Which is why there are criteria to sort out who should get the organs. It’s only when the media make an issue of an individual that the system fails, because the authorities often cave to public pressure.
But isn’t all that irrelevant? It wasn’t the bad grades/defiant behavior that made him a bad candidate–it was the medical noncompliance.
I’ve read a few stories that claim that he was not taking his meds, but these stories all seem to have the same wording.
If he’s not taking his meds, though, then he’s a very poor candidate, and his age and his race have nothing to do with him being a poor candidate. He might be compliant in the hospital, but it’s pretty easy to be compliant in a hospital, when someone else is in charge of making sure that you get your medications on time, and that you take them. Or at least that’s been my experience. I’ve been in a hospital a few times, and one of the few upsides is that it’s SOMEBODY ELSE’S PROBLEM to make sure that I take my medicine. I don’t have to worry about it. Same as it’s SOMEBODY ELSE’S PROBLEM to fix my meals and juggle the calories and nutritional needs. I don’t have to worry about it.
Maybe Stokes has had an epiphany, and he’ll be a perfectly compliant patient from now on, even when he’s on his own. His track record of other problems doesn’t give us much hope for that, though.
Do you have any evidence that this is what happened?
According to his family he has no history of illness. The ankle monitor was from a recent fight. According to his mother “The doctor said that the organs were reserved for good children who had not been in trouble before.” I, of course, couldn’t tell you how true that is. But the board who makes these decisions probably could.
Interestingly, the other big story in the news is that they’ve created an appeal process for children under 12 to be eligible for adult organs. Is this also an enormous miscarriage of justice?
Yes it is. The decision should be made on medical facts and not sentiment.
Well, if he pissed away his first transplant, fine, case closed. But I need more proof of a first transplant than random anonymous callers and commenters saying there was a first transplant, even though HIPAA may make that difficult. Has the hospital denied or confirmed his family’s claim that his health troubles are of recent origin?
Maybe it isn’t - whether or not a person should be eligible for an adult-sized organ should be based on the patient’s actual size, and not the patient’s age. Some 12 year olds are adult sized, some are not. Handled properly this makes the decision once again based on medical criteria (actual size) rather than an arbitrary marker (calender age).
If it was about size and not age, there would be a size limit and not an age limit.
This is one of the problems for hospitals and any other institution bound by confidentiality. The other party can claim anything they want in the media- that he never had any compliance issues, that he was denied a transplant because he got a C in algebra, absolutely anything. And the hospital can only respond in the most general terms - they can deny that he was removed due to race, they can assert that proper procedures were followed, they can maybe say it was due to non-compliance but until there’s a lawsuit, they cannot get into the specifics of his case- even if the family is lying and the hospital has proof.
I don’t know if he should have been denied a transplant- but I wonder (and this is not directed at anyone in particular) why people who want proof before they will believe that the hospital didn’t do anything wrong often don’t require the same proof before believing the family. I myself have difficulty in deciding that someone is telling the truth when they know the other side is muzzled.
Yes. Organs should not be allocated according to how many Facebook Likes you can get, or how much outrage you can stir in the newspaper, especially when the donation board can’t legally explain why they made the decision they did. That’s mob rule of medicine, and it’s an enormous miscarriage of justice, yes.
Currently, there IS an age limit. Even if an 11 year old is adult-sized (which, with children maturing earlier these days is hardly rare) she is not, currently, eligible for the adult waiting list, she’s on the child waiting list. I can only assume this was put in place by someone considering an “average” 12 year old rather than truly making it a case-by-base decision.
Or maybe, just maybe, it’s a complex, nuanced, and often extremely difficult set of sticky ethical decisions that is continually evolving as our understanding of medical ethics grows and is challenged by new situations.
And a patient, even a minor, has the right to refuse meds if they wish. A nurse cannot force a patient to take anything. Of course, this all must be charted too.
Yes, it is, exactly. Which is why people who don’t have access to all the information should shut the fuck up about it and not scream in the press, and when they do, they should be ignored and educated about the actual issues at hand (which can only be done in the general, thanks to privacy laws).
Who dies next, because this kid may now get a heart due to winning the popularity contest of the week? It’s dead kids all the way down.
It happens all the time. Common reason include; the doctor isn’t taking on any new patients, the patient doesn’t have insurance & can’t pay cash upfront, the patient (or their family) have been abusive toward staff, or the patient has a history with noncompliance with their treatment regime.
That’s not refusing to make an appointment-that’s refusing to accept someone as a patient.Typically those people are advised to seek care elsewhere.
The people involved have plenty of information about it, and have every right to do whatever they can to try to save their boy’s life. If the hospital winds up caving due to political pressure, they are the ones who are morally responsible for anyone who dies because of it. They are the ones who made the decision to allow people to die to make the bad press go away.
But, more likely, the story was mostly true, and he was denied not because of noncompliance but because he had a criminal record. This is depressingly common amongst health professionals. If it were about noncompliance, there’s no ethical reason for them to change their minds.
Especially since they say that he’d be near the top of the list if he were allowed on it. That doesn’t make any sense if there are predetermined criteria that he does not meet. Those same criteria should put him at the bottom of any ranked list. That’s how ranked lists work–the people at the bottom fall off.
I question any need to force anyone not to be on the list. The list should sort itself if it’s designed properly. And surely it should be for something this important. If nonmedical criteria is enough to keep you off the list, it is also enough to give you a low score.
So, BigT, what you’re saying is you dislike the simple honesty of telling patients “You won’t be getting a heart. Get your affairs in order and say your goodbyes”. You’d prefer to give them the false hope of being on the list, but engineering it so they never actually advance far enough up the list to ever receive an organ.
I simply have trouble believing that the same board managed to make absolutely the right call during the first review, and then completely and totally the wrong call on the second review. I think it’s much more likely that it was a pretty difficult case to decide.
If the story that was reported on Fox ( it’s the only US media I get here ) is true, a young boy was placed on the list for a transplant after a media campaign to overturn the criteria that said he was too young. I believe some other posts on here are referring to the same situation.