Waste of a perfectly good heart

[Tom Sawyer]

Since people die on the waiting lists this means someone died because of this.

No it doesn't. You are asserting facts not in evidence (that "someone died because of this").

How do you figure?

http://www.americantransplantfoundation.org/about-transplant/facts-and-myths/

• On average, 21 people die every day from the lack of available organs for transplant.
• Seven percent of people on the waiting list—more than 6,500 each year—die before they are able to receive a transplant.

If people are dying before they receive a transplant then giving an available organ to one person means that you are leaving another person to die because they didn't receive that transplant.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

No it doesn't. You are asserting facts not in evidence (that "someone died because of this").

One less heart was available for someone else who also needed one. By what mechanism would that not lead to a shorter life for someone else who needed a heart? An average of 21 people die daily while on organ transplant waiting lists in the US.

I was thinking not just a heart, but a compatible one.

Anyway this is interesting: http://www.pennmedicine.org/transpl...ansplant/transplant-process/waiting-list.html

 

[Mageth]

When they get a usable organ they always transplant it...

(Emphasis added) While I'm sure the medical community does everything it can to use every available donor organ, your assertion is a stretch to say the least.

 

[Mageth]

No it doesn't. You are asserting facts not in evidence (that "someone died because of this").

One less heart was available for someone else who also needed one. By what mechanism would that not lead to a shorter life for someone else who needed a heart? An average of 21 people die daily while on organ transplant waiting lists in the US.

Loren's statement, and your assessment, assume a perfect system. If this particular heart had not been transplanted to this particular person, that does not necessarily mean that the heart would have been given to another person on the list, or if it had that the person would have lived/survived the transplant. Transplants, and the transplant system, are simply not that perfect.

 

[Mageth]

If people are dying before they receive a transplant then giving an available organ to one person means that you are leaving another person to die because they didn't receive that transplant.

This is simply not supported by the facts or the math. By your logic, if 200,000 people receive transplants in a year, then 200,000 other people on the list die for lack of a transplant. This supposed 1:1 ratio of life and death is simply not the case for the transplant lists/system. According to the American Transplant Foundation (which you quoted), about 7% of the people die while waiting for organs. This is tragic, but clearly does not support the assertion that this particular transplant resulted in someone else's death, or that "giving an available organ to one person means that you are leaving another person to die because they didn't receive that transplant".

 

[Bomb#20]

Looks like he got his second chance and blew up. Probably thought he was indestructible, damn yooths.

Damn what?

Oh, excuse me, your honor. Damn yuuuutes.

 

[dismal]

If people are dying before they receive a transplant then giving an available organ to one person means that you are leaving another person to die because they didn't receive that transplant.

This is simply not supported by the facts or the math. By your logic, if 200,000 people receive transplants in a year, then 200,000 other people on the list die for lack of a transplant. This supposed 1:1 ratio of life and death is simply not the case for the transplant lists/system. According to the American Transplant Foundation (which you quoted), about 7% of the people die while waiting for organs. This is tragic, but clearly does not support the assertion that this particular transplant resulted in someone else's death, or that "giving an available organ to one person means that you are leaving another person to die because they didn't receive that transplant".

The logic that this did not kill someone else requires that this particular heart would not have found a donor because there were no other possible recipients or all other possible recipients got a different heart.

Since this kid fought his way onto an existing list with a media campaign both of these seem unlikely to me, but it's fair to say we don't know for sure.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If people are dying before they receive a transplant then giving an available organ to one person means that you are leaving another person to die because they didn't receive that transplant.

This is simply not supported by the facts or the math. By your logic, if 200,000 people receive transplants in a year, then 200,000 other people on the list die for lack of a transplant. This supposed 1:1 ratio of life and death is simply not the case for the transplant lists/system. According to the American Transplant Foundation (which you quoted), about 7% of the people die while waiting for organs. This is tragic, but clearly does not support the assertion that this particular transplant resulted in someone else's death, or that "giving an available organ to one person means that you are leaving another person to die because they didn't receive that transplant".

No, my logic wouldn't lead to anything like that. I assume that you realized before you started typing that it's too stupid a position for anyone to have so you knew that this wasn't anything close to either my argument or any argument that anyone has made at any point in history, so I won't even bother to try and respond to whatever the hell you were trying to get at there.

Say that you own a car dealership. Every day, you get delivery of one new car. Some days this is a sports car, some days it is an SUV, some days it is truck, etc. Every day, you also get fifteen people coming in to get a car and they tell you what type of car they want. When the car comes in on a given day, you find the list of customers who want that type of car and call the first person on that list (there are a set of criteria which determines their order on the list) and tell him his car is ready. If that person does not still qualify for financing or can't buy the car for any other reason, you then call the second person on the list and so on and so on. This means that when you sell the car to that first person, everybody else on this particular list needs to wait around until the next compatible car comes along.

