• 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!

Should there be an age limit for receiving an organ transplant?

Should there be an age limit for receiving an organ transplant?


  • Total voters
    29

X Factor

Anti-Socialist
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
61,606
Reaction score
32,215
Location
El Paso Strong
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
I remember some discussion about Dick Cheney being too old when he got a "new" heart. The idea being, I believe, was that he was nearing the end of his life and the heart could go to better use (well that and the fact that folks just hate his ass, but that's irrelevant to this conversation). It, honestly, seemed really pretty cold to me but maybe it's just being more pragmatic with a very limited resource. During the healthcare debate, Obama, himself, suggested that there becomes a time when someone should stop trying to live longer and opt for the pain pill instead.

poll in progress
 
Voted "no" outright.

We risk too much complication putting some sort of concrete age limit at the hands of government on getting an organ. The issue should remain between the patient, the doctor, and the administrators of these organ lists that presumably using medical reason and severity determine priority. Moreover, the doctor should be making a proper determination on the patient themselves being a reasonable candidate for obtaining an organ based on medical reason and the ability of the patient to survive the procedure.

No more government in this, they tend to **** it up anyway.
 
No.

I am opposed to determining the suitability of a recipient of organ donation based purely on age. Much like I could never support ethically irrelevant factors such as race, religion, gender, maritial status, social status, capacity to pay etc. Organ transplantation should be offered on a needs alone basis to patients who have exhausted all alternative treatment options and the organ disease has reached (or is reaching) end stage. The expectation would be that the surgery will result in the patient having a better quality of life.
 
No.

I am opposed to determining the suitability of a recipient of organ donation based purely on age. Much like I could never support ethically irrelevant factors such as race, religion, gender, maritial status, social status, capacity to pay etc. Organ transplantation should be offered on a needs alone basis to patients who have exhausted all alternative treatment options and the organ disease has reached (or is reaching) end stage. The expectation would be that the surgery will result in the patient having a better quality of life.

yes , 85
 
I remember some discussion about Dick Cheney being too old when he got a "new" heart. The idea being, I believe, was that he was nearing the end of his life and the heart could go to better use (well that and the fact that folks just hate his ass, but that's irrelevant to this conversation). It, honestly, seemed really pretty cold to me but maybe it's just being more pragmatic with a very limited resource. During the healthcare debate, Obama, himself, suggested that there becomes a time when someone should stop trying to live longer and opt for the pain pill instead.

Many health care professionals have said there comes a time when the best treatment is pain management.

I'd say it depends on the overall general health of the patient is the biggest factor. I remember Mickey Mantle getting bumped up the donor list (I think for a liver) he was in poor overall health and died soon after the transplant. He admitted he used 'pull' to get moved up the list.

It is a limited resource, I do think Cheney has done so well for so long without one - why get one now... ;)
 
I remember some discussion about Dick Cheney being too old when he got a "new" heart. The idea being, I believe, was that he was nearing the end of his life and the heart could go to better use (well that and the fact that folks just hate his ass, but that's irrelevant to this conversation). It, honestly, seemed really pretty cold to me but maybe it's just being more pragmatic with a very limited resource. During the healthcare debate, Obama, himself, suggested that there becomes a time when someone should stop trying to live longer and opt for the pain pill instead.

poll in progress

Why should there be an age limit?
 
No. If you can afford the surgery and there is an applicable organ available and you're at the top of the list, you should get it. You shouldn't be able to jump past anyone on the list, but neither should anyone be able to tell you to die because they decide you're too old.
 
No, I don't support a hard age limit. I do support age being one of the factors that's considered when determining who gets donor organs, with the young getting higher priority than the old.
 
I remember some discussion about Dick Cheney being too old when he got a "new" heart. The idea being, I believe, was that he was nearing the end of his life and the heart could go to better use (well that and the fact that folks just hate his ass, but that's irrelevant to this conversation). It, honestly, seemed really pretty cold to me but maybe it's just being more pragmatic with a very limited resource. During the healthcare debate, Obama, himself, suggested that there becomes a time when someone should stop trying to live longer and opt for the pain pill instead.

poll in progress

My father-in-law was headed toward the need for a liver transplant before his entire body decided it had had enough, and my uncle needed a heart transplant at the age of 70. I also have a friend that his son had a heart transplant at the age of 10. So... I've seen first hand the debate on this issue from both sides.

My experience shows me that younger people tend to lean toward establishing a cut-off age, where older people do not (I wonder why). However, with the new criteria for recipient health in the PPACA, the decision is made more on long term health viability, which IMHO is just a left handed way of implementing an age cut-off. My uncle still hasn't qualified because of his health (ironically, all of his major health issues, other than normal age deterioration of the body, would be corrected with a heart transplant)... he is 81 now, and his heart function is below 30% meaning he could die any second.
 
I remember some discussion about Dick Cheney being too old when he got a "new" heart. The idea being, I believe, was that he was nearing the end of his life and the heart could go to better use (well that and the fact that folks just hate his ass, but that's irrelevant to this conversation). It, honestly, seemed really pretty cold to me but maybe it's just being more pragmatic with a very limited resource. During the healthcare debate, Obama, himself, suggested that there becomes a time when someone should stop trying to live longer and opt for the pain pill instead.

poll in progress

Let me know how old you are and than I will set an age.
 
