Child put ahead of adults on the transplant list receives 2nd set of lungs.
Posted by Anonymous User
I find it odd the little girl's "score", which determines who is first on the list and is subjective, went from 78 to 91 in the few days it took to place her on the adult list. The proponents of allowing kids to be on the adult list, including her Moo, are claiming they want whomever is most in need, which is determined by that score, to get the lungs whether they be a child OR adult. I'd really like to know what the person's score is who was on the over 12 waiting list and ahead of her BEFORE the media stink and the judge's ruling? If I had to guess I'd say 89 or 90. 
down
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
If YOU are the "exception" to what I am saying, then why does my commentary bother you so much?
I don't hate your kids, I HATE YOU!
down------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
If YOU are the "exception" to what I am saying, then why does my commentary bother you so much?
I don't hate your kids, I HATE YOU!
Quote
johnnybsterile
Kinda brings to mind the movie/book "Coma".
jbs
Let us not forget the author, Robin Cook, is a practicing physician and was employed in a hospital when he penned that scary book and others like it. It kind of makes me wonder what gave him his ideas if not from real life experiences or at least suspicions of some of his material.
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
If YOU are the "exception" to what I am saying, then why does my commentary bother you so much?
I don't hate your kids, I HATE YOU!
Quote
kidlesskim
Quote
johnnybsterile
Kinda brings to mind the movie/book "Coma".
jbs
Let us not forget the author, Robin Cook, is a practicing physician and was employed in a hospital when he penned that scary book and others like it. It kind of makes me wonder what gave him his ideas if not from real life experiences or at least suspicions of some of his material.
I had the book and there was an afterword in it about how (at the time) there was a shortage of volunteer donors and how he could see one day where a situation like in that story could possibly become reality.
I no longer carry a donor card because I've heard how with some organs, once the donor is dead they can no longer be used. Not sure but I think the heart & lungs were among them (help me, Thom C). I've had nightmares of being paralized in some kind of emergency situation and hearing the EMT say "Let's pull his lungs. He'll probably be dead soon" and feeling all the agony and pain of the procedure with nothing I could do about it.. Don't know if I really heard that somewhere or contrived it in my own mind but until I'm sure, I'm not taking any chances. They can have what they want AFTER I'm dead, but not a second before..
jbs
Quote
johnnybsterile
Quote
kidlesskim
Quote
johnnybsterile
Kinda brings to mind the movie/book "Coma".
jbs
Let us not forget the author, Robin Cook, is a practicing physician and was employed in a hospital when he penned that scary book and others like it. It kind of makes me wonder what gave him his ideas if not from real life experiences or at least suspicions of some of his material.
I had the book and there was an afterword in it about how (at the time) there was a shortage of volunteer donors and how he could see one day where a situation like in that story could possibly become reality.
I no longer carry a donor card because I've heard how with some organs, once the donor is dead they can no longer be used. Not sure but I think the heart & lungs were among them (help me, Thom C). I've had nightmares of being paralized in some kind of emergency situation and hearing the EMT say "Let's pull his lungs. He'll probably be dead soon" and feeling all the agony and pain of the procedure with nothing I could do about it.. Don't know if I really heard that somewhere or contrived it in my own mind but until I'm sure, I'm not taking any chances. They can have what they want AFTER I'm dead, but not a second before..
jbs
Is it possible?
