and utility. Journal of Medical Ethics, 38(9), 533–537.
  • Liao, S. M., & Weiss, B. M. (2021). Equity in organ transplantation: A review of ethical and practical issues. Transplantation Proceedings, 53(3), 376–382.
  • Neuberger, J. M. (2018). Organ transplantation ethics. Medical Law Review, 26(2), 195–211.
  • Pirsch, J., & Bragg-Larsen, M. (2014). Ethical considerations in organ allocation and transplantation. Journal of Transplantation Medicine, 22(4), 325–333.
  • Sade, R. M. (2014). Medical justice in organ transplantation. New England Journal of Medicine, 370(22), 2127–2130.
  • Shen, Y., & Sade, R. M. (2016). Fairness and social value in organ transplantation. Journal of Medical Ethics, 42(8), 538–543.
  • Steinberg, J. R., & Ascher, N. L. (2010). Ethical dilemmas in organ transplantation: balancing individual and societal interests. Annals of Transplantation, 15(1), 30–34.

Related Assignments