TRANSPLANTS-THE DEBATE CONTINUES

Anonymous said...

"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 transplant. Should an organ go to someone who abused their own and could very well do it again?"

what if it wasn't 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 don't 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.

First of all, Hagman and Crosby got their transplants, not because they were next on the list of recipients but because of who they were. Secondly,have you ever known an alcoholic to stop drinking without any relapses? Or for that matter, drug addicts? Remember, these organs are hard to come by, you have to match a lot of genetic markers. Should a liver go to a lifetime user of drugs or to little Cindy who has childhood cancer of the liver?

We had a case about 10 yrs ago here in Alabama, I can't remember the woman's name but she needed both a heart and lung transplant because of emphysema. She has smoked cigarettes the biggest part of her life, only neither her insurance or Medicaid would pay for the transplant, so she got on tv and was asking for the public to help her, she was dying and needed this transplant. After several months, the money was raised and she went to Canada (the only place willing to do the surgery for her) and got the heart and lungs of a 12 yr who had died in an accident. A few months out of the hospital and back in Montgomery, she was spotted in a bar, smoking, like nothing had happened to her. All those who felt sorry for her before were furious. That heart-lung block could have went to a more deserving patient.

There is supposed to be a system in place where only those that are the sickest and most deserving get these organs and those with money, like that Saudi usurp the system.