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 anyone? Why or why not?
Write a 1,050- to 1,400-word paper in which you analyze the Mickey Mantle case using the Seven-Step Decision Model.
Format your assignment according to APA guidelines.
***PLEASE DON’T PLAGIARIZE***
Expert Solution Preview
Introduction:
The medical field has always been a complex and challenging domain, with ethical and moral dilemmas frequently appearing. One such dilemma is the case of Mickey Mantle, a Baseball Hall of Fame center fielder for the New York Yankees, who received a liver transplant in 1995. This case raises questions about the fairness of the medical system, ethical considerations, and how exceptions should be granted. In this paper, we will analyze the Mickey Mantle case using the Seven-Step Decision Model to understand the various dimensions of the issue and arrive at a conclusion.
Answer:
The Seven-Step Decision Model is a framework used for making decisions considering various aspects of the issue at hand. The seven steps include defining the problem, gathering data, identifying alternatives, evaluating alternatives, choosing the best alternative, implementing the decision, and evaluating the results. Following this model, we can understand the Mickey Mantle case, analyze the situation, and make a well-informed decision.
The first step in the Seven-Step Decision Model is defining the problem. In the case of Mickey Mantle, the problem is deciding whether or not to make an exception to the established system for liver transplantation. Mickey Mantle was moved ahead of others on the transplant list because of his deteriorating medical condition. The question is whether this was justified or not, given that he was a celebrity.
The next step in the Seven-Step Decision Model is gathering data. To analyze the situation, we need to have a clear picture of the facts. Mickey Mantle was known for overcoming immense obstacles, and many argued that the medical system should provide exceptions for heroes. However, he was also a recovering alcoholic, which further complicated the ethical implications of the case. Doctors estimated that he had only a 60 percent chance of a three-year survival, whereas liver transplant patients typically have about a 78 percent chance.
The third step is identifying alternatives. In this case, there are two clear alternatives. One is to make an exception for Mickey Mantle, given his deteriorating medical condition and history of being a hero. The second alternative is to follow the system in place, which treats everyone equally, regardless of their status.
Evaluating the alternatives is the fourth step. In this case, if we follow the first alternative, we may set a precedent of exceptions for celebrities and influential people. This may create a sense of injustice and discrimination towards the rest of the population. Following the second alternative would maintain the integrity of the system and not set a precedent. However, it may lead to a sense of disillusionment among celebrities who may feel that their status should be considered while deciding their medical treatment.
Choosing the best alternative is the fifth step. In this case, as medical professionals, we need to follow the existing system of liver transplantation and resist the urge to make exceptions for anyone, even if they are celebrities. Maintaining the integrity of the system is critical as it ensures equality, transparency, and fairness in the medical field.
The sixth step is implementing the decision. In this case, the decision is to follow the existing system and not make any exceptions for influential people or celebrities. Implementing this decision will help to maintain the fairness and impartiality of the system, thereby gaining the trust of the citizens.
The final step is evaluating the results. In this case, following the existing system would lead to transparency, equality, and fairness in the organ transplantation system. Evaluating the results will ensure the effectiveness of the decision and help understand if any changes need to be made in the medical system.
Conclusion:
The Seven-Step Decision Model is a useful framework to analyze the ethical and moral dilemmas that medical professionals face regularly. While the case of Mickey Mantle raises questions about the fairness of the medical system, it is essential to follow the established protocols and maintain the integrity of the system. As medical professionals, we must prioritize the well-being of all patients and treat everyone equally, regardless of their status.
