marvin martian
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #141
I don’t agree with you saying that I said it.
Your dodge is noted. But now that we've established you don't believe healthcare is a human right, your death-cult reaction makes more sense.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I don’t agree with you saying that I said it.
You have to define "need" then. A more compatible match is listed before less compatible matches and the match algorithm only ranks potential recipients by the criteria it's given. "Need" has to be defined in such a way that a computer program and order a list by it.Yes, need is a medical factor. That's why people can sit on the list for many years who have low need and some people can sit on the list for mere weeks who are high need. A person who is sitting on VA ECMO is ranked as status 1 whereas an otherwise ambulatory patient is ranked down to status 4-6.
Some people need the organ more than others.
As for kidneys, the formula is quite different, need is not really a factor because of dialysis. Time on the list takes precedence. They'll take the person who has waited the longest who matches. Yes, there's considerations for people with high panel resistance antibodies who happen to be a great match, which is a relatively new feature. This is not the most common way to allocate. Most commonly you find people who have acceptable virtual crossmatches before going with a real crossmatch. Compatibility for most kidney recipients boils down mainly to compatible blood type and lack of a positive donor antibody. They don't really care too much if your HLA groups match.
There are many ways to determine need and it varies organ to organ and is encapsulated by category of listing or point systems. The exact details get extremely complicated. I showed you how hearts go by status 1, 2, 3 etc. Livers are similar. A liver patient who is status 2B is rarely going to get transplanted until they get sicker and bumped up to 1.You have to define "need" then. A more compatible match is listed before less compatible matches and the match algorithm only ranks potential recipients by the criteria it's given. "Need" has to be defined in such a way that a computer program and order a list by it.
I know it's complicated, I've seen the code that implements it. You sound knowledgeable, have you firsthand experience in the system?There are many ways to determine need and it varies organ to organ and is encapsulated by category of listing or point systems. The exact details get extremely complicated. I showed you how hearts go by status 1, 2, 3 etc. Livers are similar. A liver patient who is status 2B is rarely going to get transplanted until they get sicker and bumped up to 1.
The list will run through acceptable candidates in status 1, then if no possible matches, goes to status 2 etc.
Yes and I’m pretty sure you do too.I know it's complicated, I've seen the code that implements it. You sound knowledgeable, have you firsthand experience in the system?
My experience comes from working at UNOS for a dozen years, literally a dozen footsteps outside the Organ Center. Now, I have not checked, but this prohibition, has it made it all the way to being a national policy or is this hospital working on its own? The reason I ask is, we've literally only been using these vaccinations for what, two years? We simply have no clue what kind of impact it will have on the long-term survivability of transplant recipients. It may simply do as advertised and keep patients from getting sicker, but it may not. There may be as of yet completely unknown long-term effects. At the very least, they should have included vaccination status as a data point so they could do some long-term studies on survivability before a blanket edict to get vaccinated or die.Yes and I’m pretty sure you do too.
Transplant recipients, before they ever get listed, are required to follow the rules. The transplant center is ethically and morally obligated to do whatever they can to make sure the precious resource or limited organs for transplant are used effectively.
And that means they require people to get vaccinated.
What good is a heart transplant if that person dies of COVID?
Do you believe healthcare is a human right?Your dodge is noted. But now that we've established you don't believe healthcare is a human right, your death-cult reaction makes more sense.
It’s entirely clear based on two years of experience the vaccine is highly protective against severe COVID and death from COVID. Saying we have no idea is simply not true.My experience comes from working at UNOS for a dozen years, literally a dozen footsteps outside the Organ Center. Now, I have not checked, but this prohibition, has it made it all the way to being a national policy or is this hospital working on its own? The reason I ask is, we've literally only been using these vaccinations for what, two years? We simply have no clue what kind of impact it will have on the long-term survivability of transplant recipients. It may simply do as advertised and keep patients from getting sicker, but it may not. There may be as of yet completely unknown long-term effects. At the very least, they should have included vaccination status as a data point so they could do some long-term studies on survivability before a blanket edict to get vaccinated or die.
Not a good example. A weak heart is far more likely to succumb to the covid vaccine than covid itself. There need not be any medical reason behind the vaccine requirement. Because we said so is good enough.Yes and I’m pretty sure you do too.
Transplant recipients, before they ever get listed, are required to follow the rules. The transplant center is ethically and morally obligated to do whatever they can to make sure the precious resource or limited organs for transplant are used effectively.
And that means they require people to get vaccinated.
What good is a heart transplant if that person dies of COVID?
And I’m sure you have data which demonstrates this, right?A weak heart is far more likely to succumb to the covid vaccine than covid itself.
It’s not right to deny somebody medical treatment solely based on vax status. Some people medically can’t get vaxxed and they should not be denied care because of that. But if somebody is making the choice not to get vaxxed against doctors directions in order to receive an transplant then that is their choice. It’s like a liver transplant patient refusing to stop drinking. Well I’m sure there are others who care about their health more who do make the sacrifice and who could use and take better care of that liver or that heartBOSTON (CBS) – David Ferguson is speaking out passionately on behalf of his son DJ. He says the 31-year-old is fighting for his life at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and in desperate need of a heart transplant. “My son has gone to the edge of death to stick to his guns and he’s been pushed to the limit,” Ferguson said.
The family says he was at the front of the line to receive a transplant but because he has not received the COVID-19 vaccination he is no longer eligible according to hospital policy. And Ferguson says his son refuses to get the shot.
“It’s kind of against his basic principles, he doesn’t believe in it. It’s a policy they are enforcing and so because he won’t get the shot, they took him off the list of a heart transplant,” Ferguson said.
Man Can't Get Heart Transplant Because He's Not Vaccinated Against COVID
DJ Ferguson was set to receive a heart transplant, but because he is not vaccinated against COVID-19 he is no longer eligible, according to hospital policy.boston.cbslocal.com
Do you think it's right to deny someone medical care based on their vaccination status?
The heart doctors are better equipped than you to make that call. If the vax was more of a risk then they wouldn’t require itNot a good example. A weak heart is far more likely to succumb to the covid vaccine than covid itself. There need not be any medical reason behind the vaccine requirement. Because we said so is good enough.
Lol, they are not refusing to give him one he is sent down the waiting list for risky behavior. Smoke cigarettes you get put lower on the list etc. Multiple different behaviors get you put down the list not just vaccination status.If it's his body, his choice, then fucking respect his choice and give him a transplant, you fucking douchebag.
Do you believe healthcare is a human right?Next time the lying left say "Healthcare is a human right", remember this story, and others like it.
I haven’t lied about anything you said and posted one article that point to the vaccine is weaker against Omicron Variant, and you stated you were done discussing this, so why lie?
Fact is you are upset that I pointed out the Omicron variant bypasses the vaccine and I told you I can provide the CDC exact words, but you don’t want it because then you will have to admit the vaccine may not work for that individual.
Also why don’t you want the CDC words linked?
They are also experts in the field?
I know, it is because if the CDC words go against what you are conveying then you would have to admit you are incorrect.
The fact is the CDC has stated that Omicron does bypass the vaccine and even two jabs you are more likely to sick than three but even with three you can still get sick…
I know, truth is something that you do not want to read, so want me to link the CDC exact words?
Yeah. You keep thinking that.The heart doctors are better equipped than you to make that call. If the vax was more of a risk then they wouldn’t require it
I will… only a complete moron would trust you over real doctorsYeah. You keep thinking that.