Why should there be an age limit?

I touched on the argument in my OP as I understood it. It's not one I agree with though.
 
No, absolutely not. I personally know plenty of rather elderly people who are quite healthy (yes, I know that's purely anecdotal). The patient's overall health should be what is taken into consideration, regardless of their age.
 
I remember some discussion about Dick Cheney being too old when he got a "new" heart. The idea being, I believe, was that he was nearing the end of his life and the heart could go to better use (well that and the fact that folks just hate his ass, but that's irrelevant to this conversation). It, honestly, seemed really pretty cold to me but maybe it's just being more pragmatic with a very limited resource. During the healthcare debate, Obama, himself, suggested that there becomes a time when someone should stop trying to live longer and opt for the pain pill instead.

poll in progress

Voted other, because maybe there is something I forget but generally yes.
A 70 year old getting a heart transplant is a poor use of scarce resources and viable organs are a very scarce resource.
Now if that particular organ only matches well with said 70 year old, then they should get it.
 
I remember some discussion about Dick Cheney being too old when he got a "new" heart. The idea being, I believe, was that he was nearing the end of his life and the heart could go to better use (well that and the fact that folks just hate his ass, but that's irrelevant to this conversation). It, honestly, seemed really pretty cold to me but maybe it's just being more pragmatic with a very limited resource. During the healthcare debate, Obama, himself, suggested that there becomes a time when someone should stop trying to live longer and opt for the pain pill instead.

poll in progress

No, it should be based on general health, not a strict cut off.

As a side not, heart transplants, specifically, should be illegal, because if the heart is still working then the person isn't really dead, and shouldn't have their organs taken.
 
I remember some discussion about Dick Cheney being too old when he got a "new" heart. The idea being, I believe, was that he was nearing the end of his life and the heart could go to better use (well that and the fact that folks just hate his ass, but that's irrelevant to this conversation). It, honestly, seemed really pretty cold to me but maybe it's just being more pragmatic with a very limited resource. During the healthcare debate, Obama, himself, suggested that there becomes a time when someone should stop trying to live longer and opt for the pain pill instead.

poll in progress

I voted "Dick Cheney had a heart?"

But seriously, while I would be hesitant to make an outright law, because the supply factors of any given area are different and thus may make it possible to help more (or fewer) people, there is something that bugs me a bit.

It's not that it's Cheney specifically. It's that it's a famous, powerful person. Because I know that it is really, really hard to get a vital organ -- especially a heart. And every little thing that might make you less than ideal, the transplant board will take into account. Being in your 70's would definitely be one such thing. So is being obviously overweight.

The reality is, deciding who gets donor organs has always been a cold, calculated business. It has to be. There aren't enough to go around. Transplant boards decide who gets them by looking at the harshest facts of a person's health and even their personality. I've seen cases of people getting denied organs for much smaller reasons than being at the end of their lives, such as the board simply not trusting them to keep up with their medication post-transplant for medical/psychological reasons. Even young otherwise healthy people.

I guarantee you than an overweight 75-year-old man who was just some random nobody from some town would not have been able to get that heart. I'd bet money on it.

It bothers me that fame and power bought a 75-year-old man a heart, when a non-famous, non-powerful 75-year-old man would not have been able to get it, and because there aren't enough hearts, an otherwise healthy 20-year-old may not have been able to get a heart either.

If I was going to make a law, it would be that the transplant board must be kept completely unaware of who the patient under consideration is, apart from their medical file.
 
Yes...not sure what it should be. 75 sounds fine. Maybe even younger.

With an extremely limited number of donated organs - largely because people are too dumb/religious and/or selfish to sign their donor cards - it is asinine to be denying a 30 year old for an organ whilst giving it to an 88 year old guy who will probably live 5 years more tops.

Any one who is selfish enough to be over 80 and take an organ that could go to a much younger person is a jerk anyway.

I would NEVER want an organ at that age if there was even a remote chance that by my taking it it could cost the life of someone much younger.
Heck, I am only middle aged now. But if I needed an organ to save my life and I found out by taking it I could cost a teenager their life - I would rather die then take it. I am no hero, but I am not that pathetically selfish.

'Better to be dead and cool then alive and uncool'.
 
Last edited:
No. If you can afford the surgery
Ability to pay should be one of the deciding factors?

and there is an applicable organ available
Who decides to whom it should be made available, and on what criteria?

and you're at the top of the list
How should that ranking be calculated?

You shouldn't be able to jump past anyone on the list
If ability to pay is one of the criteria then how can it be that the rich don't get to jump past those in greater need?
 
Certainly not, but I believe younger patients should have priority, though it's still difficult to set such a rigid rule.

That being said, Dick Cheney most assuredly shouldn't have had a heart transplant. We can still find solace in the fact that he's only postponing he's one-way trip to Hades.
 
Back
Top Bottom