Triple Organ transplant...um wow [Archive] - City of Heroes Forums

Powerhelm

03-22-2006, 04:32 PM

I've been reading the article,

She got a heart a liver and a kidney.

All in one day. She's 55 and was at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota for the transplanting an all that jazz.

here's a link to the disease she has ambo-something or another (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000533.htm)

the story is here (http://www.zwire.com/site/tab2.cfm?newsid=16348141&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_id=506066&rfi=6)

It's hard for me to believe that there was no one else in the nearby area that couldn't use one of those organs.

That also means 3 times the rejection possiblities I believe doesn't it?

As of right now there are 91,000+ people waiting on organs if you're on the list you pretty much live ready to go at a moments notice.

Organs stored on ice or in chemicals can last a matter of hours (heart lasting up to 6 hours), most often they're kept in the brain-dead body of the donor when possible and can be there for a day or more til harvested.

suburbanhell

03-22-2006, 04:36 PM

Right but won't the disease just kill those new organs too? I mean...not for nothing but it's better to save 3 lives at the cost of one.

Masked Revenger

03-22-2006, 04:41 PM

Meltman

03-22-2006, 04:43 PM

Yeah, you said it, MR.

Druid

03-22-2006, 05:03 PM

Wow, yea I agree with MR here. So so glad you all aren't my doctors. And it is always best to understand the disease and how it works before saying, well these three organs could do better elsewhere. Jumping to conclusions is never a good idea.

leohirok

03-22-2006, 05:33 PM

Every life is sacred. For anyone to say that one person who can be saved from a fatal diasese shouldn't because multiple people who are living but need a replacement organ evenually, should be ashamed of themselves.

Unlike in movies or games, the lives of few should never be sacrificed to save the lives of the many. Everyone should have a chance to live be it at 1yrs old or 80yrs old. Just because it took 3 organs to save one person shouldn't matter, the fact she was saved should. As for those who also could have used the organs...People die everyday, and some will eventually get the replacement they need. The list should go by most urgent to least. That woman needed a liver, a heart and a kidney or she would loose more organs to the disease and eventually die. I'd say that was pretty urgent.

Sorry to go off on a rant and upset anyone, but it just pieves me to think anyone would hold life in such dissregard.

I'm glad that woman was saved.

Just think if it was you, wouldn't you want to be saved?

Bitter Babe

03-22-2006, 05:47 PM

Ok, well what about people, like Mickey Mantle for example, who drink so much they destroy their liver and they get a new one and continue to keep drinking? I'm sorry but in situations like that, especially with celebs I dont think they deserve it.

Meltman

03-22-2006, 06:08 PM

Um, I'm relatively certain that this woman wasn't a celebrity and that this disease was not her fault.

Bitter Babe

03-22-2006, 06:11 PM

I know that Melty, I was just asking what people thought of those cases.

Plasma Wisp

03-22-2006, 06:13 PM

She better be one hot GILF or I and a few others are gonna be pissed.

Powerhelm

03-22-2006, 06:26 PM

And since when is 55 (or any age, really) to old to save and allow to continue to live?

Ok you have to choose between giving 3 good organs to a 55 yr old woman or one organ to three different people in their 20s, 30s, 40s. Which do you choose?

You know nothing about them aside from their age. Lets say you know their occupation too. One's a doctor, one's a janitor, one's a teacher and the 55yr old is a homemaker who's kids are grown and moved out. Who do ya choose?

Unlike in movies or games, the lives of few should never be sacrificed to save the lives of the many. Everyone should have a chance to live be it at 1yrs old or 80yrs old.

I totally agree that's how things should be but that's not how life is. You could be a firefighter and either send 30 guys in to save 2 that are trapped and risk losing 32 people instead of 2.

Just because it took 3 organs to save one person shouldn't matter, the fact she was saved should. As for those who also could have used the organs...People die everyday, and some will eventually get the replacement they need.

And some will die waiting. There is a shortage of organs as it is. If there was an organ surplus I'd have no problem with this woman getting three organs. Also it sounds like you're ok with three people dying so this one can live yet are against this one dying so 3 can live...

The list should go by most urgent to least. That woman needed a liver, a heart and a kidney or she would loose more organs to the disease and eventually die. I'd say that was pretty urgent.