I have been scolded for being paranoid and ridiculous by so many people in my life, including several in the medical profession, who swear up and down it would be IMPOSSIBLE for an organ donor with a heart beat to have anything removed unless it was 100% certain he was brain dead with zero chance of waking up. While I will agree that's probably the rule, there are ALWAYS exceptions which would include honest mistakes as well as purposeful acts to the contrary. I also don't believe too much in the word, "impossible" either. It is a well known fact this type of shit, and worse, happens in Mexico and likely many other countries on a routine basis, so I think it's arrogant for Americans to believe it can't happen here. I think the best way for fence sitters to ascertain if it IS possible, at least to know in your own mind it is, is to imagine the following scenarios and think about what you might would do under similar circumstances:
What Would You Do?-My comments in red
1)You are a high ranking and very much respected doctor in a hospital whose recommendations and decisions are rarely questioned or debated. One of your patients is a 23 y/o graduate student, brilliant, healthy, beautiful, and a kind hearted individual with her whole life ahead of her, but she was diagnosed with a rare and progressive lung disease with no known cure and is currently at the top of the transplant list. She is only expected to live a few more weeks without new lungs. Over the past year you have grown fond of her and her family as well as the fiance' who comes to see her every single day. One of your other patients is a revolving door patient in his 60's, a chronic alcoholic with multiple health problems, and is basically a cranky asshole existing on public assistance who no one ever comes to see. However, since he only sneaks and dips snuff and isn't a smoker, remarkably his lungs are in good condition and he's a "match" for your patient AND he's an organ donor.
The old man suffers a serious stroke while in the hospital this last time and is unable to communicate, possibly temporarily, but one night he goes into cardiac arrest. Do you let him stay dead a minute longer than necessary so he can be declared legally brain dead, then resuscitate him and keep his body on life support so the young woman can get his lungs, OR do you do everything possible to revive him immediately and save his life even though he will likely be seriously disabled, at best, but not brain dead?? The old guy would be getting a one way ticket to the great saloon in the sky if the decision was mine.:drkbddy
2)Someone you dearly love, like a parent, sibling, or spouse, is in dire need of a liver transplant or they will die within a few months. Although they are seriously and terminally ill, they are tenth on the waiting list and it's not looking good for them. Someone comes to you and says for 100k they can procure the organ they need and arrange for the surgery in Mexico, but one condition is there are "no questions asked". You can get the 100k. Do you go through with it KNOWING someone in another country will likely be murdered? No, I wouldn't do this even if it was my own mother. Even people like me don't think it's okay to murder a healthy person to save another. HOWEVER, the exception would be if this was in a prison and the donor match was on death row.
3)You work for the transplant team in the area that compiles and calculates the scores assigned to those on the waiting list and are high enough up the chain of command there is no one looking over your shoulder or questioning your integrity and you are nearing retirement age. Your spouse suffered catastrophic injuries (paralyzed from the chest down) in an accident the prior year which wiped out ALL of your investments, life savings, the spouse can no longer earn an income, and you also have painful degenerative disc disease which will disable you in the near future. In addition to that, you are about to lose your home you just paid off five years ago via foreclosure because you borrowed against it to pay off medical bills and for long term care for your spouse because the health insurance capped out, the IRS just levied your smaller savings and checking accounts with your few remaining dollars in it, and you just got the notice your wages will soon be garnished as well.
This will leave you, at age 60, and your disabled 65 y/o spouse, with little means to survive and you will likely have to put them in a state facility and move into an efficiency apartment and continue working as long as you are able in a fruitless effort to stay off public assistance after a LIFETIME of employment and and careful saving. Someone comes to you and offers you a million dollars to change their loved one's score by a few points so they will go to first place on the donor waiting list. This won't mean the one you bumped will absolutely die, although they could die if they get bumped. Do you take the money and change the score? More than likely, YES I WOULD, but only if I didn't think I could get caught. However, I'd spend the rest of my life living in guilt if the patient who got bumped died. If they didn't die though, I would have little remorse.
Therefore, if I would "bend the rules" why should I think other people, who are actually in a position to decide, wouldn't? That judge who granted that little girl the lungs over the others waiting on the over 12 list did PRECISELY that very same thing.
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
If YOU are the "exception" to what I am saying, then why does my commentary bother you so much?
I don't hate your kids, I HATE YOU!
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27505970/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/calif-surgeon-faces-trial-organ-donation-case/#.Ub1FuOfMB_w
This happened back in 2008 and the doctor was later acquitted. However, it brings to light several important factors including some aspects of organ donation I hadn't known about before this story broke. Below is one of the articles about it and my thoughts in red:
Calif. surgeon faces trial in organ donation case
Doctor is accused of hastening man's death so his organs could be taken
LOS ANGELES — Ruben Navarro loved horror movies. He watched the "Nightmare on Elm Street" and "Friday the 13th" series with his mother, Rosa, and liked to visit Knott's Berry Farm when it was transformed every October to "Knott's Scary Farm." I guess they are leading into the story with this tripe to make the dead guy more "human" to the readers AND as sort of a sick way to make people think he lived a real life "horror" show.
