Refusing heart transplant for anti-vaxxer

[madman]

I'm pretty sure God is more concerned with arrogance than Covid.

lol

keep superstition out of the debate and keep it behind church doors.

 

[Decypher]

I guess I'm just an idiot who trusts the transplant team. You seem to believe you know more than they do, did your own research in 10 minutes or less, which is plenty for making this decision. I'll defer to your expertise, that you got from the Google. I mean, that's rational, right? You know nothing of the subject, but feel totally qualified to overrule the judgment of people who do this for a living and in fact have a duty to patients to maximize their odds of survival.

Also, it's really not fair at all for people to be given freedom to make choices, then there being predictable negative consequences! We all have a right to do what we want!!!

Next time I get sick, I’ll be sure to get Dr. Overitall’s considered opinion.

 

[Lursa]

In good journalism we would know exactly why he refused the vaccine instead of having to make a guess based on what people "mention" .

You already admitted you couldnt think of any valid reason or a reason that had any merit (the same thing pretty much but I'll use your words.)

We both conceded religious reasons, however which ones would be valid? Name some? The Pope has ok'd it, and then there are religions that wouldnt accept a transplant to begin with. So...name some?

The point here is...it doesnt help discussions when you post dishonestly.

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

You already admitted you couldnt think of any valid reason or a reason that had any merit (the same thing pretty much but I'll use your words.)

We both conceded religious reasons, however which ones would be valid? Name some? The Pope has ok'd it, and then there are religions that wouldnt accept a transplant to begin with. So...name some?

The point here is...it doesnt help discussions when you post dishonestly.

I said any reason is valid, it's his life.

The point here is...it doesnt help discussions when you post dishonestly.

 

[Lursa]

Or, flipping this on it's head: What kinds of monsters will refuse a heart transplant for a man unwilling to take an unrelated vaccine?

Many of the very specific criteria for organ transplants pertain to gauging the chances of survival. The vaccine increases survival rate...it is very related. It's his choice...and there are consequences for our choices.

 

[Lursa]

I said any reason is valid, it's his life.

You still need to learn what synonyms are. You said you couldnt think of any reasons with merit. That's about the same thing. SO now you are backpedaling. Or lying.

If you cant list any, and I cant except medical ones approved by a Dr, then there arent any.

The point here is...it doesnt help discussions when you post dishonestly.

Yes, you post dishonestly so please try to do better.

 

[Lursa]

I'd disagree. I don't understand these people that say their religious beliefs stop them from vaccinating but I respect their right to hold these beliefs.
It's a good example of the difference in conservative and so called liberal mindsets. I as a conservative believe in free choice and respect personal freedom to choose your own path in life whereas you as a liberal condemn anyone that doesn't believe as you do and breaks liberal lockstep.

Nobody says he doesnt have a choice. He does. He made the choice not to get vaxxed.

Nobody says he doesnt have reasons...there are plenty of stupid reasons not to. The discussion was about 'valid' reasons, reasons with 'merit' as you liked to phrase it. And so far, I havent seen any. Got any?

He made a choice and choices have consequences.

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

about the same thing.

The subtle yet important difference obviously eludes you.

 

[Ethel2]

Nonsense. The hospital made it clear why, and I even quoted it in the OP:

I am not sure that properly vaccinated people could even mount a decent immune response given the cocktail of immunosuppressive drugs transplant patients take-even if there was an initial good response to vaccination.
Being vaccinated might provide some protection but I have no idea how much.

 

[Paradoxical]

I read an article a while ago asserting that natural immunity lasts about 3 months, vaccine immunity 6-8 months.

No proof

 

[LouC]

In other news, alcoholics are denied liver transplants all the time.

Not just alcoholics but anyone that is a heavy alcohol user and or a smoker if you get on a liver transplant list in Albuquerque.

I have a grand daughter on the liver transplant list and she had to quit smoking and quit drinking for six months, monitored, before getting on the list and she has to stay free of both to move up and remain on the list.

She has complied with all of their rules but I haven't heard if vaccines were mandatory as well?

 

[Lursa]

I submit to you there's almost 100% chance of the patient dying if he doesn't get the transplant.

It's the patient's choice, isnt it? So then why shouldnt he accept the consequences of that choice? Or...change his mind?

 

[Ethel2]

BlueTex:

In order to minimise complications from organ rejection, transplant patients are given a battery of immune suppressors to inhibit the immune system from attacking the new organ. A supressed immune system all but negates the otherwise real advantages of being vaccinated for a post-op organ recipient. Therefore the medical ethicist you quoted from the article is not being completely forthcoming IMHO. I suspect that once again politics is worming its way into what should be apolitical medical decisions.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

This is an apolitical medical decision. Livers don’t grow on trees. They are scarce and must be given to those recipients who have the best chance of long term survival. That’s the way it works for all organ transplants.
Perhaps people who are smarter than me know about how much better a vaccinated person might do after transplant. I guess the hospital feels it provides a significant advantage.

 

[Overitall]

It's the patient's choice, isnt it? So then why shouldnt he accept the consequences of that choice? Or...change his mind?

I think he is accepting it. That's not the question. The question is why should he be denied the transplant merely on the basis of his vaccination status. It's a fact that even vaccinated people are contracting covid and some of them are dying. With his immunity compromised he will be in the same category of those at greater risk regardless of his status.

 

[Bodi]

Really now. What would happen of some snot-nosed liberal hospital director at a gubment run hospital refusing to treat fat people?

You missed the point. Everybody is covered.

 

[JasperL]

Consider the fact that it's been well established that the immunity compromised people are at the highest risk from covid infections. Like people getting cancer treatments.

So, the solution to that is to not vaccinate these people? They're at the highest risk, so they should be at the bottom of the list for vaccinations? What are you arguing?

We talking about compromised people, not the general population.

Correct. If you have evidence vaccines do not lower the odds for the population of compromised people, cite it.

Another Trump rant. It gets so boring to read such crap.

I'm just fascinated that in this era people not only demand a right to their freedoms, but also that exercising them have no negative consequences. This guy was given the starkest of choices. He made a decision knowing the consequences, and those did result, as he was told. I don't see the problem or why society or any part of it has an obligation to bend to his wishes. With the freedom to choose comes the consequences of that choice.

And here the transplant team imposes a number of restrictions and demands of those on the list, and it's based on decades of experience. You have no evidence vaccines for COVID or influenza or hepatitis, also required, are useless for patients or that they don't increase survival odds, nor can you put the vaccine for COVID into any kind of informed risk/reward equation. You just have an ignorant opinion, backed by nothing but your "own research." The transplant team has an obligation to maximize odds of survival for this patient and all others. They believe vaccines (COVID and others) increase those odds. You need compelling evidence to override their considered judgment based on decades of experience and you do not have ANY evidence.

 

[Lursa]

Once you get it naturally, you have immunity for a certain period, of time. Vaccinated, not so much.

Let's see Para...How long, for both? Tell us...let's see the sources that verify your assertions?

 

[Lursa]

Everyone on that list has a potential risk of contracting covid. There's no evidence that any of them would be at lesser risk of dying from covid if infected. Do you have any evidence where it's been studied and the data supports your conclusion?

Now you're just flailing. You havent backed up anything, just thrown crap at the wall to see what would stick. You making such demands after all that is hypocritical and lame.

Meh, just "like" this post and move on quietly.

 

[Lursa]

That's what I understand.

 

[Lursa]

I’d be interested to know exactly which religion prohibits this vaccine. Even Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists don’t prohibit the Covid vaccine.

And the Pope also supports it.

 

[Overitall]

And the Pope also supports it.

You actually care what the Pope supports?

 

[Lursa]

I read an article a while ago asserting that natural immunity lasts about 3 months, vaccine immunity 6-8 months.

I know, he's just throwing crap out there. I already asked him,

Let's see Para...How long, for both? Tell us...let's see the sources that verify your assertions?

But no links yet. And I'm really curious about this anyway. Do you have a source?

 

[Lursa]

You actually care what the Pope supports?

Of course not, I'm not Catholic...context is everything. I was adding another religion that cant use it as a valid excuse.

You actually thought I cared about the Pope and so you made a stupid assumption?

Now, passive-aggressively 'like' this post and move on quietly, hoping no one notices.

 

[Overitall]

Of course not, I'm not Catholic...context is everything. I was adding another religion that cant use it as a valid excuse.

You actually thought I cared about the Pope and so you made a stupid assumption?

Not at all. The snark was meant to highlight the fact that you don't care what the Pope says or supports. You just thought you'd make a meaningless point by citing it.

 

[Lursa]

The subtle yet important difference obviously eludes you.

In 3 tries you havent been able to articulate it.

Your failure to address this lack of distinction and the fact that making a choice doesnt mean it's valid OR has merit still remains.