Well someone who has cancer in their liver, heart, and kidney is gonna die too but they'd never think of replacing their organs because they have/had cancer and there's a chance it could come back.

Sorry to go off on a rant and upset anyone, but it just pieves me to think anyone would hold life in such dissregard.

I totally understand that you believe every life is worth saving. I do too. Which is why I'd much rather save 3 lives over saving just a single life.

Just think if it was you, wouldn't you want to be saved?

If you were a trapped in a burning building alone and knew in order for you to survive 3 others would have to die would you choose that?

If it came down to me choosing my death or saving 3 other people I'd gladly die and die happy knowing my descision saved 3 people's lives.

If there are 4 people that will die within the month w/o 3 organs, one of them needs all three each of the others only need a heart, liver, or kidney and these organs are compatible with all of them how can you choose to spend 3 organs on one person?

And it is always best to understand the disease and how it works before saying, well these three organs could do better elsewhere. Jumping to conclusions is never a good idea.

I thought I'd bring to your attention this: Though there is no cure for amyloidosis found here (http://www.mayoclinic.org/amyloidosis/)

What this means is that these new organs she got may last her til her death if she doesn't live much longer.

also from the previous link regaurding the disease: The symptoms depend on the organs affected by the deposits, which can include the tongue, intestines, skeletal and smooth muscles, nerves, skin, ligaments, heart, liver, spleen, and kidneys.

This means she'll probably either need more new organs later or die of some other complication related to this disease.

And those of you saying "Glad you aren't my doctors" I'm sure you're tune would change if you or a loved one were one of the 3 that one of those organs would have gone to...

Masked Revenger

03-22-2006, 06:46 PM

Ok you have to choose between giving 3 good organs to a 55 yr old woman or one organ to three different people in their 20s, 30s, 40s. Which do you choose?

You know nothing about them aside from their age. Lets say you know their occupation too. One's a doctor, one's a janitor, one's a teacher and the 55yr old is a homemaker who's kids are grown and moved out. Who do ya choose?

I refuse to answer this question.

A. It's biased towards your point of view
B. There is no correct answer here based on the pittance of information you've given.
C. Doctors that actually make these decisions base them on 1,000's of more detailed facts that this.

I'll ask you a question.

You're a doctor, and you have a patient in front of you who's dying of organ failure.

Do you save her life, or do you go "you know what? She's 55. She's to old to bother with, I can save these organs for younger people that will live longer with her."

I know a little about how organ implants work. Doctors don't use these things nilly willy. They wouldn't have given them to her if they thought the desease would just eat them as well, or if they tought that there wasn't a chance to increase her life by using them.

You assume that some doctor somewhere went "these organs might save three other people, but to hell with them, I'm saving her."

I'm saying that it's more complicated than that. And basing the decision on her age soley (or even adding in her job), as you seem to be doing, is amazingly prejudiced and short sighted.

Yes, I am glad you're not my doctor. I would not want you working on any of my loved ones, or even me. "Nope, I wont' save them, they're not worth in to me."

Chris

WingedAvenger

03-22-2006, 07:00 PM

I agree with MR. I'm stunned at how heartless people are being about this.

razoras

03-22-2006, 07:32 PM

There's nothing heartless going on here, just a difference in opinion. Calling Powerhelm heartless because of his opinions on this, which I share to an extent, is ignorant. Go join Teri Shaivo's mother and father and all of their supporters in that list (oh snap, adding fuel to the fires!).

Something I don't see being argued here is the the potential loss of wisdom and experience this woman has. When folks die, they take these things with them. How would the immediate community be affected? Or our society... would it be diminished with this loss? This should be included in the calculus of deciding who lives and who dies is pretty much any situation. The "3 young lives versus 1 old life" is only part of the forumula.

