Kidney transplant declined due to mental disability

Fenris said:
You understand Organs aren't exactly 10 a penny right?

There has to be some sort of qualification to determine who gets them, generally they go on the kind of quality of life the person will get out of it. Yes it is terrible, I agree, but the only future she has is being cared for every second of her waking life.
Click to expand...

It's a horrible, horrible thing. But I too agree with the doctors :(

arctine said:
Read the article.

The family said they were willing to donate their own kidney and even pay for the surgery.
Click to expand...

But she'll need another one in 12 years :(
 
heart breaking for the family but the doctors don't flip a coin on these decisions.

some of the responses (well, one in particular) are certainly eye opening.
 
i thought usa have private health care, would have thought if a family members offers to have a transplant surely they can't not give you it since you pay?
 
bowey said:
i thought usa have private health care, would have thought if a family members offers to have a transplant surely they can't not give you it since you pay?
Click to expand...

A hospital is a business, it can refuse service to anyone just as any other business.
 
bowey said:
i thought usa have private health care, would have thought if a family members offers to have a transplant surely they can't not give you it since you pay?
Click to expand...

Doctors don't have to follow every patients whim, they aren't going to perform procedures they feel are unethical or are uncomfortable with. I wouldn't want to risk the death of a healthy person to at best slightly extend the life of someone in an almost vegetative condition and at worst end up killing them or causing more damage.
 
Generally disagree with this, why shouldn't the child be allowed a kidney.

It might be a more complex matter if it was from a general waiting list, but it's the family hoping to do it themselves so that should be irrelevant. Sure she may need another one in 12 years or whatever, but regardless of what happens that is 12 years more of life.

Starting to place values on people's lives is a slippery slope, although I can accept why people might do that (including myself) but once again it seems irrelevant as it is the family hoping to donate, they're not going to put it on the general list anyway. Should people who donate kidneys or whatever specifically for family members be made unable to do so and have to put it on a list ordered by waiting time / priority or whatever criteria is used?

Should other people be refused transplants due to physical disability (e.g. a wheelchair user or a blind person?), a 'lesser' mental disability (e.g. Down's syndrome or Autism) etc?

As for quality of life, do we know that she has a poor quality of life, if she is suffering I would disagree with the transplant and prolonging pain as I would see that as lacking compassion. But I also suspect that there are a lot of people out there with various ailments, that people would say have a poor quality of life when perhaps they actually have a very good quality of life, as an example people with Down's Syndrome.
 
A quote from the article.

“These medications she has to take after the transplant, they are very dangerous. They can cause seizures. We have to get the dose exact. They may cause brain damage.”
Click to expand...

Sounds like this is the reason?

Are they not concerened that the child who already has brain damage could suffer very badly from the medication she will have to take to stop rejection?


I'm on the fence here, kinda, it must be an awful position to be in, I'm trying to find some sense in the doctor argument.
 
First off, this is someone's blog. It's written from an emotional standpoint, not from a scientific and reasoned point of view. If what she writes is completely true, then the surgeon did an absolutely rubbish job of explaining things.

Secondly, I don't think any surgeon would do this op, for medical and for legal reasons.

A kidney transplant is hugely risky, and patients that are selected (in this country at least) have to have nearly unblemished health records (no heart disease, no vascular disease, etc). Massive big risks during the surgery, and lots of risks afterwards. The reason being that the op, and the medications needed afterwards, have a high chance of killing you. And if you're not strong enough to take it (this girl isn't) then you're probably going to die rather quickly from complications.

You have to realise that the so called 'mental retardation' is a genetic condition that most likely carries other health problems, likely affecting other organ systems.

Also legally. While you might make them sign a contract promising not to sue if the transplant didn't work, you are criminally liable if you go ahead with a procedure, even with the patient's consent, if you have the knowledge that it would decrease the patient's outcome.
 
I think you have to question the objectivity of the source, first and foremost I doubt that the decision was based on anything other than medical grounds and projected quality of life and the risk to donor and recipient among other considerations.

Unfortunately the Parents (and related individuals) do not always understand what may be best for the child is not always the same as what they want.
 
I thought doctors/surgeons took an oath to save peoples lives regardless. Or is it the fact that this is an elected procedure rather than emergency that gives the doctor/surgeon the right to refuse?
 
I am going to have to sit on the fence of this too.

I can understand the doctor's view point. Performing a transplant for patient who already has mental problems and giving that patient drugs which could cause further brain damage doesn't seem like a prudent course of action. This procedure may also endanger the doner.

I can also understand the viewpoint if the parents. Their daughter, who means the world to them, is in trouble and they will do anything for her. The doctors are effectively saying she doesn't deserve a chance to live.
 
mollymoo said:
I thought doctors/surgeons took an oath to save peoples lives regardless. Or is it the fact that this is an elected procedure rather than emergency that gives the doctor/surgeon the right to refuse?
Click to expand...

No. They take an oath in which they vow to treat where necessary but also to avoid over treatment/therapeutic nihilism.

In other words if they feel something will do more harm than good then it is entirely their call. They have essentially vowed not to treat unless they feel it is right.
 
mollymoo said:
I thought doctors/surgeons took an oath to save peoples lives regardless. Or is it the fact that this is an elected procedure rather than emergency that gives the doctor/surgeon the right to refuse?
Click to expand...
Lucifurr said:
I am going to have to sit on the fence of this too.

I can understand the doctor's view point. Performing a transplant for patient who already has mental problems and giving that patient drugs which could cause further brain damage doesn't seem like a prudent course of action. This procedure may also endanger the doner.

I can also understand the viewpoint if the parents. Their daughter, who means the world to them, is in trouble and they will do anything for her. The doctors are effectively saying she doesn't deserve a chance to live.
Click to expand...

That's not it at all. Also, am I the only one that reads posts apart from the OP before I post :p?

You don't do an operation if post-op, the patient has a **** quality of life, and is likely to die shortly afterwards from the complications and medications. In this case, it might not even prolong her life.

You judge the risk of this by looking at co-morbidities. This girl has Wolf-Hirschhorn Syndrome. Having just looked it up, she probably has a very low seizure threshold, poor developed lungs, and heart wall/valve defects, any of which would be absolute contraindications for doing the transplant here.

The op would kill her. Probably faster than it would if she didn't have the transplant. And if she did have it, she'd spend the rest of her life in hospital stuck to tubes.

That's likely the rationale behind refusing the operation.
 
Choose have to be made when there is not enough to go around?

After listening for a while as the women argued, Solomon called for a sword. Then, with seeming conviction, he ordered that the child be cut in two, with half given to each woman. At once, the real mother pleaded with the king to give the baby—her precious child—to the other woman. But the other woman kept insisting that the child be cut in two. Solomon now knew the truth. He had knowledge of a mother’s tender compassion for the child of her womb, and he used that knowledge to settle this dispute. Imagine the mother’s relief when Solomon awarded her the baby and said: “She is his mother.”—1 Kings 3:16-27.
Click to expand...
 
arctine said:
Read the article.

The family said they were willing to donate their own kidney and even pay for the surgery.
Click to expand...

Whoopy do.
They are in the usa, they can spend money and achieve anything they want.
The article seeks sympathy for a woman who was enraged when she didnt get what she wanted.
Bad luck love, most people draw the line.
When I do a treatment, I do it with the patient in mind, and with the patient consulted.
Mental retardation is a very interesting aspect of consent, and additional with dealing with what can be done.
I wouldn't be surprised if that mother would bully any potential doner into donating, especially if they were a relative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom