Should a child with an intellectual disability be denied an organ transplant?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You all do realize that using a living donor means using a child donor, right?

You cannot put an adult kidney into a 3 year old child. That is not ethical in my opinion. An adult consenting to give a child's kidney away. That's why they did not allow a live donation.

The doctors said that the best option given her condition is dialysis. She might not survive the surgery (heart condition) or having to be on immunosuppresants (can't fight disease).

Well if this statement is true, it explains everything. An adult cannot just consent to removing a perfectly functioning organ from a healthy child and donating it to a sick child, especially when it can be debilitating or life threatening to the healthy child. There are all kinds of legal implications involved. Would not the healthy child require a court appointed guardian to look into his/her best interests? Would not a judge not be involved in this process to make sure the healthy child's interests are secured?

[Anonymous]

On the mother's account the doctor said she was denied for mental retardation and no other reason. The chances the doctor said that, even if that was his motive, are zero. The child has many health issues that make transplantation less likely to be successful than some other cases. Given that the mother's account is not believable, I'm not sure what we are debating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the PP above reminded me of an ethics course offered at the VA hospital that my co-worker attended. There are limited medicines, organs, resources. There are patients listed below:
1. 80 year old poet
2. 20 yo young man
3. pregnant woman

Who should get the limited resource?

The 20 yo young man should get it. He is the strongest to survive and has a productive life ahead of him. The 80 yo and the pregnant lady are too vulnerable and have the highest risk of dying post surgery.

it should go to the one who will be the most likely to survive and be a productive member in society. Barring accidents, the 20 yo has 60 years ahead of him.

Of the above group, who should be drafted? Same answer, right?

Good question. I understand why we used to send young men to fight wars - they are the strongest, and fighting was all about strength. Nowadays though there are many other options. I know many people in their late 70s who would be very good for driving tanks, manning trenches etc. Perhaps it is time that we as a nation rethink our cannon fodder.

You clearly know nothing about modern warfare or the military.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You all do realize that using a living donor means using a child donor, right?

You cannot put an adult kidney into a 3 year old child. That is not ethical in my opinion. An adult consenting to give a child's kidney away. That's why they did not allow a live donation.

The doctors said that the best option given her condition is dialysis. She might not survive the surgery (heart condition) or having to be on immunosuppresants (can't fight disease).

This is not true for all types of organs. Show me your source that says adults cannot be kidney donors for a child.

[Anonymous]

Transplanting adult kidneys into infants and children:

http://www.lpch.org/clinicalSpecialtiesServices/COE/Transplant/KidneyTransplant/adultKidneys.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all do realize that using a living donor means using a child donor, right?

You cannot put an adult kidney into a 3 year old child. That is not ethical in my opinion. An adult consenting to give a child's kidney away. That's why they did not allow a live donation.

The doctors said that the best option given her condition is dialysis. She might not survive the surgery (heart condition) or having to be on immunosuppresants (can't fight disease).

Well if this statement is true, it explains everything. An adult cannot just consent to removing a perfectly functioning organ from a healthy child and donating it to a sick child, especially when it can be debilitating or life threatening to the healthy child. There are all kinds of legal implications involved. Would not the healthy child require a court appointed guardian to look into his/her best interests? Would not a judge not be involved in this process to make sure the healthy child's interests are secured?

It is not true, so it explains nothing. It would be nice if the explanation were something reasonable like that though, wouldn't it? It would make this much easier to stomach. The truth is just really rotten and dirty here. I can see from this thread that people don't want to believe it, but it's true. People with intellectual disabilities often get treated like sub-humans. This is not the first time this has happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You all do realize that using a living donor means using a child donor, right?

You cannot put an adult kidney into a 3 year old child. That is not ethical in my opinion. An adult consenting to give a child's kidney away. That's why they did not allow a live donation.

The doctors said that the best option given her condition is dialysis. She might not survive the surgery (heart condition) or having to be on immunosuppresants (can't fight disease).

So seriously, do you make it a habit of talking out of your ass and pretending you are an expert on something you obviously know nothing about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the PP above reminded me of an ethics course offered at the VA hospital that my co-worker attended. There are limited medicines, organs, resources. There are patients listed below:
1. 80 year old poet
2. 20 yo young man
3. pregnant woman

Who should get the limited resource?

The 20 yo young man should get it. He is the strongest to survive and has a productive life ahead of him. The 80 yo and the pregnant lady are too vulnerable and have the highest risk of dying post surgery.

it should go to the one who will be the most likely to survive and be a productive member in society. Barring accidents, the 20 yo has 60 years ahead of him.

You are half right. It should go to the person most likely to survive for the longest period of time.

However, we do not allow transplant priorities to be based on being a productive member of society. The result is that multimillionaire businessmen would get the kidneys over working class people, and college graduates would rank above the underprivileged because of their statistical earning expectations. The medical profession does not allow "social worth" arguments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

However, we do not allow transplant priorities to be based on being a productive member of society. The result is that multimillionaire businessmen would get the kidneys over working class people, and college graduates would rank above the underprivileged because of their statistical earning expectations. The medical profession does not allow "social worth" arguments.

