• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Refusing heart transplant for anti-vaxxer

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. :)
Wrong again. I added another religion to the 2 that the other post included.

I'm sorry this is difficult for you. You just thought you'd make a meaningless point with snark to score some points. Another failure for you.

"Like" and move along....
 
Next they'll be denied medical coverage and treatment for anything including broken bones or open wounds.

First responders will need to find a way to determine if an unconscious person has been vaccinated before they treat the patient.

It almost sounds like the AIDS/HIV scare of the 70's and 80's. I wonder if the unvaccinated will become a protected class of minorities like AIDS patients? I mean, didn't they engage in risky and unprotected activities as well?
AIDS patients were also denied transplants but that is where any similarity ends.
 
Wrong again. I added another religion to the 2 that the other post included.

I'm sorry this is difficult for you. You just thought you'd make a meaningless point with snark to score some points. Another failure for you.

"Like" and move along....
Dislike!

Moving on. :)
 
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. :)
The point Doctor, was that even the religions which are traditionally hostile to medical science, like Jehovah Witnesses, Christian Scientists and Catholics, have sanctioned the Covid vaccine. Therefore, a religious objection to the vaccine is without merit.
 
See? The training is working. Removed one passive-aggressive tool from your toolbox. ;)

Dr. Overitall runs away again when his stupid posts are comprehensively destroyed.
 
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.
The only question is do vaccines increase the odds of survival for transplant patients. The actual transplant teams believe they do, and so have required several vaccines for many years, and COVID is now on that list in many facilities.
 
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.

probably true, but vaccinated people's odds are better. Colin Powell was immunocompromised and died of COVID although vaccinated.

That's one thing that the anti vaxxers don't comprehend, immunity, vaccine efficiency, etc, is a number game.
 
The only question is do vaccines increase the odds of survival for transplant patients. The actual transplant teams believe they do, and so have required several vaccines for many years, and COVID is now on that list in many facilities.
Hopefully, your day is going well.

I'll bite. :)

The odds of surviving covid when your immune system is compromised are very low. This is a well known fact for cancer patients. Will they be the next one's denied treatments of chemotherapy based on their vaccination status? Chemo drugs are extremely expensive and yet there is no guarantee that it will work. The same is true of transplants. Even if he got vaccinated his odds of surviving would not significantly increase. There are no long term studies done on the covid vaccine itself let alone on transplant patients taking it.
 
Hopefully, your day is going well.

I'll bite. :)

The odds of surviving covid when your immune system is compromised are very low. This is a well known fact for cancer patients. Will they be the next one's denied treatments of chemotherapy based on their vaccination status? Chemo drugs are extremely expensive and yet there is no guarantee that it will work. The same is true of transplants. Even if he got vaccinated his odds of surviving would not significantly increase. There are no long term studies done on the covid vaccine itself let alone on transplant patients taking it.

Look at Colin Powell for instance who was immono-compromised. He was vaccinated twice and still died from the complications of Covid.
If he needed a new heart, he would have been rejected.
 
Look at Colin Powell for instance who was immono-compromised. He was vaccinated twice and still died from the complications of Covid.
If he needed a new heart, he would have been rejected.
Just on his over-all health he would not have been a good candidate. With this case the patient has a good chance of surviving but they've decided to let him die just because of the possibility he might get covid. There are measures he can take to protect himself from getting it just like there were measures recommended before we had vaccines.
 
Look at Colin Powell for instance who was immono-compromised. He was vaccinated twice and still died from the complications of Covid.
If he needed a new heart, he would have been rejected.
He was also very elderly...a major factor in vulnerability to covid. And at that age, also wouldnt have been a candidate for a new heart...for all the reasons people have been spelling out here for page after page.

RIP CP.
 
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.
Not my problem the English language is too intricate and complex for you but it does make any real conversation with you problematic.
Have a nice day
 
Not my problem the English language is too intricate and complex for you but it does make any real conversation with you problematic.
Have a nice day
LMAO, 'na huh' isnt an argument, it's an escape.

valid

--fair or reasonable​
link
--based on truth or reason; able to be accepted:​
link

merit

--the quality of being good, important, or useful : value or worth​
link
--If something has merit, it has good or worthwhile qualities.​
link

If you cannot connect these dots, it's embarrassingly silly for you to be calling out my vocabulary. Care to try again to provide any valid reasons or reasons with merit for not getting vaxxed? (Outside of medical or religious)
 
Not my problem the English language is too intricate and complex for you but it does make any real conversation with you problematic.
Have a nice day
She likes it when you like her posts. ;)
 
Hopefully, your day is going well.

I'll bite. :)

The odds of surviving covid when your immune system is compromised are very low. This is a well known fact for cancer patients. Will they be the next one's denied treatments of chemotherapy based on their vaccination status? Chemo drugs are extremely expensive and yet there is no guarantee that it will work. The same is true of transplants. Even if he got vaccinated his odds of surviving would not significantly increase. There are no long term studies done on the covid vaccine itself let alone on transplant patients taking it.
facebook certified.jpeg
 
The odds of surviving covid when your immune system is compromised are very low.
That is not the relevant question in this case. As I said, the question that matters is do vaccines, for COVID, influenza, hepatitis, among others, increase the odds of survival? If yes, compare that to the risk of the vaccine. Compare them. If expected benefit > risk, then vaccine. That's the decision making tree and it's very simple.
This is a well known fact for cancer patients. Will they be the next one's denied treatments of chemotherapy based on their vaccination status? Chemo drugs are extremely expensive and yet there is no guarantee that it will work. The same is true of transplants.
The difference is treating A for cancer with chemo does not by necessity mean B and C and DDD and ZZZ do not get chemo. There is no 'list' for chemo, so no need to prioritize Patient A over B because A's odds are lower of dying. A, and B and C and DDD and ZZZ can all get treated simultaneously, starting tomorrow.

The cost is relevant but only to the insurance company, and/or the patient. Transplant decisions aren't really about cost, but about the transplant system's moral and ethical and medical duty in the face of far more patients who need transplants than available organs to prioritize patients with the best chance of success, which by definition is to deny treatment to EVERYONE ELSE ON THE LIST for that particular organ, the heart in this case.

Even if he got vaccinated he's odds of surviving would not significantly increase. There are no long term studies done on the covid vaccine itself let alone on transplant patients taking it.
You can't define "significantly increase" or provide evidence vaccines wouldn't meet this vague bar. And, yeah, in a pandemic involving a novel disease, we're all required to make decisions based on the best information we have available, because we cannot wait to decide until long term data are available.
 
That is not the relevant question in this case. As I said, the question that matters is do vaccines, for COVID, influenza, hepatitis, among others, increase the odds of survival? If yes, compare that to the risk of the vaccine. Compare them. If expected benefit > risk, then vaccine. That's the decision making tree and it's very simple.

The difference is treating A for cancer with chemo does not by necessity mean B and C and DDD and ZZZ do not get chemo. There is no 'list' for chemo, so no need to prioritize Patient A over B because A's odds are lower of dying. A, and B and C and DDD and ZZZ can all get treated simultaneously, starting tomorrow.

The cost is relevant but only to the insurance company, and/or the patient. Transplant decisions aren't really about cost, but about the transplant system's moral and ethical and medical duty in the face of far more patients who need transplants than available organs to prioritize patients with the best chance of success, which by definition is to deny treatment to EVERYONE ELSE ON THE LIST for that particular organ, the heart in this case.


You can't define "significantly increase" or provide evidence vaccines wouldn't meet this vague bar. And, yeah, in a pandemic involving a novel disease, we're all required to make decisions based on the best information we have available, because we cannot wait to decide until long term data are available.
This has been cited once before, but just for you I'll repeat it one -- more -- time.

It is usually accepted that, in solid-organ recipients receiving immunosuppression, the immune system will not be able to mount a response as effective as in normal subjects (5).
The first 6 months after transplantation are associated with the poorest response because the patients are usually receiving the highest doses of immunosuppression (89).
The fact is well known that the current vaccines have a low life span and already has required a booster shot (which was not anticipated during the initial rollout of the vaccines). "Experts" were debating a possible fourth shot, but it was determined it wouldn't be effective against Omicron.

It's a roll of the dice for this patient, but even if he was vaccinated the odds aren't greatly improved for his survival. Extreme caution when coming into contact with others will still need to be regimentally maintained. So far you and others are ignoring the guidelines that are still recommended to protect against covid infection. Those guidelines didn't suddenly prove to be unnecessary with the introduction of vaccines. His best chances of surviving still rest on his following those guidelines and yet now they've become insignificant of a measure of protection. It's the vaccines or nothing at all. It's a shame a person has to die because of hyperventilating vaxxers.
 
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?
I can't remember where I read it. I realize that sounds self serving, but I read a lot of news, from a large variety of sources, it's hard to remember them all,
especially when you are old like me.
 
This has been cited once before, but just for you I'll repeat it one -- more -- time.
No need to repeat that cite, as I linked to it originally AFAIK. What it tells us is that vaccines pre-surgery and post have been recommended for decades. If there's a part of that study you think contradicts my views, you'll need to quote from it.
The fact is well known that the current vaccines have a low life span and already has required a booster shot (which was not anticipated during the initial rollout of the vaccines). "Experts" were debating a possible fourth shot, but it was determined it wouldn't be effective against Omicron.
OK, and.....?
It's a roll of the dice for this patient, but even if he was vaccinated the odds aren't greatly improved for his survival.
You keep asserting things as fact here, but without citing the data. "Aren't greatly improved" is also too vague to be meaningful. How did you determine this? On what data? Can I see the data?
Extreme caution when coming into contact with others will still need to be regimentally maintained. So far you and others are ignoring the guidelines that are still recommended to protect against covid infection. Those guidelines didn't suddenly prove to be unnecessary with the introduction of vaccines. His best chances of surviving still rest on his following those guidelines and yet now they've become insignificant of a measure of protection. It's the vaccines or nothing at all. It's a shame a person has to die because of hyperventilating vaxxers.
That's a series of straw men. I'm not ignoring any guidelines for transplant patients, and I'm pretty sure the transplant team are not lazy idiots and so will enforce the most stringent guidelines on PPE etc. especially in the critical first few days or weeks post surgery. Exactly no one argues "vaccines OR" anything, clearly it's vaccines PLUS a boatload of things to increase survival odds, nor has anyone argued that PPE etc. is now "insignificant."

And it's a shame this person was given the starkest choice imaginable, and he chose, knowing the consequences. If he "has to die" it's because he CHOSE TO DIE versus get vaccinated. I can't really feel sorry for him, because he's making an informed choice to die. I do sympathize with his family, especially his children, that he's selfishly declined to take a simple step that would give his kids a shot at having a dad growing up.
 
No need to repeat that cite, as I linked to it originally AFAIK. What it tells us is that vaccines pre-surgery and post have been recommended for decades.
If you can't recognize the significance of what I highlighted in bold I see no point in continuing this.
If there's a part of that study you think contradicts my views, you'll need to quote from it.

OK, and.....?

You keep asserting things as fact here, but without citing the data. "Aren't greatly improved" is also too vague to be meaningful. How did you determine this? On what data? Can I see the data?

That's a series of straw men. I'm not ignoring any guidelines for transplant patients, and I'm pretty sure the transplant team are not lazy idiots and so will enforce the most stringent guidelines on PPE etc. especially in the critical first few days or weeks post surgery. Exactly no one argues "vaccines OR" anything, clearly it's vaccines PLUS a boatload of things to increase survival odds, nor has anyone argued that PPE etc. is now "insignificant."

And it's a shame this person was given the starkest choice imaginable, and he chose, knowing the consequences. If he "has to die" it's because he CHOSE TO DIE versus get vaccinated. I can't really feel sorry for him, because he's making an informed choice to die. I do sympathize with his family, especially his children, that he's selfishly declined to take a simple step that would give his kids a shot at having a dad growing up.
 
This has been cited once before, but just for you I'll repeat it one -- more -- time.



The fact is well known that the current vaccines have a low life span and already has required a booster shot (which was not anticipated during the initial rollout of the vaccines). "Experts" were debating a possible fourth shot, but it was determined it wouldn't be effective against Omicron.

It's a roll of the dice for this patient, but even if he was vaccinated the odds aren't greatly improved for his survival. Extreme caution when coming into contact with others will still need to be regimentally maintained. So far you and others are ignoring the guidelines that are still recommended to protect against covid infection. Those guidelines didn't suddenly prove to be unnecessary with the introduction of vaccines. His best chances of surviving still rest on his following those guidelines and yet now they've become insignificant of a measure of protection. It's the vaccines or nothing at all. It's a shame a person has to die because of hyperventilating vaxxers.
facebook certified.jpeg
 
Hopefully, your day is going well.

I'll bite. :)

The odds of surviving covid when your immune system is compromised are very low. This is a well known fact for cancer patients. Will they be the next one's denied treatments of chemotherapy based on their vaccination status? Chemo drugs are extremely expensive and yet there is no guarantee that it will work.
Chemo drugs are more plentiful than organs for transplant. Patient A will not be denied chemo because patient B received chemo. This is not true of organs, if
a patient gets a heart, another patient doesn't get a heart.
The same is true of transplants. Even if he got vaccinated his odds of surviving would not significantly increase. There are no long term studies done on the covid vaccine itself let alone on transplant patients taking it.
 
It's the vaccines or nothing at all. It's a shame a person has to die because of hyperventilating vaxxers.
That's false. The hospital has clear eligibility requirements for heart transplants, and this guy decided he didn't like one of them and refused to do it.
It's his choice to ignore eligibility crtieria. If his behavior is indicative of anything, its that he'll not follow doctors orders on a whim, which is something that puts a transplant patient and much greater risk of dying, and thus, transplant centers weigh against that.

You're also wrong that it's a shame on their part, because they will still save a life with that heart...just of someone who takes transplant requirements more seriously. It's him and his family/friends that do without based on his absurd refusal to vaccinate....put shame where it belongs, with him and his poor choice.

You're wrong in every meaningful way, as usual.
 
Back
Top Bottom