At the same time, out of every fifteen people who come in every day looking for cars, each day on average, one of them gets knifed by a street gang while they're walking to work and they die. This means that when you sell the car to one person, you are leaving the entire rest of the list in the group which has about a 7% chance of dying because they didn't get a car. A number of people in that group are going to die and they would not have died if they had been the one who got the car as opposed to having the other guy get the car.

Similarly, each time you give a transplant to one person, it leaves a group of people who could have received that transplant instead but did not. Some of that group are going to die who would not have died if they had been the one who received the transplant.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

This is simply not supported by the facts or the math. By your logic, if 200,000 people receive transplants in a year, then 200,000 other people on the list die for lack of a transplant. This supposed 1:1 ratio of life and death is simply not the case for the transplant lists/system. According to the American Transplant Foundation (which you quoted), about 7% of the people die while waiting for organs. This is tragic, but clearly does not support the assertion that this particular transplant resulted in someone else's death, or that "giving an available organ to one person means that you are leaving another person to die because they didn't receive that transplant".

No, my logic wouldn't lead to anything like that. I assume that you realized before you started typing that it's too stupid a position for anyone to have so you knew that this wasn't anything close to either my argument or any argument that anyone has made at any point in history, so I won't even bother to try and respond to whatever the hell you were trying to get at there.

Say that you own a car dealership. Every day, you get delivery of one new car. Some days this is a sports car, some days it is an SUV, some days it is truck, etc. Every day, you also get fifteen people coming in to get a car and they tell you what type of car they want. When the car comes in on a given day, you find the list of customers who want that type of car and call the first person on that list (there are a set of criteria which determines their order on the list) and tell him his car is ready. If that person does not still qualify for financing or can't buy the car for any other reason, you then call the second person on the list and so on and so on. This means that when you sell the car to that first person, everybody else on this particular list needs to wait around until the next compatible car comes along.

At the same time, out of every fifteen people who come in every day looking for cars, each day on average, one of them gets knifed by a street gang while they're walking to work and they die. This means that when you sell the car to one person, you are leaving the entire rest of the list in the group which has about a 7% chance of dying because they didn't get a car. A number of people in that group are going to die and they would not have died if they had been the one who got the car as opposed to having the other guy get the car.

Similarly, each time you give a transplant to one person, it leaves a group of people who could have received that transplant instead but did not. Some of that group are going to die who would not have died if they had been the one who received the transplant.

Does that make the person receiving the transplant responsible for those deaths? Is the transplant system responsible for those deaths? Has the recipient or the system committed manslaughter?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Does that make the person receiving the transplant responsible for those deaths? Is the transplant system responsible for those deaths? Has the recipient or the system committed manslaughter?

I ... have absolutely no response to that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, my logic wouldn't lead to anything like that. I assume that you realized before you started typing that it's too stupid a position for anyone to have so you knew that this wasn't anything close to either my argument or any argument that anyone has made at any point in history, so I won't even bother to try and respond to whatever the hell you were trying to get at there.

Say that you own a car dealership. Every day, you get delivery of one new car. Some days this is a sports car, some days it is an SUV, some days it is truck, etc. Every day, you also get fifteen people coming in to get a car and they tell you what type of car they want. When the car comes in on a given day, you find the list of customers who want that type of car and call the first person on that list (there are a set of criteria which determines their order on the list) and tell him his car is ready. If that person does not still qualify for financing or can't buy the car for any other reason, you then call the second person on the list and so on and so on. This means that when you sell the car to that first person, everybody else on this particular list needs to wait around until the next compatible car comes along.

At the same time, out of every fifteen people who come in every day looking for cars, each day on average, one of them gets knifed by a street gang while they're walking to work and they die. This means that when you sell the car to one person, you are leaving the entire rest of the list in the group which has about a 7% chance of dying because they didn't get a car. A number of people in that group are going to die and they would not have died if they had been the one who got the car as opposed to having the other guy get the car.

Similarly, each time you give a transplant to one person, it leaves a group of people who could have received that transplant instead but did not. Some of that group are going to die who would not have died if they had been the one who received the transplant.

Does that make the person receiving the transplant responsible for those deaths? Is the transplant system responsible for those deaths? Has the recipient or the system committed manslaughter?

We'd need more details to know. What we do seem to know is that this person squandered an organ.

I've been on a waiting list for a brain myself and still am waiting.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Does that make the person receiving the transplant responsible for those deaths? Is the transplant system responsible for those deaths? Has the recipient or the system committed manslaughter?

