Georgia teen denied life-saving heart transplant due to ‘non-compliance’

Originally posted by gotya

What the hell gives you or anyone else the right to decide who lives and who dies?

First off, you are creating a strawman, perhaps not intentionally. The "right to decide who lives or dies" has nothing to do with this, and youd see that if you take a step a back, a deep breath, and let go of the artificial media induced bleeding heart outrage for a moment.

A decision is about simple return on investment. A heart is an extremely valuable item. If its put into someone who will # up their body and destroy the heart, or is more likely than others to do just that, then giving the heart to that person increases the risk but does nothing to proportionally increase the reward.

It would be an un-necessary and foolish gamble for nothing in return.

Thats how the situation has to be thought of for those making the decision.

Its sad if you and others cannot see the necessity of that objective decision making process. If you cannot put your gut reactions to the side and evaluate a situation objectively, you are at the mercy of every fleeting, irrational emotion that springs up in you, and are very easy people to manipulate.

Originally posted by gotya

EDIT - would you feel the same if it was a family member?

Depends on the character of that family member. I may feel badly, but I would not blame the doctors and call them "murderers". That would be ridiculous... they applied no rule that was not applied to all other applicants of the organ.

I would feel sad that the family member made the choices they did in their life, and are now seeing a very unlucky consequence potential manifest due to those choices....

But it wouldnt make me think differently about the situation from a greater perspective.

While this initially ticked me off, I have to agree that organs are in very short supply for our very large recipient list in this country. If I were to die tomorrow, I really hope my organs are going to people who will commit to the aftercare. The last thing I'd want is someone to get one of them, and then blow off the aftercare like it's nothing & die a few years later. It's a complete waste, both of their life, and my donation. It makes no sense for me to donate to people who are going to squander that for a few more years until they die from lack of responsibility.

That said, if this boy can prove he can get his shiz together and keep it together very quickly, I think he is owed another chance on the list.

reply to post by Raxoxane


It all comes down to ethics. Give the boy his heart to do with as he pleases. If he doesn't comply he will also lose... His life...

You all do know that there are death panels included with Obamacare don't you? If you think this is bad, just wait....

Originally posted by Nyiah
While this initially ticked me off, I have to agree that organs are in very short supply for our very large recipient list in this country. If I were to die tomorrow, I really hope my organs are going to people who will commit to the aftercare. The last thing I'd want is someone to get one of them, and then blow off the aftercare like it's nothing & die a few years later. It's a complete waste, both of their life, and my donation. It makes no sense for me to donate to people who are going to squander that for a few more years until they die from lack of responsibility.

That said, if this boy can prove he can get his shiz together and keep it together very quickly, I think he is owed another chance on the list.

I share the same feeling.

I was initially furious about this. I couldn't believe they would deny a heart to a young boy. But once I calmed down the explanation makes sense.

Drug addicts, alcoholics, people with self induced health problems, etc are often times refused a place on "the list" And I feel that is the right thing to do.

This heart was a gift from someone else. They didn't get paid for it, they died, and offered this gift from beyond the grave. People agree to donate organs, and in that agreement is that the organs will be used in exactly the manner we see here, going to the best candidates. If you break the rules for this boy, you are kicking dirt in the face of the guy who died and donated his heart. It would such a waste for his heart, which could actually give someone another decade or two, be wasted on someone who won't take care of himself and die in a year.

I know we don't know for a fact this boy won't be responsible, that's not the point. Do you get house insurance because you know for a fact your house will burn down? Do you wear your seatbelt because you know for a fact you will get in a wreck that day? No.

This boy isn't being punished, they aren't trying to teach him a lesson. They are keeping the heart from this boy so that the heart can do more good with someone else.

Why do some people in this thread feel that this boy has the RIGHT to this heart? God gave him health issues, that's highly unfortunate and sad. If he takes that heart, other people die. So why does HE deserve it? What right does he possibly have over people who have a proven track record of responsibility? I feel everyone has the right to life, save some extreme criminals, but we aren't talking about simply saving a life here. We are talking about saving one life and killing another by making that choice.

Literally, you give that kid the heart, that KILLS someone else in the exact same way it would kill him to not have it. So again, why does he deserve it?

If there were extra hearts all over and nobody has to wait for a new heart, there would be no reason to keep the heart from this boy. They are keeping the heart from this boy because they can only save one life with it, and it makes absolutely perfect sense to go with the most likely candidate for being responsible and taking care of themselves.