I believe that the rich and famous pretty much get what they want. Wasn't there a professional athlete in the last 10 years or so who got one transplant to replace an organ he had destroyed through bad behavior (drinking/ drugs), and then got ANOTHER one a few years later for the same reason? I wish I could remember this story, and wikipedia is blacked out today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eugenics is bad. We all get that.

How do you put this girl on the list, knowing another child is probably going to die as a result? If she lives to adulthood it will be a miracle.

What about using a living, willing donor, though?

This reminds me a bit of the Philip Becker case. He was a 10 year old boy with Down syndrome. He needed a corrective surgery. His biological parents, who had given him up to foster care when he was an infant, stepped in and refused to permit the surgery, arguing that they preferred he die young (a slow, painful death) than grow up with a mental handicap. The courts backed the biological parents' decision over the foster parents, and the surgery was not done. It took four years of court battles by the foster parents before he received the surgery.

In that case, the biological parents' bias against intellectual disability denied intervention. Here, the doctors' bias against intellectual disabilities is denying intervention. When a survey of physicians was done by researchers after a series of high-profile cases in the 1970s, 70% of doctors agreed with the idea of withholding treatment, including food and water, from mentally disabled children. That bias is insidious, and no, not everyone gets that eugenics is bad. In fact, eugenics is the legally accepted, reasonable exception for post-viability abortions--it's written into dozens of statutes, here and abroad. Here's Britain's law:

An abortion is legal after 24 weeks:
--if it is necessary to save the woman's life
--to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman
--if there is substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

How many times have DCUMers approvingly supported one another through "late termination for likelihood of intellectual/physical disabilities"? And that mentality of lessened quality of life magically stops at birth?

If they find a willing donor match, they will most likely get their transplant. They will have to go through hoops but they won't be denied because her risk of death without a transplant will be pretty evident.

Honestly I don't believe the mother's account because the lifespan of a patient with her disease is such an obvious red flag and yet the mother never mentioned it. And Down Syndrome patients have received kidney transplants, heart-lung transplants, you name it.

[Anonymous]

Good question. I understand why we used to send young men to fight wars - they are the strongest, and fighting was all about strength. Nowadays though there are many other options. I know many people in their late 70s who would be very good for driving tanks, manning trenches etc. Perhaps it is time that we as a nation rethink our cannon fodder.

I don't know many 70 yos who can drive a Chevy very well, never mind a main battle tank. Our armed forces would either go too fast or too slow, and constantly have to stop for pee breaks. And they'd tailgate a lot.

[Anonymous]

My DC had 2 surgeries at CHOP. Both times there was a patient with obvious mental disabilities on the post-surgical floor. To say that CHOP denied this girl surgery b/c of her mental ability is BS.

We ONLY have the mother's account. And she's got an agenda. CHOP can't discuss b/c of HIPPA. Do they actaully have a family donor ready to go or are they hoping to find one?

Also I don't see stories of other Children's Hospitals rushing to say that they'll do the surgery. There is a reason for that. The girl has a very genetic syndrome that can impact her ability to even survive the surgery itself let alone recovery etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

However, we do not allow transplant priorities to be based on being a productive member of society. The result is that multimillionaire businessmen would get the kidneys over working class people, and college graduates would rank above the underprivileged because of their statistical earning expectations. The medical profession does not allow "social worth" arguments.

I believe that the rich and famous pretty much get what they want. Wasn't there a professional athlete in the last 10 years or so who got one transplant to replace an organ he had destroyed through bad behavior (drinking/ drugs), and then got ANOTHER one a few years later for the same reason? I wish I could remember this story, and wikipedia is blacked out today.

It was Mickey Mantle former New York Yankee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DC had 2 surgeries at CHOP. Both times there was a patient with obvious mental disabilities on the post-surgical floor. To say that CHOP denied this girl surgery b/c of her mental ability is BS.

We ONLY have the mother's account. And she's got an agenda. CHOP can't discuss b/c of HIPPA. Do they actaully have a family donor ready to go or are they hoping to find one?

Also I don't see stories of other Children's Hospitals rushing to say that they'll do the surgery. There is a reason for that. The girl has a very genetic syndrome that can impact her ability to even survive the surgery itself let alone recovery etc.

To save her daughter, can you imagine? The nerve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Good question. I understand why we used to send young men to fight wars - they are the strongest, and fighting was all about strength. Nowadays though there are many other options. I know many people in their late 70s who would be very good for driving tanks, manning trenches etc. Perhaps it is time that we as a nation rethink our cannon fodder.

I don't know many 70 yos who can drive a Chevy very well, never mind a main battle tank. Our armed forces would either go too fast or too slow, and constantly have to stop for pee breaks. And they'd tailgate a lot.

You need quick reflexes and on top of that, um, there have been many accidents when the elderly seem to confuse the brake and the accelerator, resulting in serious injury and death to bystanders.