Druid

03-22-2006, 07:50 PM

Just thought I would point something out for Powerhelm. The type of Amyloidosis that this woman has is called Heriditary Amyloidosis or Familial amyloid polyneuropathy to be more specific. In this form of the disease the bad protein is created almost exclusively in the liver. Read on:

In familial amyloid polyneuropathy (FAP) the abnormal amyloid-forming protein, called transthyretin (TTR), is produced almost exclusively by the liver. Replacement of the liver with one that makes normal transthyretin protein will prevent the formation of further amyloid and stabilise the disease. Liver transplantation has now been performed in hundreds of patients with FAP worldwide, with great success in most cases. As experience increases it is becoming clear that liver transplantation for FAP should take place before too much damage to the nerves or heart has already occurred. Fortunately, the body ‘accepts' transplanted livers better than other organs

Found here: The more you know... (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/medicine/amyloidosis/nac/nac10.html)

Powerhelm

03-22-2006, 08:10 PM

I refuse to answer this question.

A. It's biased towards your point of view
B. There is no correct answer here based on the pittance of information you've given.
C. Doctors that actually make these decisions base them on 1,000's of more detailed facts that this.

And that's yet another place where we differ. If I had to choose the life of someone that needed 3 organs or 3 lives that each needed only one I'd quickly choose those three. No matter who they were, though I'm sure in the real world that age is a very big factor, I doubt they'd give a healthy heart to a 80 year old man.

I know a little about how organ implants work. Doctors don't use these things nilly willy. They wouldn't have given them to her if they thought the desease would just eat them as well, or if they tought that there wasn't a chance to increase her life by using them.

You assume that some doctor somewhere went "these organs might save three other people, but to hell with them, I'm saving her."

To a degree a doctor or group of them did just that. They said here is a woman who has a good 30 years or so left. We can give her these 3 organs. Or we can use these 3 organs in 3 other people. I seriously doubt that out of 91,000 people none of them matched up with any of those organs...

I'm saying that it's more complicated than that. And basing the decision on her age soley (or even adding in her job), as you seem to be doing, is amazingly prejudiced and short sighted.

I'm not. I was trying to give criteria for choosing so you wouldn't say something like "There is no correct answer here based on the pittance of information you've given."

I'm appalled that they spent three organs on one person. Her age is oh-so-slightly a factor in that. I don't know her job, don't know anything about her. What I do know is she could have just sealed the fate of 3 people. I don't care if you're Tom Cruise, Mike Piazza, Stephen Hawking, Seth Macfarland, or a world renowned doctor/teacher/lawyer/baker/whatever. You took three organs to save one life that could have been used to save 3 others.

Yes, I am glad you're not my doctor. I would not want you working on any of my loved ones, or even me. "Nope, I wont' save them, they're not worth in to me."

Nope in this case I'd be the doctor that says: "There are very few organs to go around and had they not used 3 on this one person we could have saved your loved one but the odds of another organ becoming available in time are very slim."

In familial amyloid polyneuropathy (FAP) the abnormal amyloid-forming protein, called transthyretin (TTR), is produced almost exclusively by the liver.

I missed where in the article it says what kind of amyloidis she has could you tell me where it's at? Not meaning to sound like a smartass I honestly don't see it.

I'm just having trouble figuring out why it's heartless to save 3 lives over saving only one life.

Gogo-chan

03-22-2006, 08:20 PM

Wow, Powerhelm. You really are a complete and utter douchebag.

Solario

03-22-2006, 08:34 PM

Wow, you are completely without any form of tact, Gogo. If you disagree, then do so, but proceed to do so respectively.

And guys there's an enourmous waiting list for organs, and from what I can see Powerhelm isn't saying that he should start saving the organs for later, but use them in accordance with what's the maximal benefit.

Yes, I am glad you're not my doctor. I would not want you working on any of my loved ones, or even me. "Nope, I wont' save them, they're not worth in to me."

Where's he saying anything about how they're worth anything to him? This seems more like the case that let's say "Ok, there are four people coming into the hospital, one needs three organs and the other three needs an organ each, should I save one life or should I save three lives?"

Vendel

03-22-2006, 08:37 PM

"Congratulations Homer, you significantly shorted your life to slightly increase someone’s else’s"

Bitter Babe

03-22-2006, 08:38 PM

Well that isn't what her post said before. Gogo, what you had before was better.

I think Solario's translation of it was pretty right on.

Masked Revenger

03-22-2006, 08:44 PM

Solario, you're right, I was a little harsh with that statement. For that, Powerhelm, I apologize. I am not trying to say you're totally heartless.

I am, however, saying that it is far more complicated than the black and white you are trying to make it out to be.

