Kidney transplant declined due to mental disability

arctine said:
Wait...what?

The availability of organs has nothing to do with this. The family of the girl were willing to donate one of theirs.

Even if that wasn't the case, your bible story would still have no relevance :p
Click to expand...

Were the family willing to donate? Or does the one rage written article of a woman enraged in an interview scream they were willing to donate?
They haven't even crossmatched anyone yet.
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was merely pointing out a fact the person I quoted obviously didn't pick up on before posting.

Similarly, if you'd read the thread before trying to start an argument with me you'd have picked up the fact I was at a neutral stance.

Also, you treat people? In what way? If you're a doctor then your level of compassion frightens me.
 
Orcish-Horde said:
Should the organs all be chopped up so that no one goes without?
Click to expand...

mmm steak and kidney.

Seriously doctors should be the final arbiter, they swear to do no harm, which could be the final result here. Money, religion and politics should keep out.
 
Not a doctor, but interesting that one non emotional response on a forum board can frighten you.
I have a great bedside manner in fact, totally unlike my forum character I suppose, but you have to treat a patient as a whole.
The OP who I have subsequently realised isn't you, I appear to have quoted the wrong response, but the OP thought it was disgusting that the doctors didn't jump to do what was asked.
I find it bizarre people think they should, just because the produce an organ and some cash.
 
shootersam said:
That's not the doctors decision to make. That's the person donating the organs decision to make. If they want to risk their life for somebody else, that is ultimately their decision.
Click to expand...

But it's not their decision to force other people to be very actively involved in doing it, i.e. the surgery team, the aftercare doctors and nurses, the hospital administration, the medical ethics committee members, etc.
 
mollymoo said:
I thought doctors/surgeons took an oath to save peoples lives regardless.
Click to expand...

No, they don't. The modern "Hippocratic" oath (which has absolutely nothing to do with the original oath) doesn't really bind the swearer to anything. The original Hippocratic oath did, but the modern "Hippocratic" oath doesn't. It's just a vague statement of general attitude, really. It's probably symbolically important to a doctor, but there's very little practical meaning to it.
 
nkata said:
mmm steak and kidney.

Seriously doctors should be the final arbiter, they swear to do no harm [..]
Click to expand...

No, they don't. Well, they might. Or they might not. There is no one oath that all doctors swear, not even amongst those who swear "the Hippocratic oath". The original Hippocratic oath bound the physician to do no harm, but the modern "Hippocratic" oaths (plural, there are different ones) don't. It's impractical to have such a rigid clause, since a lot of medicine requires doing harm. It's certainly harmful to, for example, drug someone into unconsciousness so deep that they're close to dying, then cut open their guts and cut out part of their body. If I had acute appendicitis I'd certainly prefer to have an appendectomy and to have it under general anaesthetic than to die nastily from it, but the surgery certainly isn't entirely harmless.
 
Well so long as it was soley on medical grounds of the individual child and not on an opinion of the organ would be better suited in someone else, then I suppose you can defer to the 'experts'.
 
Considering that none of us get out of this life alive, I would also err towards the side of holding life sacred.

So there is a possibility of the girl being brain damaged? I'd take that chance rather than flat out die.

So the girl is impaired developmentally? Shouldn't influence the decision. This is still a unique human being, someones definitely loved daughter.
 
i keep finding myself saying that the family are very selfish.

and would any of them donate their organ if they weren't family.

also, who know what the patient wants. maybe she wants to die. maybe she doesn't. the family are making the decision on what THEY want.
 
shootersam said:
That's not the doctors decision to make. That's the person donating the organs decision to make. If they want to risk their life for somebody else, that is ultimately their decision.
Click to expand...
This pretty much.

I thought people around here hated the "nanny" state?.

Assuming the person who wishes to donate is of sound body & mind they should have the right donate to whomever they desire.
 
mglover070588 said:
I did a search on the link and did says retard 8 times.
Having a list for everyone doesn't work. If it was binge drinkers would be getting all the new livers.

