Waste of a perfectly good heart

[Loren Pechtel]

If you think there's some logic to your conclusion model what happens as you change the number of organs.

You are the one who is claiming that this transplant cost someone on the waiting list to die. Up to this point, you have failed to do so. Instead of shifting the goal posts , make an argument that is rooted in reality, not some concocted mumbo-jumbo.

I threw some hypothetical numbers at the situation to show that the percentage has nothing to do with the number that die from the lack of an organ.

7% dying from a lack of an organ doesn't mean one less organ means a 7% chance someone dies of it. You have claimed education in a field that requires a certain amount of mathematics, use that knowledge!

 

[laughing dog]

You are the one who is claiming that this transplant cost someone on the waiting list to die. Up to this point, you have failed to do so. Instead of shifting the goal posts , make an argument that is rooted in reality, not some concocted mumbo-jumbo.

I threw some hypothetical numbers at the situation to show that the percentage has nothing to do with the number that die from the lack of an organ.

Thank you for the confirmation you concocted some mumbo-jumbo.

7% dying from a lack of an organ doesn't mean one less organ means a 7% chance someone dies of it. You have claimed education in a field that requires a certain amount of mathematics, use that knowledge!

First, basic arithmetic indicates that one less organ is not going to change 7% to something over 50% which is what you would need to have in order to reasonably deduce that someone died because they did not get that heart. Second, the 7% figure comes from people on a waiting list who die while others on the list get the heart - which is what actually happened in this case.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I threw some hypothetical numbers at the situation to show that the percentage has nothing to do with the number that die from the lack of an organ.

Thank you for the confirmation you concocted some mumbo-jumbo.

7% dying from a lack of an organ doesn't mean one less organ means a 7% chance someone dies of it. You have claimed education in a field that requires a certain amount of mathematics, use that knowledge!

First, basic arithmetic indicates that one less organ is not going to change 7% to something over 50% which is what you would need to have in order to reasonably deduce that someone died because they did not get that heart. Second, the 7% figure comes from people on a waiting list who die while others on the list get the heart - which is what actually happened in this case.

You are still flunking basic math here.

I'm not saying one organ will change 7% to 50%. I'm saying that one organ means one death regardless of the percentage.

Since you don't like my math, show how your math works.

 

[laughing dog]

You are still flunking basic math here.

I'm not saying one organ will change 7% to 50%. I'm saying that one organ means one death regardless of the percentage.

Well, that has nothing to do with math : it is an unsubstantiated assertion about the reality of the transplanting process. Concocting numerical examples to confirm your unsubstantiated assumption is just more mumbo-jumbo.

Since you don't like my math, show how your math works.

You have asserted that "one organ means one death regardless". There is no math involved whatsoever or even a tie-in to the reality of the waiting lists and the transplant process.

 

[Toni]

I understand. You don't have any data or evidence, so you literally make stuff up to justify your assumptions about reality.

If I made a math error point it out. Otherwise, concede.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it means you don't understand the math involved.

We have organ A. The demand is 1000/yr. The supply is 10/yr. 1% die of other causes, 980/yr die from the lack of an organ.

Organ B has a better supply. The demand is still 1000/yr but the supply is 500/yr. You still have 1% other deaths, now 490/yr die of the lack of an organ.

Note that the supply changed by 490/yr and the deaths also changed by 490/yr. It's 1:1 even though we dropped from 98% to 49%. In other words, the percentage doesn't matter.

(In practice there is the risk of the operation that will change this a bit. The basic pattern is still there, though.)

Dude, you're getting a bill from the Emergency Room for the cost of getting my brain unknoted. It has been a while since I've seen so many numbers mean just about nothing and trying to make sense of it made my brain tie itself in knots.

Try actually looking at the situation. What's wrong with my analysis other than it tells you something you don't want to hear?

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, we are making such an assumption--because it's reality. They can fly them to other cities, the pool of recipients is large. It might not be someone at the top of the list but there will be someone.

