So in California recently a foreign patent, Number 52 in line to get a liver transplant paid about 30 time the usual amount to jump to the head of the line. And his nationality would be (wait for it), yes Saudi!
Asshat!
That should read he (and the Saudi Embassy) paid 30% over the going rate. I bet you a dollar some payments to doctors were also involved.
25 to 30 percent more is not quite the same as 30 times the usual amount (as stated in the OP), but I agree with you. Money should not come into play when determining who needs a liver the most.
On preview, it looks like my link requires registration, but you can get to it from the Google list in the OP by clicking on “LA hospital bypassed own patients in transplant controversy”
The problem is if livers are baldly for sale, there is little reason to donate one upon death. “You get a ton of money, what does my family get?”
Given the shortage of available organs foreign nationals shouldn’t be on the transplant list at all.
I strongly disagree.
Foreigners are less entitled to health than Americans? If they have insurance and/or are paying for it (I’m not talking about skipping ahead in line, just paying for treatment) I think it is highly immoral to discriminate on the basis of nationality.
They’re entitled to all the health care they have coverage for. They’re just not entitled to come to America and demand a scarce American resource.
Most Americans in need of a liver transplant will die waiting for one. How can we justify giving a place to a foreign national on the list given the shortage of organs?
Given that we have to have some process for determining how to allocate scare resources to begin with, it’s hardly immoral for Americans ask that recipients be Americans. Particularly when many hospitals that perform such operations are funded with American tax dollars.
How would you feel if rich Americans went abroad and decided to sign up for kidney transplants in China or India? Wouldn’t that be vastly inappropriate?
There is a lot of moral noodling to be done on the subject of waiting lists for medical procedures. People smarter than me have done a lot of it already.
One of the ideas of the centralized system we (in the US) have now is to keep organs local as much as possible. This way we can say to a bereaved family “Signing this form will save a life right in this town.” This is an incentive to donors.
But what if we are over in giblets in our town this week but the next town over needs some? Should we give? Trade? Sell? Keep?
Does a foreigner have the same entitlement to an American liver as a Saudi? As a poor Pakistani? What if they are (or are not) in our hospital waiting? What is the American has three weeks to live and the Saudi only three days? What if one of the patients abuses alcohol? What if one is in jail? Eighty years old?
Still we can all agree, forcing the system is simply wrong.
You know it is wrong to be able to pay extra to jump the line for organ transplants as they are donated.
We should ignore the nationality issue, that is secondary to the primary issue that in this country (USA) organs are not suppose to be for sale.
It is very unethical no matter what and the hospital risks loosing all future chances of organs if I remember prior articles on similar situations.
If people loose faith in the fairness of the organ donation system, the pool of organs will disappear entirely.
All said: could not the Saudi national have gone to a country where they do practice Organ Sales? I understood China does so. I may well be wrong.
Lavenderlemon - this expat living in the US takes exception to what you’re saying.
I’m a US resident. I am not a citizen. I’m a “foreign national”, an “alien”. While I work here, and pay taxes here, you’re telling me that if I needed a transplant, I shouldn’t make it on the list because, well, American Livers should go to American Recipients only?
If you want to make residency a requirement, with the exception of charity cases from abroad (which many hospitals take, and thank GOD they do), that’s one thing… but…
Frankly, if my organs are going to be useful for someone - anyone - then let them have it. I’ll be the first to agree that there should be no prioirity list based on the amount of money you can shell out, but only a priority list based on urgency and need.
If my healthy liver goes to an uninsured refugee from Laos, currently living in the US and trying to make a living, then I’ll be more than happy I saved a life.
I agree with you at least.
Paul’s link wouldn’t load for me (dying puter) but I found a similar fee quote here.
This only means that he was charged full rates, which is required by OIG rulings. In order to be given a discount, there has to be a contract in place with the payer (HMO and PPO contractual discounts), enrollment in a government program (Medicare and Medicaid) or the patient has to be uninsured/underinsured and be able to demonstrate that paying the bill in total would put him in a financial hardship.
All the quoted statement means is that federal regulations were followed.
Of course, the fact that no discounts will be given could be motivation enough to move the patient to the top of the list, but it certainly doesn’t mean the guy bribed his way to the top, as is being suggested.
I forgot to add: The person at the top of the list was also a Saudi National.
Isn’t it possible that this started out as a screw up by the hospital? From what the article outlines it’s possible that patient 52 was the next foreign national in line due to receive a liver. Someone read the wrong list. The next week someone in admin sees the mistake and alters the evidence. Then someone in the records department tweaks the database to make everything look tidier until eventually the problem is unearthed several years later.
There doesn’t seem to be enough evidence to say that people were influenced by money. The screw up theory is always much more plausible than the sinister cover up / bribary theory.
Ellen,
If you want to live in the United States a few years AND then get on the transplant list if something goes wrong after you’ve been here, fine. If there’s a serious emergency and you need an immediate transplant, again fine.
But every single currently sick person in the world who may need a transplant does not have the right to come to the United States and get on the transplant list. That’s neither moral nor fair.
I agree. It’s hardly unfair for Americans to decide to confine recipients to live here already.
To those who live here already. :smack:
I’m not certain which situation we’re talking about here:
A) Bob Mohammad is a Saudi living in the United States while he works or studies, not a citizen but a resident, develops a liver problem, seeks treatment. He should get equal treatment with anyone else.
B) Bob Mohammad is a Saudi living in Saudi Arabia, develops a liver problem, and comes to the United States seeking medical treatment. I don’t see any reason why he gets dibs on a liver while there are not enough for people living here.
Hopefully, programs like this will continue to receive the funding they need, and the demand for healthy liver donors will continue to decrease.
My ex-MIL is a liver transplant patient. We went to a “survivor” party for people who had received transplants at UCSF, and I met a recipient and his live donor. They’re both well and happy, and are adapting without complication to life with one lobe of the same liver each.
As the wife of a kidney transplant recipient, I am mad as hell at the hospital and the doctors. Transplant waiting lists and organ allocation is a big deal, with a very strict protocol - I call absolute and utter bullshit on the program director who says he didn’t know there was anyone on the list ahead of the person who received the liver.
If the recipient who was at the top of the list couldn’t have the transplant (for whatever reason), the next person on the list should have received it. The rankings are not arbitrary - the sickest people are the ones first in line! (there are other factors in kidney transplants) There is no excuse for this, other than the doctors or the hospital wanting the money and/or not wanting to give up “their liver.”
Cases like this can cause potential donors to lose faith in the system and not donate their organs. That means more people will die waiting for transplants.
Just a note - one reason why organs tend to stay in the same region is that less transportation time = better for the organ. However, in the case of kidneys, the quality of the match also influences where the organ goes.
Heh. Bet he was pissed off: “Hey, there’s a queue here, and I jumped it first!”
Incidentally, Google is showing Need Fast Transplants? Heh heh.