All Comments

  • Posted by $ Mimi 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Maph, this article laid the decision at the doctor’s feet, but anybody could tell you the decision process goes to a hospital board, a transplant committee. The doctor can only follow the committee’s recommendations. He can only appeal on the behalf of his patient.I can’t think of any scenario where a doctor would have the authority to say “no”. Where do you find this stuff? Yes, they most certainly can use an irrelevant genetic condition to bump the person off a list. You got to make a final choice somehow. It’s grab and growl when it comes to organs.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by $ Maphesdus 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Because rejecting a patient without just cause would violate the rights of that patient.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Then the doctors should say that the patient doesn't actually need a transplant, not that the patient is ineligible due to an irrelevant genetic condition. The fact that the doctors rejected the patient on the grounds of the condition alone indicates that they were not, in fact, aware that there was an alternate solution.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Because doctors are slaves of the state, just like the rest of us. Didn't you get the memo?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "No, a doctor does in fact need a valid, justifiable, and scientific reason for rejecting a patient in need"

    Why?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Mimi 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Doctors don’t usually make the final decision. It’s about supply and demand. It’s just like a patient who needs a liver transplant is never going to make a list if they have a history of being an alcoholic. The fact the child turned out to not need the surgery should clue you into that they foresaw a possible better outcome then another patient might have faced and that was factored into the decision, as well as any possible genetic defect. Someone else who had a greater need probably trumped this case. It’s rationing. It’s not pretty, but until we can make organs, it has to be done.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I suppose "genetic disorder" would have been a more accurate term than "disability," but I don't really see why the distinction matters. A genetic disorder can still be considered a disability if it has a negative impact on a person's life.

    However, setting that aside, what makes you think that it's ridiculous to suggest that doctors are biased against the disabled in regards to certain decisions? I agree that we should expect doctors to abide by their oath to do no harm, but what we expect isn't necessarily what we actually get.

    In this particular case, the child ended up not needing the transplant after all (just a medication adjustment), so it turned out all right. Still, the idea that doctors would turn down a patient without just cause is rather disturbing...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 10 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No, a doctor does in fact need a valid, justifiable, and scientific reason for rejecting a patient in need of a transplant (or any other medical procedure). If he doesn't want to preform the surgery himself, that's his own decision, he can just have one of the other doctors on staff do it. But he can't simply turn the patient away entirely without just cause.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rozar 10 years, 5 months ago
    A doctor is capable of a transplant. He doesn't want to do it. He needs no further justification. He shouldn't have to give a reason, and if he does, he shouldn't have to lie about it. Any other "solution" to this story, is justifying a threat or use of violent force.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 5 months ago
    In the first place the story's not about a 'DISABLED PATIENT', it's about a 5 month old baby with a genetic defect. Calling him disabled is at best disingenuous and at worst a sign of extreme denial of reality. The argument that the Dr.s are biased against disabilities is ridiculous. A transplant Dr. using his/her best educated and experienced judgement and his oath to first, do no harm seems to me to be what we want and expect. A Dr.'s decision in a case like this must be his own. He's in the best position to determine the best use of a limited resource (organs). More than that, he shouldn't face coercion or force to do more than he's willing to do. Bureaucrats, politicians, media and judges have no place in this type of decision.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo