Galt's Gulch

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by Zenphamy 11 years, 10 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 | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ Maphesdus 11 years, 10 months ago
      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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by $ Mimi 11 years, 10 months ago
        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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ Maphesdus 11 years, 10 months ago
          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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Mimi 11 years, 10 months ago
            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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by Rozar 11 years, 10 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 | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo