 
     |
| Decisions have Consequences (Page 8/9) |
|
Patrick
|
JAN 26, 06:46 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by blackrams:
responding to a question with another and somewhat off topic question...
|
|
I don't believe it's "off topic" at all. It's been brought up in this thread that having a restriction in place (in this case, a COVID vaccination requirement) to disallow eligibility for a transplant procedure is something new. I suspect it isn't. I believe there have always been rules/restrictions in place to ensure only the most suitable recipients receive a highly sought after transplant organ.
| quote | Originally posted by Patrick:
Are cigarette smokers (who refuse to quit) eligible for heart or lung transplants?
|
|
|
|
|
blackrams
|
JAN 26, 06:48 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Patrick:
I don't believe it's "off topic" at all. It's been brought up in this thread that having a restriction in place (in this case, a COVID vaccination requirement) to disallow eligibility for a transplant procedure is something new. I suspect it isn't. I believe there have always been rules/restrictions in place to ensure only the most suitable recipients receive a highly sought after transplant organ. |
|
| quote | Originally posted by Patrick:
Are cigarette smokers (who refuse to quit) eligible for heart or lung transplants?
|
|
OK, I stand corrected. 
Rams
|
|
|
|
blackrams
|
JAN 26, 06:53 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Lambo nut:
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. |
|
You're right on the curveball thing.
I brought up the "contaminated" vaccinated donor because it is a consideration, so is the donor family's concerns. The panel must consider that in addition to the recipient's concerns. And yes, you are correct that other things like smoking are issues to be dealt with. I don't believe I would want to be on that panel.
As the decision the panel makes and it's court room outcome, that we'll have to see but, IMHO the panel would win. YMMV.
Rams[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-26-2022).]
|
|
|
|
cvxjet
|
JAN 26, 09:46 PM
|
|
Why should a heart transplant go to someone who doesn't believe in Science or medical information? A heart transplant IS science! But then you all believe in Lizard-Leftists from China, too.
All of you anti-vax/anti-science people will probably die off soon. And then the stupid liberals will have total control.
|
|
|
|
randye
|
JAN 26, 09:50 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by blackrams:
As the decision the panel makes and it's court room outcome, that we'll have to see but, IMHO the panel would win. YMMV.
Rams
|
|
WHY would they win?
Why do you believe that is a predetermined outcome? What is the legal basis for your opinion?
If the patient agreed to certain conditions to initially be placed on that corporation's list for transplant recipients and a covid vaccination, (which very likely may not have even existed at the time the agreement was made), was NOT part of that agreement, but is subsequently added as a requirement, then the patient, or his estate, may indeed have a very sound legal basis for a successful lawsuit.
Torts are created when a party to a contract either refuses to abide by the terms of the original agreement made or attempts to unilaterally change the terms of the agreement (contract) after it is made.
There is a very robust doctrine in medicine and law called Informed Consent and quite obviously nobody can possibly be fully informed and then grant consent to something that didn't exist prior and wasn't fully anticipated.
Moreover, since the body of research into the safety and efficacy of these vaccines is still evolving, nobody can really grant informed consent unless they wish to just consent to an unknown, ....... as you did when you agreed to participate in the vaccine testing.[This message has been edited by randye (edited 01-26-2022).]
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
JAN 26, 10:01 PM
|
|
The Pfizer anti-Covid vaccine received full FDA approval back in August.
I don't know about Moderna, or J&J, or about the boosters. Surely there hasn't been enough time for even the first of the booster injections to go through the full FDA approval process, or a whole year has slipped by without my even noticing.
|
|
|
|
randye
|
JAN 26, 10:06 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by cvxjet:
Why should a heart transplant go to someone who doesn't believe in Science or medical information? A heart transplant IS science! But then you all believe in Lizard-Leftists from China, too.
All of you anti-vax/anti-science people will probably die off soon. And then the stupid liberals will have total control. |
|
WHY?
Because, thankfully, we DO NOT discriminate against organ transplant recipients or any medical patients on the basis of their beliefs.[This message has been edited by randye (edited 01-26-2022).]
|
|
|
|
blackrams
|
JAN 26, 10:10 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by randye:
WHY would they win?
Why do you believe that is a predetermined outcome? What is the legal basis for your opinion?
If the patient agreed to certain conditions to initially be placed on that corporation's list for transplant recipients and a covid vaccination, (which very likely may not have even existed at the time the agreement was made), was NOT part of that agreement, but is subsequently added as a requirement, then the patient may indeed have a very sound legal basis for a successful lawsuit.
Torts are created when a party to a contract either refuses to abide by the terms of the original agreement made or attempts to unilaterally change the terms of the agreement (contract) after it is made.
There is a very robust doctrine in medicine and law called Informed Consent and quite obviously nobody can possibly be fully informed and then grant consent to something that didn't exist prior and wasn't fully anticipated.
Moreover, since the body of research into the safety and efficacy of these vaccines is still evolving, nobody can really grant informed consent unless they wish to just consent to an unknown, ....... as you did when you agreed to participate in the vaccine testing.
|
|
All may or may not be true in this case. Just like you stated, IF This happened, May have or may not have, You, I and no one else on this forum knows. My statement was made on what we currently know which is extremely limited. Obviously, things could change when the dude dies and if, the family (or someone) takes it to court and then maybe we'll know more. Does that help you understand my postion?  Obviously, I'm not a lawyer.
Rams
|
|
|
|
Jake_Dragon
|
JAN 26, 11:34 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Patrick:
Are cigarette smokers (who refuse to quit) eligible for heart or lung transplants? |
|
Depends on how much money they have but for most of us if you smoke they will not do a transplant.
Smoking compromises your health and could cause the transplant to fail.
My father died from complications of Emphysema. He was on the list and in a halfway house.
He just couldn't give up the cigarettes. His life his choice. But they took him off the list because he compromised his immune system over and over.
I do not see that being the same as refusing a vaccine by someone that does not have Covid.
|
|
|
|
randye
|
JAN 27, 12:30 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Jake_Dragon:
But they took him off the list because he compromised his immune system over and over.
I do not see that being the same as refusing a vaccine by someone that does not have Covid.
|
|
That brings up the most insane part of this whole sad story and, to me, it exposes the political basis of it being insisted on.
They're demanding that this poor "refusenik" accept a vaccine when they also know full well that they're going to constantly dose the guy with immunosuppressant drugs, intentionally compromising his immune system in order to preclude organ rejection. So any natural antibodies that his body might have produced in response to the vaccine will be minimized or won't happen at all.[This message has been edited by randye (edited 01-27-2022).]
|
|
|
|