Doesn’t explain the shooting.
He was already in the military, and was able to re-enlist despite his health issues.
Which is why they have successfully cloned organs for transplant in all those places without strong “pro-life” lobbies, right?
It’s not about forgetting a dose once or twice, it’s about who can be trusted to take multiple medications daily with minimal mistakes. For the rest of his/her life.
Actually… under the law there ARE people who have that right.
So there is apparently a class of moral decisions that are too weighty for society to consider, and in these situations we should throw up our hands in defeat. What other decisions are so important that they can’t be considered? Capital punishment? Declaring war? Trolley problems?
As an extreme example, would you give an organ today to a death row inmate scheduled for execution tomorrow?
Triage has been a fact of life, under certain conditions, since the Napoleonic Wars.
When there are limited resources, a limited number of surgeons and nurses, a limited number of operating suites, a limited number of ambulances, rescue boats, or helicopters, a limited number of hearts, a decision has to be made as to whom receives immediate care, delayed care, or no care. In order to save the greatest number of victims, sometimes difficult choices have to be made, and someone has to make those decisions. Life’s a bitch.
Triage -
Triage is the process of determining the priority of patients’ treatments based on the severity of their condition. This rations patient treatment efficiently when resources are insufficient for all to be treated immediately.
In a similar vein, there are many more people who need hearts than there are heart donors. There are criteria in place to help those making the decisions as to who has priority over whom.
It’s not a first come, first served decision. Alcoholics are not the priority for liver transplants. Death row convicts don’t qualify for heart transplants.
The “put everyone in a random lottery” method ensures that no matter what, everyone gets the same chance. The benefit is that no one experiences unfairness, when measured against some objective ideal of what “fair” means.
The “perform triage based on factors that are predictive of a patient’s survival chances” method ensures that the maximum amount of life is saved per organ. The benefit is increased human life.
For me, the latter is a better system and I’m really glad that most people seem to agree.
Someone will be sentenced to death, no matter what. There’s only one heart and three people. And not everyone is a candidate for a transplant, for whatever reason.
It’s a tragedy what happened to this kid. But that doesn’t change the facts that when it comes to organ transplantation, “fair” can’t be used as a criteria.
Only if you’re using the word in the original Greek sense.
A “second chance” means different things to different people.
Maybe the old lady was a mean old bitch, the pedestrian had a criminal record, the stolen car was a lemon and the tree was asking for it?
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
It’s a tragedy what happened to this kid.
[/QUOTE]
It didn’t “happen” to him.
Regards,
Shodan
Some bad things did happen to him. He happened to some people too.
I don’t give anyone a ‘death sentence’ when I decline to authorize a transplant for them. Nor am I giving them a reprieve when I do authorize a transplant. I’m just employing the best treatments available for a given case. Including treatments requiring utilization of scarce and precious resources.
We’re all under a death sentence from the moment of birth. Oftentimes it gets carried out sooner than we feel it ought to, due to factors beyond a person’s control. At other times it’s a logical consequence of one’s own actions. Frequently it’s a mix of both. That’s the human condition, and railing about ‘fairness’ doesn’t change that. I’ve seen enough suffering and death to know that giving comfort is more useful than flailing about trying any ‘cure’ available. I’ve seen transplants that should never have been put into the recipient in the first place, resulting in a lingering decline and death in the ICU over 9 months time. I’ve seen transplanted organs lost due to terrible neglect by the patient, and I’ve seen others abuse their bodies horribly and still keep their transplant. I’ve seen young, motivated people who had organ failure through no fault of their own slowly wither and die as they wait for an organ.
I’ve seen some real stuff, man! 
Not actually mentioned yet but also for me a consideration.
We owe as debt of gratitude to the organ donor and the grieving parents, siblings and family the respect that at their moment of grief, if they have consented to the harvest of their loved ones organs to help others, then that the recipient should look after their new organ and take the precautions necessary to preserve them to the best of their ability.
If the addled liver guy still drinks then he doesn’t get a liver, if the dodgy heart guy won’t comply with anti rejection meds he doesn’t get the heart!
TLANTA – An Atlanta area teenager who said a heart transplant two years ago gave him a second chance at life died this week when he lost control of the car he was driving while fleeing police, according to police records.
Anthony Tremayne Stokes, 17, died Tuesday when the car he was driving hit a bank sign, a Roswell police officer wrote in an incident report. The officer noticed the black Honda Accord fit the description of a vehicle involved in a home invasion a short time earlier, the report says. The officer tried to pull the car over, but the driver refused to stop, the report said.
The car had also been reported stolen in a carjacking in nearby Dunwoody earlier Tuesday, the report says.
In August 2013, local news media quoted Stokes’ family as saying that doctors at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta at Egleston refused to put Stokes on a transplant waiting list because of his troubled past and their belief he wouldn’t comply with the strict plan for medication and follow-up treatment.
Stokes, who was 15 at the time, needed a new heart because he suffered from dilated cardiomyopathy. The news media reports at the time quoted the mother as saying that her son would likely die within six to nine months without a new heart.
The hospital said in statements at the time that transplant evaluations are an ongoing process and that doctors were working with the family on a care plan. But it quickly reversed course and agreed to put Stokes on the list. He received a heart transplant on Aug. 21, 2013.
Okay, Smapti, let’s put this to the test. Two people are in the final stages of liver disease and will die imminently without a transplant. There is only one donor liver available, and the chances of a second becoming available in the very limited time these patients have left is so small that we can discount it. Don’t try arguing with the hypothetical here. That’s the situation and that’s all there is to it.
The first patient is a 75 year old chronic alcoholic who destroyed his liver through decades of sustained alcohol abuse. Interventions, therapy, and medical treatment have all been unsuccessful in getting him to stop drinking and surgeons have no good reason to believe he’ll quit after the transplant. Moreover, the alcohol abuse has affected his brain such that he’s extremely forgetful. It’s highly likely that he won’t be able to adhere to the strict regimen of anti-rejection pills necessary to keep a donor organ healthy. Failure to take the pills will result in the destruction of the organ in short order. If he sticks to the pills and keeps drinking (which he very likely will) the alcohol will likely cause serious damage to the organ in a couple of years. If he (somehow) manages to stick with the pills and lay off the booze, old age will likely get him shortly after that.
The second patient is only 15. He has liver damage due to an inherited genetic condition. The specific condition doesn’t matter. All you need to know is that a liver transplant will cure him and that, given his age and otherwise good health, he has a reasonable shot at living a full life. Personality wise, he’s smart, disciplined and organised and surgeons have no reason to think he’ll forget his anti-rejection pills.
The decision falls to you. You, in keeping with your posts in this thread, decide to flip a coin. Heads the old man, tails the teenager. The coin comes up heads. Would you still give the liver to the old man? If so, why?
Yes, because the old man has done nothing for which he deserves to die.
And the young man has? Because by giving the liver to the older man, you are killing the younger one who can actually survive and live a full life.
No, he hasn’t. Neither of then have, which is why it’s fundamentally wrong to choose to save one of them on the basis of their being more deserving of life.