TRANSPLANT
Anonymous said...
except they didn't know about the cancer before they opened him up. So they had no choice but to give him the liver. Its not like the liver is good forever, there's no preservatives. Every hour that passes decreases its viability. To say that they should have closed him up and given the liver to someone else is ignorant -- you're advocating giving someone else a lower-quality organ at that point, since they don't have the #2 person ready to go-- that would take hours, hours you just don't have. They'll do better with a higher-quality organ -- let Mantle have the liver, it was too late.
You're right and that was what the doctors said to justify continuing with the surgery. BUT, they also said, had they know prior to opening him up, they would have rejected him and gave the kidney to the next person on the list.
You want to talk about a moral dilemma, what about David Crosby who abused alcohol and drugs and needed a liver transplant. Or even Larry Hagman of "I Dream of Jeanie" and "Dallas" fame? After years of drinking, he had to have a liver tranplant. Should an organ go to someone who abused their own and could very well do it again?
posted by Kenny @ 9:28 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
I would say no.
But if you have enough money....
"they would have rejected him and gave the kidney to the next person on the list."
Liver, not kidney. And they would have rejected him based on the cancer, which wasn't caused by his hard living ways as far as anyone can prove.
"After years of drinking, he had to have a liver tranplant. Should an organ go to someone who abused their own and could very well do it again?"
what if it wasnt drinking? what if the person wasn't obese, was an upstanding member of the community, but had poor diet and high cholesterol? and needs a heart transplant? Should we pass him by too? where do you draw the line? its a slippery slope. eventually, no one becomes "good enough" to "deserve" the organ.
remember you can't just throw any old organ into someone! It has to match blood type and immune system markers. Maybe they abused their body in the past...but what about now? are they clean and healthy now? That's all you can go on. Unless you're telling me people can't ever change. If you believe that, you're more cynical than I am, and that's saying something. If they trash their new organ due to non-compliance, fine, they're done. I'm ok with that. But they deserve the chance. It takes different things for people to see the error of their ways. If Hagman was near the top of the list because he was sick and because an organ came up that matched him best, then he deserved it. And it shook Hagman up and he went on to really help good causes. Would you be more pleased if he had been turned down and died? Or more pleased if he got the liver, didn't learn his lesson and abused it too? Personally I think it worked out pretty well for everyone with Hagman. And maybe David Crosby hasn't been a saint -- but I dont think he's destroying and wasting his second chance. He's doing some good things too. But I guess you'd rather they were dead. That's your opinion, but I don't share it.
I work in the transplant business. I see people saved everyday. Your moral judgments are poor. You can't tell who will take their second chance and do well with it and who won't. You transplant people based on the objective, nationally recognized system. And you hope for the best. Your examples are poor for your argument. Sorry.
Post a Comment
<< Home