As for the waiting list, if I remember correctly, there not only is a waiting list, but also an orginzation that doles out the organs they do have. Some commettee somewhere had to okay the use of three organs on one person.

Chris

suburbanhell

03-22-2006, 08:44 PM

Wow. I'm so glad that you guys are not my doctors.

EDIT: From what I understand, the liver is where the problem lay, and they replaced that. So, no, the desease should not affect these new organs.

And since when is 55 (or any age, really) to old to save and allow to continue to live?

Chris

Never said it was, but did alcoholism contribute to her failed liver? If so then she validates the reason I don't donate my organs because they just to the richest ****ing ***holes out there anyway, who deserved to die. See also mickey mantle.

Masked Revenger

03-22-2006, 08:47 PM

Never said it was, but did alcoholism contribute to her failed liver? If so then she validates the reason I don't donate my organs because they just to the richest ****ing ***holes out there anyway, who deserved to die. See also mickey mantle.

As far as I know, alcohol had nothing to do with it. The desese she had caused her liver to put enzimes (I'm going from memory here, someone correct me if I am wrong) into her organs that eventually shut her down. The liver was one of three organs replaced, so that should mean the desease went with it. At least, as far as I was able to understand.

Chris

Solario

03-22-2006, 08:49 PM

I don't know about the US, but here there's a waiting list that doesn't discriminate against race, creed, income or anything else, so that's probably not going to happen. 'Course we have free health care here too, so I could be wrong about how it is in the US.

That being said I'm definently having my organs harvested. Hell if my death can somehow attribute to increasing someone else's life, why not? I would however prefer it if it isn't given to some person who's just going to completely butcher it like Suburban remarked. I'll probably not giving any of it away while I'm still alive though, other than blood.

And Masked, I get where you're coming from and as for the harshness of your statement, I'm pretty sure I've unafortunately doled out something in the same vecinity myself in the heat of the moment sort of thing. ;)

suburbanhell

03-22-2006, 08:49 PM

I should hope so for her sake, can you imagine what hell that would be? "Well we replaced your entire engine, but your transmission still sucks so your engine has about 1000 miles left. Say your goodbyes now."

razoras

03-22-2006, 08:50 PM

"Congratulations Homer, you significantly shorted your life to slightly increase someone’s else’s" Hah, yeah, I decided not to use the quote because I couldn't remember what it was exactly. It also doesn't quite work since we're talking organs from dead folks.

Remianen

03-22-2006, 08:59 PM

First off, let me say that though I usually don't agree with Powerhelm, I have to respect his candor. It's not politically correct, sometimes it's downright uncouth, but it's always "straight with no chaser", so to speak. Can't hate on that.

More on topic, I think idealism is cool. It helps define a person's character and becomes the lines that you draw your life within. Blind idealism, however, is potentially destructive. In a case like this, the idealist in me would agree with the majority of folks in this post but the practical side would not. The organ transplanting process is shady, at best. Bitter Babe pointed out one of the more high profile cases that shed light on it. How long did Mickey Mantle wait for a replacement for the liver that he himself destroyed (and KNEW he was destroying)? It's like most things in this world (whether you want to acknowledge it or not). Money talks. Influence talks. I believe those organs went to the person who stood a better chance of accepting them without undue complication. I can't say what decision I would make if I were in the shoes of the administrator (the person who usually has the final say in these matters). Practically speaking, saving 3 people instead of just one sounds like a good idea. On paper. But as you may well know, things don't often translate from paper to reality in an exact manner. I also don't think age should factor in too much (within reason, of course). Lifestyle should be a larger determinant (and from what I understand, it is. Mickey Mantle types generally don't factor too highly for liver transplants).

I only have experience with probably the least life-threatening transplant (kidney) in that I have a cousin who needed one several years back. Her case was kinda complicated because her blood type is rare (AB, I think it was) so most of us couldn't really be considered due to risk of rejection. From what I understand, the kidney transplant list moves infinitely faster than any of the other organs (probably due to the fact that you really only NEED 1 kidney).

In a world of absolutes, I would probably go with the 3 over the 1. But this isn't a world of absolutes so it isn't as cut-n-dried to me.

Metropolis1927

03-22-2006, 09:50 PM

Never said it was, but did alcoholism contribute to her failed liver? If so then she validates the reason I don't donate my organs because they just to the richest ****ing ***holes out there anyway, who deserved to die. See also mickey mantle.