Since his death 2 1/2 years ago, Rosa Navarro says she has been living a real-life nightmare without her only child. Ruben Navarro, who had multiple medical problems, died in a San Luis Obispo hospital after a heart attack, then was taken off a ventilator and prepared for organ donation. More emotional drama, which is likely why this case is even in the media, which leads me to believe it is all too common a practice to "prepare for the harvest", perhaps a bit too soon.
The circumstances surrounding that death will be center stage in opening statements scheduled to begin Monday in the trial of Dr. Hootan Roozrokh, a San Francisco transplant surgeon who is accused of hastening Navarro's death so his organs could be harvested. "He was my world," Rosa Navarro told The Associated Press on Thursday. "It's been very, very hard for me. He didn't die with respect and integrity." I don't think his death being without "respect and dignity" is the issue, but wailing Moos who "lose their only child" make for good press.:Violin
Roozrokh, 34, faces one count of felony dependent adult abuse. Two other felony counts were dismissed by San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Judge Martin J. Tangeman in March. If convicted, he could face four years in prison. If convicted, wouldn't that be a murder charge? No, much of this makes little sense.
Defense lawyer M. Gerald Schwartzbach has argued that Roozrokh did nothing wrong, saying he did not endanger Navarro's health or life. Schwartzbach did not respond to an e-mail message seeking further comment.
The case against Roozrokh is believed to be the first such criminal action brought against a transplant doctor in the U.S. I am actually surprised this case is the first because it is hard for me to believe with all the pro-lifers and wailing Moos there aren't more of them even when nothing "wrong" has been done by the transplant team.
Navarro, 25, died in February 2006 at Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center in San Luis Obispo. He had a debilitating neurological disease and was in a coma after the heart attack.His kidneys and liver were never harvested because he didn't die within a time frame when those organs would have been considered viable. See, that doesn't even make any sense! If he was in a coma and considered brain dead, WHY did they wait to harvest those organs? I wish I understood the rules on this better, but they seem confusing.:headbrick
The hospital has said it had Rosa Navarro's permission to remove her son from life support, but she disputes that.
Statements to police by nurses present in the operating room indicated Roozrokh improperly ordered excessive doses of morphine and a sedative for Navarro. State law says transplant surgeons must wait until a potential donor is dead before participating in procedures. Don't they have the mother's SIGNED permission to remove him from life support? I thought they kept the body ON life support so they could harvest the organs? I had a childhood friend drop dead of a brain aneurysm a few months ago and she was pronounced brain dead on Friday night, but since she was a donor they kept her on a ventilator until late the next Saturday afternoon so they could successfully harvest her organs. If the transplant surgeon is prohibited from "participating" in procedures until the donor patient is dead without a pulse, then who would be the one administering morphine and sedatives? Isn't it SOP to administer those drugs JUST IN CASE somehow the body can transmit pain signals to the brain? There is so much I don't understand about this.
Conflicting accounts
But Tangeman said in his ruling dismissing the other two charges that there was no evidence Roozrokh administered or ordered a combination of morphine and the sedative. The judge also noted that doctors and nurses present when Navarro died gave conflicting accounts of what happened. Roozrokh, a surgeon at Kaiser Permanente's now-closed kidney transplant program, was working at the time on behalf of a group that procures and distributes organs. I wonder why the program was closed? WHY the conflicting accounts of what happened? Are some or all of them lying and if so, why?
The case is being watched closely by physicians and others in the medical field, said Arthur Caplan, a professor of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania who worries that a conviction could hurt prospects for expanding organ donation. Which is VERY concerning to me that this might have been a factor in why he was acquitted. If the doctors can be gotten to for money, why not a judge or jury?:headbrick
"It's a trust issue," Caplan said. "It's such a moral taboo to give the appearance of hastening a death through organ donation. Were he to be found guilty, it would be a thunderclap heard through the organ procurement field."