My wording is not PC but I skip straight to the point that needs to be made. Give the organ to the person who can get their life improved the most significantly by it. The choice will be made on a multi-criteria based decision tool and mental well-being will surely be one of the attributes on there.
Click to expand...
That only applies to organs donated in general, not organs specifically wished to be donated to individuals.

If person A want's to donate an organ to person B (who could not get an organ due to poor health) - they should be able too.

The risk of the operation is on the head of the individual who wishes to donate, it's not like they are more likely to die donating to a health person than a sick person - making the only judge the health of the person & the "value" of the persons life.

Clearly in the case of this person they have decided that the life of person A is worth the personal risk to there health - which should effectively take the decision out of the hands of the doctor.

This is not the same as asking a sick person who could die to donate.
 
Emotion clouding logic.

The doctor(s) is/are in the right to dictate that the operation is not a sound logical proposal from an unbias position. DO you think they are syaing "No" for the lols? Because they can?

Doctors are not labourers who can cut you open and swap organs just because that is what you want. If the family want this they can take their dollars to a country where they can find a surgical labourer (Read, not a doctor) and pay for it to be done.
 
Some of the replies are so retarded to the extend that they give some sense to the doctor's stupid reasoning.

I wonder when human beings especially scientist will realise that no one has control over life.
And one simple fact is we live to die and no one knows the time any of us will die, No one knows whether those of us who are normal today will be abnormal tomorrow and the reverse.

The doctors have no final say on life period and the earlier they realize that and accept it the better. I am sure it wouldn't surprise any of us if 3yrs later the said girl is found not mentally retarded by even the same doctor and he will say that previously it was just poor growth patterns or something else.

On earth no body has an assured chance of living longer than the other and i think that was the point the girls mother was trying to make when she said what if you die tomorrow.

Any body who is alive at the moment deserves treatment irrespective of the condition that's why people finish years in comma and still get treatment.

In summary denying treatment to a patient because you think he/she is going to die is the worst retarded reason you can get.

Because all of us live to die and we go for treatment only with hope that we can add few seconds to our stay on earth. From the minute the girl left that hospital you have no idea how many very healthy human beings have died or turned from being normal to being mentally disturbed and the reverse
 
bagsjoni said:
Some of the replies are so retarded to the extend that they give some sense to the doctor's stupid reasoning.

I wonder when human beings especially scientist will realise that no one has control over life.
And one simple fact is we live to die and no one knows the time any of us will die, No one knows whether those of us who are normal today will be abnormal tomorrow and the reverse.

The doctors have no final say on life period and the earlier they realize that and accept it the better. I am sure it wouldn't surprise any of us if 3yrs later the said girl is found not mentally retarded by even the same doctor and he will say that previously it was just poor growth patterns or something else.

On earth no body has an assured chance of living longer than the other and i think that was the point the girls mother was trying to make when she said what if you die tomorrow.

Any body who is alive at the moment deserves treatment irrespective of the condition that's why people finish years in comma and still get treatment.

In summary denying treatment to a patient because you think he/she is going to die is the worst retarded reason you can get.

Because all of us live to die and we go for treatment only with hope that we can add few seconds to our stay on earth. From the minute the girl left that hospital you have no idea how many very healthy human beings have died or turned from being normal to being mentally disturbed and the reverse
Click to expand...

Going by that logic, why bother even considering a transplant in the first place if you could walk out of the hospital and get hit by a bus? Why not just ride her luck and see how long she can go without a transplant? In fact, why bother using medicine at all if it's all just a game of chance?

I'd be curious to see what the parents would think if she needed a liver transplant or any transplant whereby a living person couldn't donate. What would the argument be then? It's obviously a horrible situation to be in but if they have any common sense and realism in them, it makes more sense to donate to somebody who is going to get better use from it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom