Criteria for receiving organ transplants

[Crescent Cat]

I've been searching for a site or resource that will give me good insight into how a patient needing an organ transplant is decided to either be eligible or ineligible to receive one.

From what I understand the patient's doctor will speak with a board at the hospital and they will review the patient's case. Certain elements such as age, lifestyle (if the patient is a drug addict, alcoholic, ect) or if the patient engages in self destructive behavior (self mutilation, suicidal, ect) can mark them as ineligible to receive an organ transplant.

Or that's how I understand it. I haven't been able to find anything that goes over this process in good detail. If anyone can direct me to a resource that will give me more information or if anyone has further knowledge on this I would greatly appreciate it.

[HYHYBT]

I believe they also consider things like whether the patient is in good enough health otherwise to survive the operation.

[Greenday]

I believe they also consider things like whether the patient is in good enough health otherwise to survive the operation.

Hm, yes, this is true.

So...what are we actually debating about?

[DrFaroohk]

As a deeply religious man I firmly believe that when they construct the church and consecrate it, the organ is a part of the facility and as such should NEVER be removed.

[Crescent Cat]

I was trying to do research on criteria that would exclude a patient from receiving a transplant because of the debate regarding whether or not death row inmates should receive them.

In my opinion there is no way that they should get them. I understand that physicians are bound to medical ethics and committed to providing the best care possible to any and all patients - regardless of who they are or what they've done. That I don't have a problem with.

However, if we're going to deny a 24 year old a liver because he's an alcoholic, I don't see any problem in denying a transplant to a condemned prisoner.

It may seem cruel to say, but the prisoner's not going to be using his organs for very long.

[Greenday]

A death row inmate? I believe that falls under "not going to live long enough to make it worth it".

[HYHYBT]

Ah, but what if the church gets a better organ?

(There was a little story in a local paper a while back about a church in Gainesville getting a new pipe organ. Someone quoted in the article said something like "it will improve music throughout Hall County." Either Hall County is a lot smaller than it looks, or that's one LOUD organ! Anyway, what reminded me of it was that their old organ was "transplanted" to a sister church in, I think, Oakwood.)

[BlaqueKatt]

A death row inmate? I believe that falls under "not going to live long enough to make it worth it".

um

To date, 245 people in the United States have been exonerated by DNA testing, including 17 who served time on death row. These people served an average of 13 years in prison before exoneration and release.

so those people who weren't guilty and have now been released shouldn't have gotten transplants if they needed them simply because they were wrongfully accused?

that's just.....insane-letting an inmate die of organ failure falls under "cruel and unusual punishment" and is prohibited by the constitution in the US

[jackfaire]

that's just.....insane-letting an inmate die of organ failure falls under "cruel and unusual punishment" and is prohibited by the constitution in the US

I think it is understandable to use it as a factor. The reasoning is that it isn't just oh let's throw this liver away they wont' need it.

The reason is Patient A is healthy leads a healthy lifestyle and with a new liver is expected to live a long full life.

Patietn B is on death row.

They have to choose which patient would better benefit from the liver.

[Shangri-laschild]

What about the opposite? Granted I haven't really looked into this, but if you're on death row and an organ donor, then when you die do your organs still get donate. I am very much not up to date on the different methods they have other than injection so I don't know if there are any methods available that would keep the organs viable. Should that option be available to people on death row? They die either way, but someone could benefit from their organs.

And if we let them donate, then should we be willing to put them on the list? Honestly I'd almost go with the idea that it shouldn't be an overall yes or no. What if they're on death row but aren't scheduled to go for a decade or so? Being on death row could even be part of the decision for where they are on the list maybe. I guess I just have trouble seeing it as an overall yes or no thing.

[jackfaire]

Honestly I'd almost go with the idea that it shouldn't be an overall yes or no. .

I agree it shouldn't be a yes or no but they are going to be competeing against people who aren't on death row.

[HYHYBT]

I don't think lethal injection or electrocution leave the organs usable.

[McDreidel09]

I agree it shouldn't be a yes or no but they are going to be competeing against people who aren't on death row.

Exactly.

There is a very limited amount of organs that can be used, which is why there is a waiting list. They can't just go back to the magical backroom and get it. Someone who decided to be an organ donor has to die. Yes, death row inmates should have medical treatment, but organ transplant? I would be very pissed if say my mother needed a new organ, but it was given to someone on death row instead.

Like it was said before in here, lethal injection and electrocution leave the organs unusable, so they can't just take it out and let it recirculate.

So with that limited supply of lifesaving organs, who do you expect doctors to choose? The single mother, working hard for her children, who barely drinks anymore,doesn't smoke, and in general lives a a pretty healthy life or the death row inmate who is going to be put to death within a few years?

[joe hx]

Ok - deciding whether a death row inmate or young mother gets a transplant is easy. How do we decide when it's not so easy? I.E. a 60-year-old man or a 16-year-old kid, or a CEO versus a homeless man?

I don't mean to split hairs (am I? I was never sure of the definition of that idiom) but I don't think the decision "who will live and who will die" will always be so strait forward.

[Crescent Cat]

Though technically you're eligible to receive an organ until age 65, I would think (hope) that a 60 year old man would gladly let an available organ go to a 16 year old kid instead of himself.

But anyway, to the point.

Inmates have just a much right to health care as anyone else. By medical ethics, doctors are to treat every patient to the best of his or her ability regardless of who they are and what they've done. We can't just decided that for the duration of their sentence we will not treat inmates for diabetes, or refuse to treat their wounds, or take care of them when they fall ill. Withholding medical care is not part of the verdict.

However, this isn't about providing health care for inmates as it is allocating scarce resources. As I mentioned before, death row inmates won't be using their organs for very long so it would be a waste to include them on the waiting list.

Now before you say this is cruel and unusual punishment, think about this. There are law-abiding citizens that are refused organ transplants all the time.

Have you had cancer in the last 2-5 years? Denied.

Are you an alcoholic/anorexic/drug addict (ect)? Denied.

Does the board, for whatever reason, feel you are incapable of following a post-transplant regimen? Denied.

Now correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I know, having cancer, an eating disorder or being an alcoholic are not against the law but people will be denied organ transplants because of it.

So a woman as young as 19 who needs a new heart could be rejected because she's anorexic, so it will go to a 34 year old instead.

Well, what if she has it in her to recover? What if this brush with death is just the shock she needs to want to try and get help? She's not going to have the chance to try and save her own life.

If that's not cruel and unusual I don't know what is.