Kidneys are at a premium and should only be offered to patients with a best chance of survival. Post transplantation patients are immunosuppressed and are easy victims to non immunised infections, they would be a sitting duck for Covid. Seems reasonable to me.
IMO of course.
Losing weight isn't guaranteed to give you a healthy outcome either, but it will statistically help. Just like statistics show having a covid vaccine will help lessen the affects if you catch covid
//Kidneys are at a premium and should only be offered to patients with a best chance of survival//
Do you totally believe that, sqad? One thing that bothers me about being a donor... is that my organs night well go to someone evil, like a child abuser, because he would last longer than a young mother....
I agree, gness.... but... due to shortages, it's actually a competition. Personally, I would much prefer a decent person to have one of mine for 20 years.... than a rapist to use it for 50.
If we are going with priorities... I think they have them all wrong.
healthcare should not look at things like what kind of person you are to gatekeep who gets what treatment. IMO that would be a far worse situation that using medical reasons to gatekeep
Pixie, if the person getting your kidney did not have a covid vaccination, they could die within weeks never mind 20 years!. Anti rejection drugs suppress the immune system to the extent they would die within days of catching covid.
However, the main thing for me is complete bafflement that someone prepared to have hugely invasive surgery and then take a cocktail of (very nasty) immunosuppressant drugs is jibbing at a simple vaccination that has been happily taken by billions of people.
There's a complete discontinuity of thinking going on in her head. That in itself makes me worry about how well she would cope with the rigorous process of post transplant behaviour and medication.
Pixie. This thread is about a woman who has the opportunity to have a transplant but won't do her best to protect the kidney. It will go to someone who will do that and that's how it should be.
Dave,gness, I disagree.. nobody should be threatened with their life, to have a vaccine. Or even pushed or bullied. I know you will both disagree...
But this is just bullying and amoral. I'm pro-vax,but each to their own.
MrG had the offer of a kidney from his sister and a friend of ours. The friend was a perfect match but at the last minute the doctors decided not to risk the chance of the living donor's kidney being affected as his own were.
Granted nobody else got the kidney but even with living donors there must be a duty not to waste a good kidney.
Totally agree.... so it is just morals and personal judgement . I would "much " prefer my organs to go to an anti-vaxxer, than a paedophile. Unfortunately, you only get the choice when you are alive...
she is not being threeatened with her life as far as i can see from the story. People whose kidneys dont work properly are kept alive by dialysis. it seems unlikely (although there's not a lot in the article itself) that it's kidney transplant or die
i completely get that dialysis is awful. But if she wants to get off it, comply with the medical requirements the hospital has in place for a transplant!
I don’t think it’s about threatening her with her life. It’s about giving the kidney to a recipient with the best chance of survival. To require a potential recipient to be vaccinated is in one way the thin edge of the wedge but sometimes difficult and morally conflicting decisions have to be made. This is one such instance.
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.