If you say this boy should get the heart, you are literally saying someone else deserves to die and is less important than this boy. You think the doctors are bad guys for dooming this boy to die, why would they be any nicer if they doomed someone else to die? Simply because you didn't have to see a picture and read an article about the other person doomed to death because this boy got the heart?

The situation is sad, it's horrible, it's unfair, but that's life and there is nothing we can do about it but make the best choices with the information available. And the information available says that there are other people who are more likely to survive with the heart, so it makes sense it give it to them.

Either way you doom someone to die. You will NOT escape that. You say the doctors are bad for playing god and chooses who lives and dies. EITHER WAY that is true. If they give him the heart, or don't give him the heart, they are still playing god and deciding who lives and who dies. Who do you think should make that choice? Should we just stop all organ transplants because obviously that's playing god by deciding who lives? I hope people see the hypocrisy of that statement.

Although I do feel this should be kept to 18+ I don't think a child should be held responsible in this way. I understand the reason, and support the reason, but I think youngsters should get a break on something like this.

You know an easy way to fix this? Make the boy's mother sign a contract that says if her son misses any appointments or doesn't take his medication, then the mother has to forfeit her heart and donate it immediately. Put the risk into someone who can actually be held accountable if this boy doesn't live up to his responsibilities.

reply to post by goou111


Meanwhile the oldass Cheney gets a fresh heart despitw being old as hell and a war ceiminal.

Originally posted by elouina

You all do know that there are death panels included with Obamacare don't you? If you think this is bad, just wait....

ACA death panels are a myth based upon Sarah Palin talking nonsense.

Transplant decisions should be determined based on NEED and not on "compliance".

Did I wake up on a fracking borg cube this morning???

"We have reason to believe that your child will not go to college, become a productive member of society, ergo, we will not be performing the life-saving operation he so badly needs. As a consolation, however, we are including (in this rejection letter) 2 for 1 coupons to Red Lobster.
Have a nice day,

The medical-political-profession"

Since when do doctors have access to your criminal past?

Is this something in Obama-care that I don't know about? I thought as a juvenile his rights would be protected.

reply to post by goou111


It is sad but you failed to consider all the other candidates, since we have not all the facts we shouldn't be so fast to judge. At face value I see the mentioned things as good indications to - signs in a person eligibility and we only have those there may be other facts like his overall medical condition, even lifestyle, parents and family that may indeed (and should affect the selection). It is not about discarding a person but saving the one that has the best chance...

Now regarding organ transplants there is much to say in general, even including the suppression of research by policy or donors rules. There is also the increasing possibility of having a xenotransplantation...

Originally posted by Hefficide

Originally posted by elouina

You all do know that there are death panels included with Obamacare don't you? If you think this is bad, just wait....

ACA death panels are a myth based upon Sarah Palin talking nonsense.

Well then I guess you missed the recent news?

ObamaCare: Some Democrats are signing on to bills repealing the powers of the Independent Payment Advisory Board to effectively ration health care for seniors. So Sarah Palin was right about those death panels after all?

(Under ObamaCare, IPAB's board of 15 presidentially appointed "experts" will be empowered to make arbitrary Medicare spending-cut decisions with virtually no congressional oversight or control.)

Dr. Donald Berwick, who headed the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services, admitted as much when he opined: "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open."

Berwick also said: "We can make a sensible social decision and say, 'Well, at this point, to have access to a particular additional benefit (new drug or medical intervention) is so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds.'"

"The IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them," wrote Dean, who is also a physician. "Getting rid of the IPAB is something Democrats and Republicans ought to agree on."

Sarah Palin Was Right—More Dems Ditch Death Panels

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wall Street Journal

One major problem is the so-called Independent Payment Advisory Board. The IPAB is essentially a health-care rationing body. By setting doctor reimbursement rates for Medicare and determining which procedures and drugs will be covered and at what price, the IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them.

There does have to be control of costs in our health-care system. However, rate setting—the essential mechanism of the IPAB—has a 40-year track record of failure. What ends up happening in these schemes (which many states including my home state of Vermont have implemented with virtually no long-term effect on costs) is that patients and physicians get aggravated because bureaucrats in either the private or public sector are making medical decisions without knowing the patients. Most important, once again, these kinds of schemes do not control costs. The medical system simply becomes more bureaucratic.

To date, 22 Democrats have joined Republicans in the House and Senate in support of legislation to do away with the IPAB.

