Transplants and rationing
Introduction
Donors and recipients thrive on ethical approaches to organ transplants and complex situations. We need to understand what ethical decision means in these situations. There are a lot of people who need specific organs, but how do you morally separate all the recipients who need them? What is this decision? There is a typical case that a person needs an organ, and this paper assesses and demonstrates this (Faitot, Michard & Artzner, 2020). This case is controversial, and it challenges the ethical decision process. These seven stages involve determining facts, defining a specific moral problem, identifying fundamental principles, rules, and values, specifying alternatives, comparing benefits and choices, evaluating outcomes, and making decisions.
Transplants and rationing
The case is being investigated by people, including Mickey’s case, who received a liver transplant in 1995. Mickey Mantle is a baseball player who was inducted into the Hall of Fame as a center fielder for the Yankees in New York. Mickey’s liver failure due to cirrhosis and hepatitis. In the United States, the long wait for a transfer is an excellent time to find a provider. When it comes to liver transplantation, it takes some time to find a match. However, it took Mickey two days to find the organ donor, which was aided by Baylor Medical Center. According to the director of the Southwestern Organ Bank, the reason for accepting this organ so quickly was that his health was deteriorating (Henes, Oliveira, Labopin, Badoglio, Scherer, Del Papa & Pugnet, 2020). However, this decision makes the case controversial because Mickey has very mixed feelings about the rapid evolution of the organ donor. These feelings revolve around the fact that Mickey is a celebrity, and there may be some reason why he was able to get a donor so quickly. As a well-played baseball player, Mickey faced many medical obstacles, including others who believed he was a hero worthy of exception when a liver transplant was needed (Faitot, Michard & Artzner, 2020). There is also the fact that Mickey is recovering from alcoholism in making complex ethical decisions. When Mickey’s health deteriorated, doctors believed he had only a sixty percent chance to live for three years. Now, with problems like mickeys, patients typically have an eighty to eighty percent chance of surviving three years. Mickey’s liver transplant procedure includes the following; Transformation team at Boiler Medical Center, Organ Bank Director Mickey, other patients on the recipients’ waiting list, and other doctors related to their case. In the process, everyone involved in the moral judgment said that Mickey had all the options and benefits to speed up the conversion.
The Ethical Issues
There was a moral issue when Organ Bank decided to add Mickey to the waiting list based on his medical history and alcoholism. There are two opinions about this situation, and there is a protagonist who believes that Mickey is one because he has received priority treatment over others who need conversion because of their prominent position. Before the waiting list. Finally, the moral issue in Mickey’s case is justice. It is doubtful why Mickey was included on the list so quickly, because of this, the doctor offers a liver transplant to a sick patient whose health is deteriorating, which is likely to end in a few days (Faitot, Michard & Artzner, 2020). If you consider utopianism, doctors will try to raise living standards by giving transplants to those who benefit the most and are more likely to tolerate the outcome. As mentioned above, Mickey has a sixty percent survival rate compared to the seventies and eighties. That means Mickey has a twenty-eight percent chance of living above the average on the waiting list. This comparison leads to the question of which recipient can transfer.
Principles, rules, and values
For those who need a liver transplant, unfortunately, there is no substitute when it comes to other survival methods. This means that there is no other way to replace how the liver works in the body. This avoids mechanical devices, selection procedures, or pharmacotherapy. Because of this logic, the waiting list medical status is determined according to the emergency. None of the organs in this ranking matched the recipient’s location, ranking the longest-awaited list for an organ transplant (Henes, Oliveira, Labopin, Badoglio, Scherer, Del Papa & Pugnet, 2020). In Mickey’s case, the director of the Organ Bank put him on a waiting list because of his need and the right situation. To save Mickey’s life, how the liver transplant list got ranked is a very logical decision.
Recommendations
Alternatives to this decision will only consider the actual reason for including Mickey’s name in the list. Then, there are two factors to evaluate the decision. For one, Mickey’s medical condition is not good. Second, the decision affected her popularity and celebrity status. If this is the same reason for taking his name, it should end when his name first enters the list. Besides, patients before Mickey should be evaluated according to their medical conditions and if they are suitable for an organ donor (Henes, Oliveira, Labopin, Badoglio, Scherer, Del Papa & Pugnet, 2020). If Mickey has a survival rate, it will not be considered a match.
The Consequences
Mickey case choices can have both short-term and long-term consequences. The short-term result of Mickey’s name not appearing on the list is that the survival rate decreases and decreases after the transition (Faitot, Michard & Artzner, 2020). If this is a negative result for Mickey, more transfers to another recipient are still available, and they are more likely to survive. On the other hand, the long-term consequences of including Mickey on the list do not matter if the recipient is a celebrity and not just those on the list. Their lives are not so important to those on the list and those looking forward to their survival. Another long-term outcome is that the exchange team, the medical center, and the director of the organ bank have the opportunity to use their data according to the recipients and decide what happens based on the best outcome, in one person.
Conclusion
Finally, an ethical decision can be made when all the factors that make an organ favorable to the recipient are taken into account. Personally, if the decision is mine, I put it where it is listed. These receiver lists are too long for organs, and those on the record before Mickey have to wait a long time to find a match. Therefore, all data and conditions are considered when deciding who will benefit the most from the donor and who will survive. In Mickey’s case, there was also the fact that he used alcohol, so his survival rate was lower than the average survival rate. Other people on the list may not be able to live their lives as healthy as possible or may not be able to enjoy life to the fullest, realizing that their body is not strong enough (Henes, Oliveira, Labopin, Badoglio, Scherer, Del Papa & Pugnet, 2020). However, as a health care professional, it is important not to judge someone by previous decisions, so an organ transplant or class-based discrimination may be necessary. It is essential to make decisions as much as possible based on each person’s living standards and self-care.
References
Faitot, F., Michard, B., & Artzner, T. (2020). Organ allocation in the age of the algorithm: avoiding futile transplantation–utility in allocation. Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation, 25(3), 305-309.
Henes, J., Oliveira, M. C., Labopin, M., Badoglio, M., Scherer, H. U., Del Papa, N., … & Pugnet, G. (2020). Autologous stem cell transplantation for progressive systemic sclerosis: a prospective non-interventional study from the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation Autoimmune Disease Working Party. Haematologica.