Navarro, who weighed about 80 pounds, was born with a neurological disorder known as adrenoleukodystrophy and also had cerebral palsy. He lived in a home for mentally and physically challenged adults in the year before his death. So, there are no legal grounds or protocol in this matter, but rather they are concerned with "moral taboos" a matter of "trust", and about the "appearance" of hastening death? I WANT FACTS, not subjective opinions and conjecture!
The hospital and its parent company settled a lawsuit last year filed by Rosa Navarro for $250,000. Under terms of the settlement, the hospital acknowledged no wrongdoing. Oh great. They admit no wrong doing, but pay out a quarter of a million dollars. I would be willing to bet no one can talk about it either. This wasn't about the loss of dignity or whatever for her son, rather it was about a terminally ill man already in a coma who died after a cardiac arrest and some think heroic efforts to "save" him weren't made. It's crystal clear Moo wanted financial compensation and for what? That poor man never contributed financially to her household, so therefore no future income was lost for his early death. She went from inconsolable and vocal to paid and silent in one fell swoop. This was a potential criminal case, NOT a civil one, and since the doctor was acquitted I fail to see why the mother got a big payout.down
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
If YOU are the "exception" to what I am saying, then why does my commentary bother you so much?
I don't hate your kids, I HATE YOU!
This happened back in 2008 and the doctor was later acquitted. However, it brings to light several important factors including some aspects of organ donation I hadn't known about before this story broke. Below is one of the articles about it and my thoughts in red:
Calif. surgeon faces trial in organ donation case
Doctor is accused of hastening man's death so his organs could be taken
LOS ANGELES — Ruben Navarro loved horror movies. He watched the "Nightmare on Elm Street" and "Friday the 13th" series with his mother, Rosa, and liked to visit Knott's Berry Farm when it was transformed every October to "Knott's Scary Farm." I guess they are leading into the story with this tripe to make the dead guy more "human" to the readers AND as sort of a sick way to make people think he lived a real life "horror" show.
Since his death 2 1/2 years ago, Rosa Navarro says she has been living a real-life nightmare without her only child. Ruben Navarro, who had multiple medical problems, died in a San Luis Obispo hospital after a heart attack, then was taken off a ventilator and prepared for organ donation. More emotional drama, which is likely why this case is even in the media, which leads me to believe it is all too common a practice to "prepare for the harvest", perhaps a bit too soon.
The circumstances surrounding that death will be center stage in opening statements scheduled to begin Monday in the trial of Dr. Hootan Roozrokh, a San Francisco transplant surgeon who is accused of hastening Navarro's death so his organs could be harvested. "He was my world," Rosa Navarro told The Associated Press on Thursday. "It's been very, very hard for me. He didn't die with respect and integrity." I don't think his death being without "respect and dignity" is the issue, but wailing Moos who "lose their only child" make for good press.:Violin
Roozrokh, 34, faces one count of felony dependent adult abuse. Two other felony counts were dismissed by San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Judge Martin J. Tangeman in March. If convicted, he could face four years in prison. If convicted, wouldn't that be a murder charge? No, much of this makes little sense.
Defense lawyer M. Gerald Schwartzbach has argued that Roozrokh did nothing wrong, saying he did not endanger Navarro's health or life. Schwartzbach did not respond to an e-mail message seeking further comment.
The case against Roozrokh is believed to be the first such criminal action brought against a transplant doctor in the U.S. I am actually surprised this case is the first because it is hard for me to believe with all the pro-lifers and wailing Moos there aren't more of them even when nothing "wrong" has been done by the transplant team.
Navarro, 25, died in February 2006 at Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center in San Luis Obispo. He had a debilitating neurological disease and was in a coma after the heart attack.His kidneys and liver were never harvested because he didn't die within a time frame when those organs would have been considered viable. See, that doesn't even make any sense! If he was in a coma and considered brain dead, WHY did they wait to harvest those organs? I wish I understood the rules on this better, but they seem confusing.:headbrick
The hospital has said it had Rosa Navarro's permission to remove her son from life support, but she disputes that.