Having lived through two kidney transplants, I can most assuredly tell you that they do not just go to the rich.

I knew all kinds of people while I went to dialysis. I knew people who destoyed their kidneys using recreational drugs, but that was a true rarity. Most people are diabetic,or suffer from some other disease that destroyed their kidney function.

As far as I was taught when getting on the list for a kidney, the doctors try to not judge people on anything but their prognosis for successful transplantation when deciding who to give organs to. So a 55 year old patient in good health, and who looks to be a viable candidate, will be considered regardless of their age.

In my opinion, it's a shame to put your organs in the ground to rot if they can be used to help another person.

Druid

03-22-2006, 10:05 PM

Just to remind people, the whole problem the woman was having was the fact that a disease called Ampyloidosis was causing her liver to secrete proteins that were making her own body attack her organs. The damage was done to her liver, heart, and kidney. The transplant is to first off, replace the liver which is causing the problem (once replaced the problem should cease), and secondly to replace the damaged organs.

She had nothing to do with the destruction of her organs, it was this disease.

Kinetix

03-22-2006, 11:26 PM

Wow, Powerhelm. You really are a complete and utter feminine cleansing wipe.

And how.

My dad's about 55 and still kickin. He's got a ways to go and I'd think 3 organs is worth his time left. Powerhelm, go spend some time in a nursing home. They aren't all senile like in The Simpsons. They know a lot more than you and have a lot to give in terms of things to pass down to us.

razoras

03-22-2006, 11:39 PM

Powerhelm absolutely does not deserve this harassment. Calling him a douchebag is totally uncalled for, douchebags.

Druid

03-22-2006, 11:48 PM

Hey watch who you're calling a douchebag, ya douchebag! (BTW, that part was my fault because I told Gogo I wouldn't blame her if she went ahead and changed her post to Douchebag. My bad.)

Kinetix

03-22-2006, 11:52 PM

I'll change mine.

Larke

03-23-2006, 12:07 AM

Actually, with what my dad just went through, and there was a woman who's dad had a heart attack and was going in for a bipass and while they were there her mother had a heart attack.

I agree that those organs should have gone to 3 people instead of one. If it was me, and I was given that choice, I would try to enjoy what was left of my life.

And many doctors do have to do this heartlessly. And they DO base it on age. And 80 year old man would not be given a healthy heart if a 40 year old person was below them on the list.

Druid

03-23-2006, 01:18 AM

Out of curiosity, shouldn't this have been posted in the debate thread?

Masked Revenger

03-23-2006, 01:36 AM

Out of curiosity, shouldn't this have been posted in the debate thread?

Well, he initially intended this to just be a "hey, check this out" thread, so no. However, it probably should be moved there.

Chris

UnSub

03-23-2006, 02:24 AM

So, as a general question for Powerhelm, how many organ transplants are we allowed in life before we step over our limit? Is it only 1 per customer?

Gogo-chan

03-23-2006, 02:55 AM

And how.

My dad's about 55 and still kickin. He's got a ways to go and I'd think 3 organs is worth his time left. Powerhelm, go spend some time in a nursing home. They aren't all senile like in The Simpsons. They know a lot more than you and have a lot to give in terms of things to pass down to us.

Agreed.

Also, I have no respect for Powerhelm in the first place since he's never shown respect to me. I feel no need to show someone respect they don't deserve.

Malibu Sally

03-23-2006, 03:05 AM

So, as a general question for Powerhelm, how many organ transplants are we allowed in life before we step over our limit? Is it only 1 per customer?
There is no limit.... provided you can pay for the organs. Though the article did not say so... you can bet the house that she was loaded. No way in heaven or hell a poor person gets three transplants.

The Mystic

03-23-2006, 03:26 AM

I think most people are forgetting that a hospital is, at the end of the day, a business. Now, I don't know the full details of why the decision was made, so I can't state if I agree with it or not.

However, you can bet that either the woman is fairly rich and was able to pay for the organs, or that the hospital thought that by doing such an extensive procedure they would obtain enough publicity to gain more interest in the hospital.

Either way, they were trying to make a decision that would ultimately benefit the hospital, which would allow them to potentially save more lives in the future.

