Decisions have Consequences (Page 7/9)
sourmash JAN 26, 05:45 PM

quote
Originally posted by Patrick:

It'll be interesting to see yours if/when it appears.



If I take your advice I guess we can assume it will mimic yours.
Patrick JAN 26, 05:51 PM

quote
Originally posted by sourmash:

If I take your advice I guess we can assume it will mimic yours.



You should be so lucky. The way you're going, you'll be banned before your ratings bar ever shows up.
blackrams JAN 26, 05:51 PM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:

Anyone?

Consider this, the majority of Americans have been vaccinated, there is a very good chance that the donor was already vaccinated.
Let's presume that the panel of experts waved the requirement for the recipient to have been vaccinated.
This heart is a match which is tough to come by, it is or, it would not have been offered.

Should the recipient accept this contaminated heart?

Personally, I think he'd be foolish to not accept it but, I already think he's foolish for not getting vaccinated so he could get a heart that will prolong his life (assuming the operation is successful).

Like sand through the hourglass, so go the days of our lives.........

Rams



OK, can we get back on the topic please?

Rams
sourmash JAN 26, 05:57 PM

quote
Originally posted by Patrick:

You should be so lucky. The way you're going, you'll be banned before your ratings bar ever shows up.



Then mine really won't be as negative then.
Lambo nut JAN 26, 05:59 PM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:


Consider this, the majority of Americans have been vaccinated, there is a very good chance that the donor was already vaccinated.
Let's presume that the panel of experts waved the requirement for the recipient to have been vaccinated.
This heart is a match which is tough to come by, it is or, it would not have been offered.

Should the recipient accept this contaminated heart?



100 % his choice.
Vaccination status should not matter either way as it never has in the past. Have people had to provide proof of any other vaccinations in the past before any such procedures could take place?
Test for TB, test for AIDS, etc.
Currently have covid, no go.
Vaccination status, not a factor.
If nobody can see.that this is.nothing but political Bullsh!t, then they are brainwashed, plain and simple.
blackrams JAN 26, 06:08 PM

quote
Originally posted by Lambo nut:


100 % his choice.
Vaccination status should not matter either way as it never has in the past. Have people had to provide proof of any other vaccinations in the past before any such procedures could take place?
Test for TB, test for AIDS, etc.
Currently have covid, no go.
Vaccination status, not a factor.
If nobody can see.that this is.nothing but political Bullsh!t, then they are brainwashed, plain and simple.



Appreciate the on topic response even if I don't agree.
I'm not qualified or know what the panel requires but, my bet it's pretty inclusive.
That heart needs to go to the person closest matching and who has the greatest chance of survival.
I agree that it's his choice.

Let's throw another curve ball into the stew:

Let me suggest the donor's family doesn't want the donor's heart to go to someone that who doesn't follow their vaccination beliefs.
I know a Kidney donor personally, she tells me there's a pretty extensive process including physical, emotional and psychological program she had to go through to give her kidney away. What if, the donor family doesn't approve, are they bad people?

Rams

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-26-2022).]

Patrick JAN 26, 06:08 PM

Are cigarette smokers (who refuse to quit) eligible for heart or lung transplants?
blackrams JAN 26, 06:12 PM

quote
Originally posted by Patrick:


Are cigarette smokers (who refuse to quit) eligible for heart or lung transplants?



I'm not qualified to answer that but, responding to a question with another and somewhat off topic question is an indicator.

Rams
sourmash JAN 26, 06:12 PM
Smoking is bad for you.
Taking the injections is potentially a risky behavior.
So, not the same thing, obviously.
Lambo nut JAN 26, 06:37 PM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:


Appreciate the on topic response even if I don't agree.
I'm not qualified or know what the panel requires but, my bet it's pretty inclusive.
That heart needs to go to the person closest matching and who has the greatest chance of survival.
I agree that it's his choice.

Let's throw another curve ball into the stew:

Let me suggest the donor's family doesn't want the donor's heart to go to someone that who doesn't follow their vaccination beliefs.
I know a Kidney donor personally, she tells me there's a pretty extensive process including physical, emotional and psychological program she had to go through to give her kidney away. What if, the donor family doesn't approve, are they bad people?

Rams




You're saying to stay on topic but keep throwing the curveballs. The donor nor the family is the subject here. It is totally on the hospital that is denying the proceedure and it should have no bearing on what the patients decide. If neither of the patients have a problem, then who is the hospital to decide otherwise for them? Sue them and go elsewhere. If the recipient dies before the proceedure or movement to another hospital that doesn't have a political agenda, then the surviving family should sue them.

There is also no guarantee that any donor recipient is going to make it through the surgery, let alone years so saying "Bob" is a better cadidate then "Ken" is a crap shoot no matter how much number crunching they do.