It's not reality. The absolute truth---and I have personal knowledge, is that geography matters. There is only a very short time period in which to harvest organs, perform all of the testing, which is not just genetic testing but also includes screening for a variety of diseases which can be transmitted by transplant and/or blood donation and transporting the organs to wherever the donor is. Sometimes there is a bigger cushion of time: the donor whose family has agreed to the donation is brain dead but the body can be kept alive while testing is being performed and the best match can be found and transportation is arranged. This is the case with hearts as at this time, only 'beating hearts' are transplanted. The time frame here is still short-- hours and not days. Not every hospital is equipped and appropriately licensed to perform the appropriate testing--a brain dead person may not be at a hospital where the appropriate testing can be performed so blood samples must be collected and transported to an appropriate testing facility. These facilities are very tightly regulated. Not ever potential recipient is within the geographic distance that can be managed within the time frame.

Throw in that families can hold up the process as they come to grips with the death of their much loved family member and sometimes will challenge the donation, even if the donor has signed a card. This all takes very valuable time. It is extremely generous of families to be able to come to grips with all of the issues and agree to the donation at such a very vulnerable time, in a very short time frame.

Matches also need to be not just for tissue type but also size. A child requiring a transplant needs a small organ. A large adult requires a larger heart, not one from a child.

It's not as simple as we'd like to think.

You're talking about organs that are unavailable because the person dies in a facility not equipped to handle it. Those aren't useable organs in the first place.

Nope. Guess again .

 

[Axulus]

Well, that has nothing to do with math : it is an unsubstantiated assertion about the reality of the transplanting process. Concocting numerical examples to confirm your unsubstantiated assumption is just more mumbo-jumbo.

Since you don't like my math, show how your math works.

You have asserted that "one organ means one death regardless". There is no math involved whatsoever or even a tie-in to the reality of the waiting lists and the transplant process.

The only math needed is to determine the average or the expected number of years one's life is extended when one is on the waiting list and one gets a heart transplant vs. not getting it. One less organ available means one less person got a transplant than otherwise would occur.

A heart transplant does not make someone immortal.

What is so complicated about this?

 

[laughing dog]

Well, that has nothing to do with math : it is an unsubstantiated assertion about the reality of the transplanting process. Concocting numerical examples to confirm your unsubstantiated assumption is just more mumbo-jumbo.
You have asserted that "one organ means one death regardless". There is no math involved whatsoever or even a tie-in to the reality of the waiting lists and the transplant process.

The only math needed is to determine the average or the expected number of years one's life is extended when one is on the waiting list and one gets a heart transplant vs. not getting it. One less organ available means one less person got a transplant than otherwise would occur.

Not necessarily. It may mean one more person has to wait longer to receive a heart. Or given the limited span for the heart, it may mean that there is no one else available to receive the heart, depending on the heart and the waiting list.

A heart transplant does not make someone immortal.

What is so complicated about this?

Apparently more complicated than you think.

 

[Toni]

Well, that has nothing to do with math : it is an unsubstantiated assertion about the reality of the transplanting process. Concocting numerical examples to confirm your unsubstantiated assumption is just more mumbo-jumbo.
You have asserted that "one organ means one death regardless". There is no math involved whatsoever or even a tie-in to the reality of the waiting lists and the transplant process.

The only math needed is to determine the average or the expected number of years one's life is extended when one is on the waiting list and one gets a heart transplant vs. not getting it. One less organ available means one less person got a transplant than otherwise would occur.

A heart transplant does not make someone immortal.

What is so complicated about this?

No: it means one heart went to one person and none of the other potential matches on the list. There is no guarantee that the same heart would have been successfully transplanted into a different individual or that there was a better or even suitable recipient for that heart. There is no way of knowing that this hypothetical different recipient would have survived or for how long. Having a heart transplant does not make you immune from car accidents or other fatal injuries and does make you more susceptible to some other causes of death as your immune system is suppressed to a certain extent to avoid rejection of the new heart.

I understand why his family advocated for their son to receive a new heart. And why he was placed on the list. He was just a kid and had so much ahead of him.

And could have died because he was hit by a bus. The heart would have been just as 'wasted.'

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, that has nothing to do with math : it is an unsubstantiated assertion about the reality of the transplanting process. Concocting numerical examples to confirm your unsubstantiated assumption is just more mumbo-jumbo.

Since you don't like my math, show how your math works.

You have asserted that "one organ means one death regardless". There is no math involved whatsoever or even a tie-in to the reality of the waiting lists and the transplant process.

You are simply asserting that my math is bogus with no attempt to rebut it, nor any attempt to provide your own. Do you have anything meaningful to say?