My 2 cents anyway, take them as you will.

Kinetix

03-23-2006, 03:57 AM

There is no limit.... provided you can pay for the organs. Though the article did not say so... you can bet the house that she was loaded. No way in heaven or hell a poor person gets three transplants.

Insurance, and he was being a bit sarcastic.

Malibu Sally

03-23-2006, 04:07 AM

I think most people are forgetting that a hospital is, at the end of the day, a business.
Treating some while refusing others medical care based upon whether it is profitable is nauseating. :grumble:

However, you can bet that either the woman is fairly rich and was able to pay for the organs, or that the hospital thought that by doing such an extensive procedure they would obtain enough publicity to gain more interest in the hospital.
Wonderful where the priorities lie... Not with saving a life, but how much PR a saved life can garner. :grr:

Either way, they were trying to make a decision that would ultimately benefit the hospital, which would allow them to potentially save more lives in the future.
Provided they are wealthy or insured because we can't be bothered with the "unclean masses". :|

My 2 cents anyway
And mine in reply.

The Mystic

03-23-2006, 04:15 AM

Hey, I didn't say I agreed with it. I was just trying to explain why I thought they did what they did. :p

MaligneFamily

03-23-2006, 04:21 AM

Powerhelm

03-23-2006, 05:12 AM

Insurance, and he was being a bit sarcastic.

Well to have insurance that would pay fo that kinda expensive surgery and not hit you with a big deductable would have such a high monthly rate that you'd still have to be loaded or know someone who is loaded, in order to afford it...

Wonderful where the priorities lie... Not with saving a life, but how much PR a saved life can garner

One good thing that comes from that is that hospitals are more willing to take a chance on long shot cases and advanced/experimental techniques and it gives people a chance to live when they probably wouldn't. If it fails the hospital made a "valiant effort with an experimental procedure" if it succeeds the hospital "contributed to a major medical breakthrough" either way means big bucks for them.

I know this is gonna be so damn controversial, but isn't what you just said what Nazi's did? Putting value to a category of people's lives... Hell just to make space why not kill and deny basic rights to all homemakers over 55 and so we have space and better social security payments.

Nope I was trying to give some sort of criteria for a theoretical situation similar to this requiring you to choose between 1 person or 3 people because I knew people who are attacking me would say just what MR said about the "pittance of information" I was providing initially.

The Nazi's said "oh hey everything that's wrong with our country is the fault of the jews, also these other races are inferior because their cultures are different than ours or so on" They didn't say "Hey we either kill 10 jews or 2 christians"

My entire point (re-iterating it) was that they used up 3 organs on one person...they "apparently" from what little info we have, chose one woman over three people.

But if you wanna know what I think of value I think we do it everyday all of us, some more so than others. Base it on someone's looks, dress, age, the way they drive, whatever.

A homeless guy on the street is worth a thing compared to a teacher?

A person who is so mentally handicapped that their entire life consists of drooling on themselves and wearing a helmet outside is worth as much as a doctor?

If a building is on fire and you have time enough to save one person who will it be? the 80 year old lady or the 10 year old kid? Who has the most potential to do something significant with their remaining life? Who's had the chance to experience the most life?

Who's more valuable the D&D nerd in his 40s living in his parent's basement still and working part-time at 7-11? Or the firefighter?

Gogo-chan

03-23-2006, 05:16 AM

But if you wanna know what I think of value I think we do it everyday all of us, some more so than others. Base it on someone's looks, dress, age, the way they drive, whatever.

A homeless guy on the street is worth a thing compared to a teacher?

A person who is so mentally handicapped that their entire life consists of drooling on themselves and wearing a helmet outside is worth as much as a doctor?

If a building is on fire and you have time enough to save one person who will it be? the 80 year old lady or the 10 year old kid? Who has the most potential to do something significant with their remaining life? Who's had the chance to experience the most life?

Who's more valuable the D&D nerd in his 40s living in his parent's basement still and working part-time at 7-11? Or the firefighter?

This is why you fail at being a human being.

razoras

03-23-2006, 05:29 AM

This is why you fail at being a human being.

More undeserved attacks on Powerhelm's character. I share his opinion. Start calling ME some names for a change.

Druid

03-23-2006, 05:29 AM

I have to agree with Gogo on this point.