The Affordable Care Act's Rate-Setting Won't Work

reply to post by goou111

"Change" is not just coming...it is here. No one noticed when they started putting down older people but now that they are dragging their feet with providing services for the youth we should all start to notice (and it will get "progressively" worse).

reply to post by elouina


Those things do not add up to "death panels". What they do imply is that the ACA could become ineffective in changing the things it was meant to change - much as HMO's and private insurers have already been doing for decades... by excluding as many treatments as possible - leaving the insured to have to come out of pocket even though they have insurance.

In other words... if the ACA means death panels, then we're all screwed because it is already that way now, even for most of the privately insured ( to varying degrees ).

Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by Raxoxane

 

It all comes down to ethics. Give the boy his heart to do with as he pleases. If he doesn't comply he will also lose... His life...

You all do know that there are death panels included with Obamacare don't you? If you think this is bad, just wait....

Obamacare doesn't have death panels insurance companies do.

reply to post by elouina


No. That's shortsighted. There are many, many people waiting on hearts (and other organs) and comparatively very few organs to go around. Transplant panels look at a wide range of factors in determining who gets an available organ. They have studied post-transplant medical and behavioral factors for many, many years to identify what characteristics are most associated with favorable outcomes. They then give available organs to those patients that are most likely to have a favorable outcome. The idea is not to 'waste' a valuable organ on a patient if there are conditions (of any kind) that point to a lower survival rate.

The bottom line is you've got a bunch of people needing a heart and one heart. The transplant panel gives the heart to the person who is most likely to survive the longest. Does the system get 'hacked' occasionally (e.g., Cheney)? Like everything else, yes. Power and money trump just about everything. But normally this is how the system works.

He is poor, black also he is not into sports or entertainment so he is obviously not worth saving. Whoever made that decision needs to lose their job now so they can go find a heart for themselves because they were born without one.

reply to post by CaticusMaximus

Caticus, You make the case for the doctors and ultimitely the other patients waiting in line. The bleeding hearts need to stop shouting rasism. It just isn't the case here. This is Travor Martin all over again. This kid is black and not deserving of the position in which he finds himself....bla bla bla.... Well... In this case it is a past behavior that is coming to haunt the boy. Maybe in this case carma is a b_tch, all because she stays close to those deserving her attention.

Now, Why don't we let the doctors (who really do want to help those suffereing) make the very difficult decisions you all aren't ready to make, for the sake of those other patients who need this heart.

Originally posted by gotya

Originally posted by CaticusMaximus
Organs are very valuable, and there are not enough to go around for to all those who need them. Doctors needs to objectively evaluate the situation and determine who is the most likely to benefit the greatest from the organ, and not squander it.

If this person has reliability issues, and may not follow up with procedures like meds and other things, that puts them at an objective disadvantage when other people who need the exact same heart have a proven track record of reliability and are more likely to make it last.

Bullpoop. It should be first come first served.

What the hell gives you or anyone else the right to decide who lives and who dies?

EDIT - would you feel the same if it was a family member?

edit on 13-8-2013 by gotya because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-8-2013 by gotya because: (no reason given)

That is neither true nor should it be. Organs, especially healthy hearts and livers are hard to come by and someone healthy has to die (usually a young person in an accident) to provide them. Given this, one must objectively weigh the chances that the heart would be wasted. You shouldn't give one to an 80 year old when there are young people on the list because the 80 year old may only get a few years out of it whereas the young person might get 50 years of use out of it. You don't give a liver to an alcoholic because he will destroy his new liver like he destroyed the old one, and so forth.

Until the science of organogenesis advances to the point we don't depend on donor organs, this is the only fair and just system.

Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by Raxoxane

 

It all comes down to ethics. Give the boy his heart to do with as he pleases. If he doesn't comply he will also lose... His life...

You all do know that there are death panels included with Obamacare don't you? If you think this is bad, just wait....

Of course it comes down to ethics and the ethics are that the organ needs to be given to someone who will not waste it because if he gets it someone else will die. This is why the transplant panels try to give the heart to the person most likely to take care of it so that the death of the donor is not wasted and that the most use is gained from the organ. Giving the heart to someone who will waste it based on an emotional news article rather than a person who will take care of it based on well researched criteria and experience is unethical.

reply to post by goou111


Since when does psychologic history have anything to do with medical necessity. OH boy.

reply to post by HomerinNC

Ya got that right, kinda the same as being poor and uninsured.

There are some really bad problems in this world that won't be addressed, ever.