I think your judgement is clouded. Probably by religion.
Kidney transplant declined due to mental disability
- Thread starter shootersam
- Start date
I think your judgement is clouded. Probably by religion.
Clearly we do. Life saving operations are performed across the world on a daily basis.
It is entirely sensible and rational.
Example situation:
Patient A is completely is healthy in every way and is expected to live a long life.
Patient B has cancer and has been diagnosed with only 2 months to live.
Both patients arrive at the emergency room having suffered stab wounds to one of their kidneys.
There is only one kidney available for transplant.
You think it would be "retarded" to give this to Patient A rather than Patient B?
Not gonna comment on the content of the thread.
Just posting to point out that despite the fact American healthcare is based on private insurance it won't simply be a matter of going to someone else. The insurance company will not pay for procedures that aren't approved by a Doctor, if most hospitals have a similar policy it isn't as easy as dipping your hand in your pocket and buying at another shop.
Just posting to point out that despite the fact American healthcare is based on private insurance it won't simply be a matter of going to someone else. The insurance company will not pay for procedures that aren't approved by a Doctor, if most hospitals have a similar policy it isn't as easy as dipping your hand in your pocket and buying at another shop.
The Doctor is refusing the private donation because she will still need a new kidney in ~10 years time. What if the first parents kidney is rejected, the other gives it a try? Fair enough if it works. Who's kidney do they then use in the future transplants?
Horrible question of ethics.
Giving to patient A wouldn't be "Retarded" but confidently giving a reason that patient A will die in two months and Patient B will live longer that 2 months would be retarded because it shows you are so uninformed on some thing straight forward like death. because what if patient A dies the next day won't you look a fool in front of patient B.
Life is based on hope and faith nothing else and that's why religion has survived for years.
Then they either get a new organ or die.
10 years is a long time, if 10 years extra life is worth the trade-off for the willing donor then it's not the doctors place to say otherwise.
This is not an organ which could goto somebody who could live 30 years - if it was I would 100% agree - as that's a rational & logical choice.
But if person A want's to sacrifice one of HIS/HER organs - it's upto THEM to decide if the time gained to the person who receives it is worth it
If they are willing to pay & donate the organ & fully understand the risks/gains involved they should be able too.
They should be able for one important reason, they would (rightly) never get an organ off the normal donor list (which I agree is the correct choice of doctors).
That may be, but you cannot force a doctor to perform this surgery.....
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,471
You're my new favourite chap to follow.
Will you be starting threads of your own, they will make excellent reading.
In answer to your statement, you will not look like a fool in front of person b, when person a dies unexpectedly, as the decision you made to give a the kidney lead tomthe death of B, so no B to feel silly in front of, they died of stab wounds the night before
God bless you.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,471
You seem to wish to force medical professionals to do,surgery they do not wish to do, and that they have guidelines and criteria which prevent them from doing so.
Bonkers and frankly wrong. Good luck to you sir.
I would agree in the context of someone with 2 months to live against that of someone with a long lifetime ahead of them, in that the 2nd person should get the organs.
But that isn't what this is this is a subjective quality of life arguement, just because someone may not have the same mental capacity as others, does not mean they don't live a fulfilling life to them. So why shouldn't they have the same option.
Though this is all reference it coming from a general register, if it's a specific family / friend donation for that purpose then all this is surely irrelevant and all that should matter is chance of success, and the patients being willing to undertake the operation. Someone's opinion on 'value' does not matter then and I would also say this in example someone else used of a person with 2 months to live.
Doctors should not be able to decide whether they give treatment because of person views, but they should be able to decide on medical merits. A lot of people have jobs, and you don't always do things the way you would like, why should medical staff be any different.
But that isn't what this is this is a subjective quality of life arguement, just because someone may not have the same mental capacity as others, does not mean they don't live a fulfilling life to them. So why shouldn't they have the same option.
Though this is all reference it coming from a general register, if it's a specific family / friend donation for that purpose then all this is surely irrelevant and all that should matter is chance of success, and the patients being willing to undertake the operation. Someone's opinion on 'value' does not matter then and I would also say this in example someone else used of a person with 2 months to live.
Doctors should not be able to decide whether they give treatment because of person views, but they should be able to decide on medical merits. A lot of people have jobs, and you don't always do things the way you would like, why should medical staff be any different.
In that case you are agreeing with the doctor's decision...The doctor didn't go "lol, that girl's a spaz" and decide not to operate!