Reference no: EM131157980
Resource: Health Care Ethics (6th ed.)
Mickey Mantle received a liver transplant in 1995. He was a Baseball Hall of Fame center fielder for the New York Yankees whose liver was failing because of cirrhosis and hepatitis. Although the waiting period for a liver transplant in the United States is about 130 days, it took only two days for the Baylor Medical Center's transplant team to find an organ donor for the 63-year-old former baseball hero.
According to the director of the Southwest Organ Bank, Mantle was moved ahead of others on the list because of his deteriorating medical condition; however, there were mixed feelings about speeding up the process for a celebrity. Mantle was known for overcoming immense obstacles, and many argued that the medical system should provide exceptions for heroes. He was also a recovering alcoholic, which further complicated the ethical implications of the case. Because of Mantle's medical problems, doctors estimated that he had only a 60 percent chance for a three-year survival; whereas, liver transplant patients typically have about a 78 percent chance for a three-year survival rate.
As in the case of the liver transplant for Mickey Mantle, should the system make exceptions for real heroes? Why or why not?
Support your comments by citing at least 3-acadaemic sources.
Write a paper, using APA format, of at least 1050 words in which you analyze the Mickey Mantle case using the Seven-Step Decision Model.
The Seven-Step Decision Model
The seven-step decision model forces us to closely examine the facts before we make an ethical decision. This model is helpful when making a decision that has many subdecision questions to examine; for example, "Who should the physician treat first?" "Should I look at the exam paper of the person sitting next to me?" or even "What career choice should I make?" Obviously, some of these decisions require a quick response, while others, such as selection of a career choice, require more time and research.
I. Determine the facts by asking the following questions:
What do we need to know?
Who is involved in the situation?
Where does the ethical situation take place?
When does it occur?
II. Define the precise ethical issue.
For example, is it a matter of fairness, justice, morality, or individual rights?
III. Identify the major principles, rules, and values.
For example, is this a matter of integrity, quality, respect for others, or profit?
IV. Specify the alternatives.
List the major alternative courses of action, including those that represent some form of compromise. This may be a choice between simply doing or not doing something.
V. Compare values and alternatives.
Determine if there is one principle or value, or a combination of principles and values, that is so compelling that the proper alternative is clear.
VI. Assess the consequences.
Identify short-term, long-term, positive, and negative consequences for the major alternatives. The short-term gain or loss is often overridden when long-term consequences are considered. This step often reveals an unanticipated result of major importance.
VII. Make a decision.
The consequences are balanced against one's primary principles or values. Always
double-check your decision. (Fremgen, 2016, p 19-20)
Fremgen, B. (2016). Medical Law and Ethics (5th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall