Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And there we have it folks. The argument that will be made regarding healthcare decisions in the future. Yup, death panels. You can add: better chance to make more money, living a more productive life, better chance at sharing talent, isn't a conservative.
Are you familiar with recipient criteria at all? Have you done any research? No? Well I'll be?
Do you know one of the most basic exclusive criteria? Geography. For lungs scalpel to scalpel cannot exceed 4 hours. That is one of hundreds of data points that must be aligned for a successful transplant.
This is science folks, if emotion came into play I highly doubt any transplants would be successful.
Obamacare takes the power away from the doctors and the government dictates what kind of drugs one can have or not have. When you get old they take that into account. It will get worse as time goes on. Some people run to the doctors for every sniffle , get every test known to man looking to see if every organ is working properly. Some is just waste and preventative care gets some people at the doctors every week. We all die and there must be a balance. To withhold a drug that will help a condition should be given but to constantly run to the doctor for every ache or pain gets ridiculous.
Do you make this stuff up as you go?
Comparative-effectiveness panels operate in all nations with national healthcare. They are comprised of doctors and scientists.
Most of those nations also have a 2-4 week wait list for routine medical care and situations to discourage those folk from seeking medical attention for a sneeze r because they are lonely or bored or obsessed.
Those nations also negotiate the price of prescription medications. You don't have Mds getting stock options or fellowships for promoting one medication over another as happens in the U.S.
Those nations generally have substantially better healthcare outcomes than experienced in the U.S., especially for those under the age of 65.
Saving this one child will kill another persons child. There is a protocol for organ transplant recipients. That protocol was in place long before Obama came into office.
Maybe you think America should vote for who is most deserving of an organ. But I tend to let medical professionals deal with medical issues.
THE PLEA could be televised 24/7 and viewers could vote who lives or dies.
In any case, you will not be the recipient of an organ if it is not a "match" for you. Meaning size, blood type, tissue, etc. If all factors match up, you get the organ. Their shouldn't be an age factor. If the criteria match, the highest in need on the list should get it. I don't care who the recipient is.
They're saying the only reason the child won't get an organ is because of age and that's wrong if there's a match that works. Not politics, just common sense.
The rational is that there is insufficient experience to determine the best outcome because most of the people who need a lung are not children. Reportedly only 47% of people with a lung transplant make it to the 5 year mark. Renal failure is often the next thing that goes.
Putting anyone at the top of the list does not mean there will be a compatible lung available, in time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