Razoras you stink. nyah-nyah

Malibu Sally

03-23-2006, 05:37 AM

If a building is on fire and you have time enough to save one person who will it be? the 80 year old lady or the 10 year old kid?
According to most American medical providers, the one with the largest cash reserves is the one to rescue. If both of them are poor and cannot pay for their rescue, leave them to die and then use the "we are a business, not a charity" mantra. :P

Druid

03-23-2006, 05:42 AM

In response to your questions Powerhelm, If I were in those situations I would save whoever I knew I could save. Though I would try my damndest to save somebody. Hell, I say this now as sure as I can having never been tested in the situation, I would be more then happy to get them both out at the cost of my life. But the point is you never can answer these questions until you have been tested with them.

Poison

03-23-2006, 09:01 AM

Guys, debate forum?

Solario

03-23-2006, 10:54 AM

So, as a general question for Powerhelm, how many organ transplants are we allowed in life before we step over our limit? Is it only 1 per customer?

It has something to do with using three healthy organs in a relative small time period to save one dying person, which causes the death of three people.

Kin: If your dad, your mother and your sister/brother (whatever, it's a hypophosis) only needed one organ each and was not chosen, but a person who needed three was chosen, would you find that fair? You're only looking at it from the view of the 55 year old and not from the three other anonymous lives which are ended as a result.

Hypophosis: If you can save one or three out of four completely identical people, who do you save?

And Gogo, you bring nothing new to the discussion at all, so would atleast have the courtesy to leave it and stop cluttering up an interesting debate?

PS. This is not yet another america-bashing, but quite frankly your health system sickens me.

Astartus

03-23-2006, 11:03 AM

Anyone thought about the possible risk to transport the organs to another state for transplantation. Perhaps the person whose organs where used died in the same hospital?
And a transportation of 3 different organs to 3 different states would be too risky?

Although our current medicine is possible of preserving organs for some time, the question would be if those preserved organs wouldn't be damaged on the way or start decaying slowly.

There are clearly more factors as saying: Ok, 3 organs for patient A or 1 organ each for patients B, C and D. Where are those patients located? How long have they waited for a new organ? What is their current state of health? How will their state of health develop without a transplant in the next month? What is the chance of the organ to be rejected by the patient?

MaligneFamily

03-23-2006, 11:20 AM

The Nazi's said "oh hey everything that's wrong with our country is the fault of the jews, also these other races are inferior because their cultures are different than ours or so on" They didn't say "Hey we either kill 10 jews or 2 christians"

My entire point (re-iterating it) was that they used up 3 organs on one person...they "apparently" from what little info we have, chose one woman over three people.

But if you wanna know what I think of value I think we do it everyday all of us, some more so than others. Base it on someone's looks, dress, age, the way they drive, whatever.

A homeless guy on the street is worth a thing compared to a teacher?

A person who is so mentally handicapped that their entire life consists of drooling on themselves and wearing a helmet outside is worth as much as a doctor?

If that drooling retarded person happens to be your brother, than yes it is more important than a doctor in my eyes and should be treated equally.

To leave Nazi's at just Jews would be idiotic. They attacked all, gypsies, poor, and homosexuals. You are comparing the two and putting one to a lesser value, and then denying it life even if the two comparisons were determined by line order.

Why not just get rid of retards and poor people... and do it by taking their rights away.

Grand choice of words.

8 Ball

03-23-2006, 11:25 AM

[Mod hat on]

Alright, enough with the personal attacks. It's not warranted even in the debate forum

[Mod hat off]

I'm not going to get to deep into this because it is very easy to judge when you're looking from the outside on this situation, but just as a perspective...what if this was your mother/grandmother with the condition. Or alternatively what if a loved one died while waiting for a transplant when this woman gets three?

EDIT: Nevermind...this point has already been brought up :D.

Poison

03-23-2006, 02:36 PM

No matter if it's a 55 year old lady or a 13 year old boy: it's a disease where your organs get stiff with time. Meaning, the transplanted ones will be affected as well. You are prolonging an already doomed life, most probably causing the person to endure a lot of pain.
I think we try to fool death too much. We have to accept that there are uncurable diseases and disorders out there and although we all have the right to live, it doesn't mean we all get the same chances to do so. No, I would not want to decide upon the fate of that person. But I know how I'd act and that involves enjoying the time I have left and accepting it.

