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 10, 2019, 3:47 am ad1c9bdddf
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 ...