I ... have absolutely no response to that.

The OP says the heart was wasted, implying, I think, that the boy should not have gotten the heart and that the heart should have gone to someone else.

That the campaign to obtain the the boys heart was a special measure taken and it succeeded because the boy in question was black.

If the boy's name came up on the list, then the heart should have gone to him. Whether or not the suthorities believed he would take care of the heart is not a question. Whether or not AFTER THE FACT the boy makes bad decisions and dies anyway is not the question. Whether or not he was on the list and whether or not his name got to the top is the only question.

If this young man after his surgery had "found Jesus" and turned his life around and died in a robbery while saving a child's life, no one would question whether or not someone else died because this someone else didn't get the heart the boy did.

The list is the fairest way we have to allocate a scarce resource. We have to stick to the list. Future events not in our control must not sway us from that.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I've been on a waiting list for a brain myself and still am waiting.

Ted Cruz is ahead of you.

 

[Derec]

The OP says the heart was wasted, implying, I think, that the boy should not have gotten the heart and that the heart should have gone to someone else.

Or that he should have made better choices with his life.

That the campaign to obtain the the boys heart was a special measure taken and it succeeded because the boy in question was black.

I think that is pretty clear.

If the boy's name came up on the list, then the heart should have gone to him. Whether or not the suthorities believed he would take care of the heart is not a question. Whether or not AFTER THE FACT the boy makes bad decisions and dies anyway is not the question. Whether or not he was on the list and whether or not his name got to the top is the only question.

He was not originally on the list, then the family and civil rights groups raised a stink with the media playing the race card and he was placed on the list.

If this young man after his surgery had "found Jesus" and turned his life around and died in a robbery while saving a child's life, no one would question whether or not someone else died because this someone else didn't get the heart the boy did.

I do not see what "finding Jesus" has to do with anything but if he had lost his life through no fault of his own it would certainly be a very different situation than what had actually transpired.

The list is the fairest way we have to allocate a scarce resource. We have to stick to the list. Future events not in our control must not sway us from that.

But the doctors did not want to put him on the list originally.

- - - Updated - - -

I've been on a waiting list for a brain myself and still am waiting.

Ted Cruz is ahead of you.

He already got one.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I've been on a waiting list for a brain myself and still am waiting.

Ted Cruz is ahead of you.

Ted Cruz is ahead of EVERYBODY!

 

[Toni]

This is simply not supported by the facts or the math. By your logic, if 200,000 people receive transplants in a year, then 200,000 other people on the list die for lack of a transplant. This supposed 1:1 ratio of life and death is simply not the case for the transplant lists/system. According to the American Transplant Foundation (which you quoted), about 7% of the people die while waiting for organs. This is tragic, but clearly does not support the assertion that this particular transplant resulted in someone else's death, or that "giving an available organ to one person means that you are leaving another person to die because they didn't receive that transplant".

No, my logic wouldn't lead to anything like that. I assume that you realized before you started typing that it's too stupid a position for anyone to have so you knew that this wasn't anything close to either my argument or any argument that anyone has made at any point in history, so I won't even bother to try and respond to whatever the hell you were trying to get at there.

Say that you own a car dealership. Every day, you get delivery of one new car. Some days this is a sports car, some days it is an SUV, some days it is truck, etc. Every day, you also get fifteen people coming in to get a car and they tell you what type of car they want. When the car comes in on a given day, you find the list of customers who want that type of car and call the first person on that list (there are a set of criteria which determines their order on the list) and tell him his car is ready. If that person does not still qualify for financing or can't buy the car for any other reason, you then call the second person on the list and so on and so on. This means that when you sell the car to that first person, everybody else on this particular list needs to wait around until the next compatible car comes along.

At the same time, out of every fifteen people who come in every day looking for cars, each day on average, one of them gets knifed by a street gang while they're walking to work and they die. This means that when you sell the car to one person, you are leaving the entire rest of the list in the group which has about a 7% chance of dying because they didn't get a car. A number of people in that group are going to die and they would not have died if they had been the one who got the car as opposed to having the other guy get the car.

Similarly, each time you give a transplant to one person, it leaves a group of people who could have received that transplant instead but did not. Some of that group are going to die who would not have died if they had been the one who received the transplant.

You are assuming that there was at least one recipient on the heart transplant list who would have been an acceptable match and could have undergone the surgery within the very limited time frame the heart was viable and that person did not get any heart.

That is not a safe assumption. Not only do organs need to be a good match histologicaly but also in terms of size. And also that any known risks in the donated organ are acceptable to the recipient and medical team. Add in a narrow time frame largely dictated by geography and it is not possible for us to know with any confidence that a better recipient missed a chance at a heart.