Statements to police by nurses present in the operating room indicated Roozrokh improperly ordered excessive doses of morphine and a sedative for Navarro. State law says transplant surgeons must wait until a potential donor is dead before participating in procedures. Don't they have the mother's SIGNED permission to remove him from life support? I thought they kept the body ON life support so they could harvest the organs? I had a childhood friend drop dead of a brain aneurysm a few months ago and she was pronounced brain dead on Friday night, but since she was a donor they kept her on a ventilator until late the next Saturday afternoon so they could successfully harvest her organs. If the transplant surgeon is prohibited from "participating" in procedures until the donor patient is dead without a pulse, then who would be the one administering morphine and sedatives? Isn't it SOP to administer those drugs JUST IN CASE somehow the body can transmit pain signals to the brain? There is so much I don't understand about this.
Conflicting accounts
But Tangeman said in his ruling dismissing the other two charges that there was no evidence Roozrokh administered or ordered a combination of morphine and the sedative. The judge also noted that doctors and nurses present when Navarro died gave conflicting accounts of what happened. Roozrokh, a surgeon at Kaiser Permanente's now-closed kidney transplant program, was working at the time on behalf of a group that procures and distributes organs. I wonder why the program was closed? WHY the conflicting accounts of what happened? Are some or all of them lying and if so, why?
The case is being watched closely by physicians and others in the medical field, said Arthur Caplan, a professor of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania who worries that a conviction could hurt prospects for expanding organ donation. Which is VERY concerning to me that this might have been a factor in why he was acquitted. If the doctors can be gotten to for money, why not a judge or jury?:headbrick
"It's a trust issue," Caplan said. "It's such a moral taboo to give the appearance of hastening a death through organ donation. Were he to be found guilty, it would be a thunderclap heard through the organ procurement field."
Navarro, who weighed about 80 pounds, was born with a neurological disorder known as adrenoleukodystrophy and also had cerebral palsy. He lived in a home for mentally and physically challenged adults in the year before his death. So, there are no legal grounds or protocol in this matter, but rather they are concerned with "moral taboos" a matter of "trust", and about the "appearance" of hastening death? I WANT FACTS, not subjective opinions and conjecture!
The hospital and its parent company settled a lawsuit last year filed by Rosa Navarro for $250,000. Under terms of the settlement, the hospital acknowledged no wrongdoing. Oh great. They admit no wrong doing, but pay out a quarter of a million dollars. I would be willing to bet no one can talk about it either. This wasn't about the loss of dignity or whatever for her son, rather it was about a terminally ill man already in a coma who died after a cardiac arrest and some think heroic efforts to "save" him weren't made. It's crystal clear Moo wanted financial compensation and for what? That poor man never contributed financially to her household, so therefore no future income was lost for his early death. She went from inconsolable and vocal to paid and silent in one fell swoop. This was a potential criminal case, NOT a civil one, and since the doctor was acquitted I fail to see why the mother got a big payout.
down------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
If YOU are the "exception" to what I am saying, then why does my commentary bother you so much?
I don't hate your kids, I HATE YOU!
So, a first pair of lungs was essentially wasted on this kyd and now they are going to repeat the process with ANOTHER set of adult lungs? That's it.
I'm glad I'm not an organ donor. Not that anyone would want my crappy lungs anyway, after years of smoking, but still. I find this to be a gross injustice to ADULTS who could have used those lungs and actually had a second chance at life.
ETA: What happens when the 2nd set of adult lungs fail on this defecto? Are they going to give her a 3rd, 4th or even 5th pair? This shit has GOT to stop at some point!
I'm glad I'm not an organ donor. Not that anyone would want my crappy lungs anyway, after years of smoking, but still. I find this to be a gross injustice to ADULTS who could have used those lungs and actually had a second chance at life.
ETA: What happens when the 2nd set of adult lungs fail on this defecto? Are they going to give her a 3rd, 4th or even 5th pair? This shit has GOT to stop at some point!
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.