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.
Should people with criminal behavior or any kind of dangerous habits or hobbies be refused transplants because they are more likely to die even if they follow doctors' orders?
That depends who is paying. If the person can pay for it and not burden the system,
then it doesn't matter. If the taxpayers are paying for it, then they should be subject to some criteria.
The hospital had a list of requirements he had to meet in order to receive the new heart. As far as I can tell he was refused because of failure to comply with doctors' orders in the past. I don't see anything mentioning him being refused for past criminal behavior.
So that leaves me wondering if he was complying with doctors' orders now. If he was then there was no medical reason for his death. If true, that leads to some interesting ethical questions.
Should people with criminal behavior or any kind of dangerous habits or hobbies be refused transplants because they are more likely to die even if they follow doctors' orders?
Since they are doled out by the government then yes, there should be societal considerations for recipients. Meaning that the working mom of 3 should get one before someone like Charles Manson for example.
Now if there are no exclusionary factors then IMO if you have a soccer mom, a dentist and the owner of a major coporation all needing a heart then it's time to get in line.
Each state has thier own protocols for this. I actually heard of someone that moved to another state because their odds wen't up based upon both frequency (people donating, youth dying etc.) as well as selection criteria favoring them.
I have a friend whose 40 something nephew, an alcoholic, had a liver transplant five years ago. He has destroyed his new liver through his continued drinking (in his mind, the new liver gave him permission to continue to drink) and he is in liver failure once again, and not expected to survive the year. His parents actually are trying to get him back on the transplant list to get another liver.
Organs are a precious commodity and compliance is key in transplants. At 17, this kid had a chance to change his behavior and thus his life. What a sad story.
Yeah, my sibling sees stuff all the time like this.
Guy comes in, morbidly obese....just lost both legs to diabetes and is happy that he can eat anything he wants now that they just put in an insulin pump. I turned to them and said "He won't make it two years will he?" They said, "no".
Of course they were. This stuff has been studied to death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodestar
IIRC Mickey Mantle received a new liver and then continued drinking until it killed him.
Bull-****.
This thread isn't about Mickey Mantle and even if it was, Mantle died of metastasized cancer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodestar
Should people with criminal behavior or any kind of dangerous habits or hobbies be refused transplants because they are more likely to die even if they follow doctors' orders?
People with criminal behavior should be refused, period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC
That depends who is paying. If the person can pay for it and not burden the system, then it doesn't matter.
Yes, it does matter.
We can change the organ donor cards to specify to whom your organs should or shouldn't go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC
If the taxpayers are paying for it, then they should be subject to some criteria.
Stringent criteria.
They had best invent longer lasting toilet paper or something...
Mircea
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.