- - - Updated - - -

Well, that has nothing to do with math : it is an unsubstantiated assertion about the reality of the transplanting process. Concocting numerical examples to confirm your unsubstantiated assumption is just more mumbo-jumbo.
You have asserted that "one organ means one death regardless". There is no math involved whatsoever or even a tie-in to the reality of the waiting lists and the transplant process.

The only math needed is to determine the average or the expected number of years one's life is extended when one is on the waiting list and one gets a heart transplant vs. not getting it. One less organ available means one less person got a transplant than otherwise would occur.

A heart transplant does not make someone immortal.

What is so complicated about this?

It means there's a problem without a good solution. Blasphemy to a liberal.

 

[Axulus]

Not necessarily. It may mean one more person has to wait longer to receive a heart. Or given the limited span for the heart, it may mean that there is no one else available to receive the heart, depending on the heart and the waiting list.

No, not "one more person" - everyone has to wait longer - everyone shifts back in line by one slot into perpetuity until the point in time that someone who was next on the list dies. Furthermore, are you saying that there are many organs that go to waste because no one can use them (no one is available to receive them)? Do you have a cite for how common that actually is?

And even if that is the case, maybe I don't understand the way organs are granted - why wouldn't they have a secondary list for non-ideal candidates, which receive the organ when no one on the primary list is a viable candidate? Why is everyone talking as of there is one and only one list if so many go unused? The whole concept sounds asinine.

 

[laughing dog]

Well, that has nothing to do with math : it is an unsubstantiated assertion about the reality of the transplanting process. Concocting numerical examples to confirm your unsubstantiated assumption is just more mumbo-jumbo.
You have asserted that "one organ means one death regardless". There is no math involved whatsoever or even a tie-in to the reality of the waiting lists and the transplant process.

You are simply asserting that my math is bogus with no attempt to rebut it, nor any attempt to provide your own.

There is no logical basis for your "math" because it has no bearing on the actual situation.

Do you have anything meaningful to say?

That one broke every irony meter in this universe and every parallel one as well.

 

[laughing dog]

No, not "one more person" - everyone has to wait longer - everyone shifts back in line by one slot into perpetuity until the point in time that someone who was next on the list dies.

That is simply not necessarily valid. For example, if the heart is not compatible for a child on the list, none of the children on that list have to wait longer.

Furthermore, are you saying that there are many organs that go to waste because no one can use them (no one is available to receive them)?

no.

And even if that is the case, maybe I don't understand the way organs are granted - why wouldn't they have a secondary list for non-ideal candidates, which receive the organ when no one on the primary list is a viable candidate? Why is everyone talking as of there is one and only one list if so many go unused? The whole concept sounds asinine.

There is a certain degree of compatibility between the donor and a candidate that is needed for an organ to be successively transplanted.

 

[Axulus]

There is a certain degree of compatibility between the donor and a candidate that is needed for an organ to be successively transplanted.

Understood, but why not have a secondary list for individuals like in the OP who are non-ideal, but get the organ when none on the primary list are viable to receive an available organ?

 

[laughing dog]

There is a certain degree of compatibility between the donor and a candidate that is needed for an organ to be successively transplanted.

Understood, but why not have a secondary list for individuals like in the OP who are non-ideal, but get the organ when none on the primary list are viable to receive an available organ?

Why would you need a secondary list for that? If no one above is viable, that person gets the organ.

 

[bilby]

This entire discussion is predicated on the false belief that there is some in-principle way to tell in advance that someone is 'bad', and that you can therefore divide the population into 'good guys' and 'bad guys'.

Once this belief is established, it is easy to conclude that helping a 'bad' person is a waste of effort - whether that help is a transplant organ or a dollar bill - because 'bad' people will simply waste it, or will use any help given them in a 'bad' way.

Sadly for those who want life to present simple black and white choices, it is not possible to tell in advance that a person will be 'bad' in the future.

There is no struggle between good and evil in society; because there are no purely good or purely evil individuals.

This kind of stupidity is a self fulfilling prophesy, and leads to such idiocy as 'three strikes' laws, mandatory (harsh) sentencing, capital punishment, and the idea that punishment (rather than rehabilitation) is a worthy goal for the legal system.

Despite good hard evidence from other nations that shows this approach to be completely wrong, the USA persists in viewing society through this medieval religious filter; while you persist in believing the 'good vs evil' bullshit that is so fundamental to your culture that many of you don't even notice it, things will not improve.

