The transplant patient obviously, and in a broader sense anybody who has been denied medical treatment because of their stance on the clot-shot.
The "clot shot" (as you refer to it) is only one of the requirements to receive this new heart.
So, let's consider this, you're not the one needing the heart but, your life partner is the person needing that heart. She/he and you have two kids and another one on the way.
Your partner doesn't know what to do and you are anti-vax. You get to make that decision your partner will go with.
You can't be a donor if you fall into certain categories, why wouldn't being not vaccinated be one of them. What if later down the road we find out that one or more of the vaccinations cause heart issue and make donor hearts not available?
I expect it will end up in court, perhaps that is the plan. Die, have the widow take the hospital/insurance company to court and support his family. What a strange world we live in.
#1, its not a vaccine. It is an experimental gene therapy.
#2, it is NOT "approved". It has an emergency use authorization which some jurisdictions are pulling, as well as banning the scamcine.
#3, it does nothing to protect from or stop the spread of covid.
#4, it is provably far more lethal than the virus it was supposed to address.
#5, it has NOTHING to do with "health" or "safety" or "reducing numbers" or anything else besides forced compliance, and money. RIGHT from day one it was always about "flatten the curve" so as not to cost the health-care system cash they don't want to spend. All they want to do is prolong the scamdemic for their own pockets.
#6, the compliance part is, if they allow dissidents to go "unpunished" and get away with being refuseniks, others will follow our lead at SOME point along the never ending booster program, and thats going to cost them money. See #5. So they make some very public examples of dissadents.
Is it clearer now ?
Amazing, every single item you listed here is wrong.
You can't be a donor if you fall into certain categories, why wouldn't being not vaccinated be one of them. What if later down the road we find out that one or more of the vaccinations cause heart issue and make donor hearts not available?
I expect it will end up in court, perhaps that is the plan. Die, have the widow take the hospital/insurance company to court and support his family. What a strange world we live in.
My only response to your query is, we continue to learn daily. But, I would re-iterate, the last thing I would be worried about in his case is, long term effects of the vaccine.
Like Sand Through The Hourglass, So Go The Days Of Our Lives.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-26-2022).]
And it should cost the hospital dearly for discriminating.
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
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-26-2022).]
People here can call me "racist, belligerent and conspritorial" and if I respond I get suspended.
It's not "if" you respond, it's how you respond. Actually, the problem precedes your responses. It's how you initially present yourself in most (all?) discussions here.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 01-26-2022).]
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.........
It's not "if" you respond, it's how you respond. Actually, the problem precedes your responses. It's how you initially present yourself in most (all?) discussions here.
A person's ratings bar conveys a message to the other viewers about how to evaluate their contribution.
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.........
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.
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).]
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.
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?
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?
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).]
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.
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).]
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.
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).]
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.
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.
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).]