 

[RavenSky]

It is my understanding that alcoholism can negatively affect one's chance at getting on the transplant list. In other words, a candidate must convince the transplant committee that they will be compliant going forward.

it doesn't matter what the underlying condition is, the potential recipient must convince the doctors that they will be medically compliant going forward. For an alcoholic, this does include to stop drinking, but for everyone it includes taking medications, following diet, exercise, whatever.

As I said before, you almost had a good topic for discussion. From what little I've read, the kid did appear to be a poor candidate for the very same reasons his own family complained about, his poor schools grades and "brushes with the law." According to a study I read about (will post link later, I promise), lower education levels (possibly, but not always indicated by the poor grades) and anger/hostility issues (possibly but not always indicated by the law-breaking) are indicators for future non-compliance. It sounds like the doctors probably did make the appropriate judgement call originally, but not because of the conclusions you were drawing.

That said, liver transplants are much different than a heart transplant. You can transplant only a part of somebody's liver which makes live transplants possible. That opens the possibility of a family member giving somebody a part of their liver which they would not do for a stranger which takes care of the waiting list issue and deciding between various patients.

Entirely besides the point for purposes of discussing non-compliance and criteria. Studies of kidney transplants show a 22% post-operation non-compliance, for example.

Also I have yet to see a case where groups like SCLC advocated for a drunk to get a new liver after he was rejected medically.

and now we get back to the race-baiting.

I think it was the kid's age more than anything else that made his situation "newsworthy" - that and the media twist of "he was rejected for bad grades" which was successful in stirring up outrage yet could be a very valid criteria for recipient selection IF the public understood the details.

I think the underlying question of recipient criteria is a good one, and would have made for a good thread. Unfortunately, your emphasis on race (your little sidebar rant about Mostellar, and dragging Michael Brown into this) has ruined any chance of that.

There are several themes in this case. General question of deciding transplants is one. But race also plays a role as Stokes was only allowed onto the transplant list because of race-based advocacy.

You have failed to show that there was any "race-based" anything other than the family involved was black. As I said before, what made the story so newsworthy was his age and the uninformed perception he was being denied a heart because he got bad grades in school.

I already explained my inclusion of Mostellar's ridiculous rant above.

you derailed your own thread, thereby tainting it with an unneeded race-baiting angle. Good job.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Or that he should have made better choices with his life.

That the campaign to obtain the the boys heart was a special measure taken and it succeeded because the boy in question was black.

I think that is pretty clear.

If the boy's name came up on the list, then the heart should have gone to him. Whether or not the suthorities believed he would take care of the heart is not a question. Whether or not AFTER THE FACT the boy makes bad decisions and dies anyway is not the question. Whether or not he was on the list and whether or not his name got to the top is the only question.

He was not originally on the list, then the family and civil rights groups raised a stink with the media playing the race card and he was placed on the list.

If this young man after his surgery had "found Jesus" and turned his life around and died in a robbery while saving a child's life, no one would question whether or not someone else died because this someone else didn't get the heart the boy did.

I do not see what "finding Jesus" has to do with anything but if he had lost his life through no fault of his own it would certainly be a very different situation than what had actually transpired.

The list is the fairest way we have to allocate a scarce resource. We have to stick to the list. Future events not in our control must not sway us from that.

But the doctors did not want to put him on the list originally.

- - - Updated - - -

I've been on a waiting list for a brain myself and still am waiting.

Ted Cruz is ahead of you.

He already got one.

Derec, if what kept him of the list was a criteria that called for a prediction of the future, that criteria was not valid. That criteria was not fair unless everyone on the list was subjected the same criteria and everyone on the list had nothing in their pasts that made them subject to making bad decisions.

Do you believe this to be the case?

 

[RavenSky]

No you wouldn't. Because frankly this is a rather common story - people who have received transplants but continue their old ways and die anyway. Alcoholism is probably the most common example. A white guy receives a liver transplant, goes back to drinking and destroys the new liver too.

Except they require you to be sober for some months if alcoholism fried your old liver.

hence the "goes BACK to drinking.". I know how it works. I had a sister who was on the liver wait list. She died.

- - - Updated - - -

Do we know this? I went to look it up, but got distracted.

Yes.
for every available heart, there are many, many potential recipients.
There is a waiting list.

So, a middle-aged professional that does not smoke, has a documented history of contributing to society, no criminal history, etc... is going to be higher on the list than a homeless person with conjunctivitis, alcoholism, and a history of mental health issues.

More importantly, who needs the transplant more immediately and if they are a match