Explore BrainMass
Share

Preferential Treatment in Healthcare

This content was STOLEN from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

Mickey Mantle, a Baseball Hall of Famer, received a liver transplant after only two days of the transplant team searching for a liver instead of the normal 130 day average. Many people claimed that as a famous person, Mantle received preferential treatment and it was simply unethical for this to have occurred. However, others defended their actions stating that Mantle was moved to the top of the donor list because his extensive medical problems only gave him a 60 percent chance for a three-year survival versus about a 78 percent three-year survival rate for the average person on the donor waiting list. Also, Mantle's medical condition included cirrhosis and hepatitis which may or may not have been caused by alcohol abuse throughout Mantle's life.

Do you feel that this was ethical, moral, or practical? Why or why not? Do you think Mantle received preferential treatment or did his medical condition justify the swiftness of Mantle receiving a liver? Share your thoughts and opinions.

© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 25, 2018, 5:48 am ad1c9bdddf
https://brainmass.com/health-sciences/health-care-ethics/preferential-treatment-in-healthcare-435481

Solution Preview

I believe that the decision to provide Mickey Mantle with a liver transplant after only two days was ethical, due to the fact that he had a lower chance for a three year survival rate than other individuals on the list, as well as the fact that his other medical conditions ...

$2.19
See Also This Related BrainMass Solution

Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine

I need help in researching and rounding off the topic discussed in the two attached articles.

Please review the articles and provide substantial answers to the questions below. Please include at least four primary, peer reviewed articles as references.

1. Critique the two articles' techniques in comparison with the recommendations from the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine.

2. Suggest what policy recommendations you would make based on the findings in the two articles. Discuss the economic or other reasons for the policy recommendations.

3. Suggest what cost-effectiveness or other questions about the types of screening might still need to be answered in order to formulate a more rational policy.

I need a substantial amount of information so please include an abstract, Literature Review, Additional sections (for example, Regulations, Legislation, Policies, or Current Interventions). Maybe include information on the current state of regulation for this problem, any relevant policies, and community health interventions that have been done or are being done for this problem.

View Full Posting Details