Oh, and Loren, the 'War on drugs' is a symptom of this problem, not a rebuttal of its existence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not necessarily. It may mean one more person has to wait longer to receive a heart. Or given the limited span for the heart, it may mean that there is no one else available to receive the heart, depending on the heart and the waiting list.

No, not "one more person" - everyone has to wait longer - everyone shifts back in line by one slot into perpetuity until the point in time that someone who was next on the list dies. Furthermore, are you saying that there are many organs that go to waste because no one can use them (no one is available to receive them)? Do you have a cite for how common that actually is?

And even if that is the case, maybe I don't understand the way organs are granted - why wouldn't they have a secondary list for non-ideal candidates, which receive the organ when no one on the primary list is a viable candidate? Why is everyone talking as of there is one and only one list if so many go unused? The whole concept sounds asinine.

There's only one list--they work their way down it until they find someone that's a close enough match and is available.

- - - Updated - - -

You are simply asserting that my math is bogus with no attempt to rebut it, nor any attempt to provide your own.

There is no logical basis for your "math" because it has no bearing on the actual situation.

Do you have anything meaningful to say?

That one broke every irony meter in this universe and every parallel one as well.

In other words, you can't rebut it.

 

[laughing dog]

In other words, you can't rebut it.

There is nothing to rebut. Your entire argument is based on the unsubstantiated and counter-factual premise that "one organ means one death regardless".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That is simply not necessarily valid. For example, if the heart is not compatible for a child on the list, none of the children on that list have to wait longer.

Furthermore, are you saying that there are many organs that go to waste because no one can use them (no one is available to receive them)?

no.

And even if that is the case, maybe I don't understand the way organs are granted - why wouldn't they have a secondary list for non-ideal candidates, which receive the organ when no one on the primary list is a viable candidate? Why is everyone talking as of there is one and only one list if so many go unused? The whole concept sounds asinine.

There is a certain degree of compatibility between the donor and a candidate that is needed for an organ to be successively transplanted.

Once you are on the transplant list there are three possible outcomes:

1) You get an organ.

2) You get too sick for the operation--which means you soon die.

3) You die.

All the crap about percentages has nothing to do with this.

- - - Updated - - -

This entire discussion is predicated on the false belief that there is some in-principle way to tell in advance that someone is 'bad', and that you can therefore divide the population into 'good guys' and 'bad guys'.

This isn't about bad, this is about non-compliance.

 

[arkirk]

That is simply not necessarily valid. For example, if the heart is not compatible for a child on the list, none of the children on that list have to wait longer.
no.

And even if that is the case, maybe I don't understand the way organs are granted - why wouldn't they have a secondary list for non-ideal candidates, which receive the organ when no one on the primary list is a viable candidate? Why is everyone talking as of there is one and only one list if so many go unused? The whole concept sounds asinine.

There is a certain degree of compatibility between the donor and a candidate that is needed for an organ to be successively transplanted.

Once you are on the transplant list there are three possible outcomes:

1) You get an organ.

2) You get too sick for the operation--which means you soon die.

3) You die.

All the crap about percentages has nothing to do with this.

- - - Updated - - -

This entire discussion is predicated on the false belief that there is some in-principle way to tell in advance that someone is 'bad', and that you can therefore divide the population into 'good guys' and 'bad guys'.

This isn't about bad, this is about non-compliance.

Non compliance with your wishes? Your idea of morality defies logic. Deny this small time offender a heart and give one to Cheney, a bonifide war criminal.

 

[bilby]

This entire discussion is predicated on the false belief that there is some in-principle way to tell in advance that someone is 'bad', and that you can therefore divide the population into 'good guys' and 'bad guys'.

This isn't about bad, this is about non-compliance.

Really?

As far as I can see, this guy got a heart transplant; he then went on to live his life the way he chose, and it ended badly for him.

Other than moralising about his choices of how to live his life, what is the point being made?

It might be reasonable to say that he wasted his life - but that was his call. If he had a perfectly healthy heart from birth, would you declare his death to be a waste of some antibiotics he got when he scraped his knee as a kid? Or a waste of the effort that went into teaching him English?

People do stupid shit, and sometimes they end up dead as a result. There seems to be no reason to expect any specific person will do this until it happens. The only way to avoid this would be to declare a subset of those needing a transplant as 'unworthy' based on a guess at their likely future behaviour. That only works if there is a way to define someone as 'bad'.