Masked Revenger

03-23-2006, 02:42 PM

No matter if it's a 55 year old lady or a 13 year old boy: it's a disease where your organs get stiff with time. Meaning, the transplanted ones will be affected as well. You are prolonging an already doomed life, most probably causing the person to endure a lot of pain.

But, see, that's just not it. From what I can tell, the desease caused her liver to add proteens to other organs, causing the them to shut down. Her liver was one of the organs replaced. Thus, the desease should not affect these new organs. It wasn't a prolonging of a "doomed" life, unless you consider the fact that EVERYONE dies doomed.

Also, Powerhelm, where you and I disagree is that you ASSUME that they chose this women over 3 other people that needed those organs immedatly. There is no evidence of this anywhere, and I disagree with that assumption.

Chris

Larke

03-23-2006, 02:56 PM

Yeah her liver did the effect but it was something just she had, so I don't see anything saying she can't get it again.

Also you guys have to realize that the Mayo clinic in Rodchester is HUGE and many many many people go THERE to get this stuff done and most like there were 2 other people there to get those transplants. Or ones that could probably be there in a few hours.

razoras

03-23-2006, 02:58 PM

That's what happens when folks get organs, though. It's not likely a "this organ is transplated or it goes to waste" situation. Organs generally fall under "If I don't give this organ to this patient, someone somewhere else will get it."

Bitter Babe

03-23-2006, 02:59 PM

The organ certainly wouldn't go to waste. I think the way it is done is messed up, you have people waiting on the list for years and then they reach the top, but then someone gets sicker than them and they get booted and have to keep waiting.

bpphantom

03-23-2006, 04:09 PM

I'll throw some napalm on the fire.

I agree with PHelm on this one. But I'll go a step further and reveal my tyrannical dystopian regime to you trusted Gurus ;) Tune your monitors to 2015 if you please. You get these troublesome, expensive and lifesaving transplants based on your function and contribution to society as a whole. Example: 4 people needs transplants. A Doctor, a Teacher, a Janitor and a Politician. The Politician doesn't get one, regardless of age or wealth simply because he's not as useful to the community. But that's neither here nor there as I haven't arisen to rule this cesspit of a planet yet :)

If there were others that were on the list for the organs in question, they should have got them in my opinion.

Needs of the many, needs of the few... blah blah blah. It can't be said that it's only movie logic when military branches teach it and follow it. One man. Trapped behind enemy lines. He either gets out on his own or he dies. His squad doesn't go back for him. THAT is movie logic. A fire fighter is trapped in a burning building that could come down at any second. They do NOT rush back in and try to find and rescue him. The person in charge makes the call of when it's too late. That's what they get paid to do. To make those decisions and to not go to pieces when they essentially tell their comrades that their fellow will die because he won't risk losing any more.

Sometimes they're right and sometimes they're wrong.

Anyway, I'm done rambling :)

razoras

03-23-2006, 04:18 PM

Yay, bpphantom sees life clearly and isn't blinded by idealistic and hollywood-based views of life!

People make decisions about which lives are more valuable than others all the time. It's niave to think otherwise. Doctors DO make the calls, every day, on what lives are worth spending time on and whch aren't. It's a very basic part of any training for someone who is routinely in the position of saving lives.

Poison

03-23-2006, 06:29 PM

From what I can tell, the desease caused her liver to add proteens to other organs, causing the them to shut down. Her liver was one of the organs replaced. Thus, the desease should not affect these new organs. It wasn't a prolonging of a "doomed" life, unless you consider the fact that EVERYONE dies doomed. I stand corrected about her disease. But my statement about accepting death stands (part of the euthanasia discussion and what happened only last year in the US news with that braindead woman, her husband and her family).

govtmorgue

03-23-2006, 07:00 PM

The biggest thing I have a problem with is that her Bishop told her she would have those organs by Christmas.

So Basically

The preist told the old lady that some dude or women was gonna die because she needed those. Man, what if that dude or man had a family that was direly in need of the income.

Other than that, good on the old lady for getting to live longer and pass along her extensive wisdom recieved through years of experience.

Druid

03-23-2006, 10:19 PM