Posted on 11/16/2007 4:22:08 PM PST by wagglebee
That explains why they didn't tell her the next time. She was obviously a paranoid homophobe, content to inconsiderately take up valuable space at the dialysis center.
Hey, Mr. Tort Reform, Don’t You Know?, why don’t you take the case, since you would like us to believe your opinion is motivated by lofty principles? What, no cash-money to be made from suing the deepest pockets, regardless of responsibility, and the legal definition of negligence? Or don’t you know?
One of the most idiotic posts I’ve ever read.
She did NOT make the choice. She refused a prior transplant because of high risk behavior. She was NEVER told so she could make an INFORMED choice. And I don't care if the disease can be managed. That is not necessarily the case in all people. Like I said she is already physically compromised. And like it said in the article, the side effects to the HIV drugs she is taking affects the kidneys.
Did you read the article?
She was given a kidney from a known high risk person,,they are supposed to reject those organs. She was not told.
This is so wrong and is poor practice and it was intentional.
I think we may have hit on the ONE case where FReepers want those “scumbag trial laywers” to have free reign. Usually a plaintiff is castigated for playing the victim card. Go figure.
Freepers are fair and know when wrong is wrong.
If this had not been a known high risk person, this wold be tragic and unavoidable. That is not the case here.
This was criminal.
The article does not state that the donor knew that he was HIV positive, and he may have been negative when he filled out his paperwork to be a donor. His corpse tested HIV negative.
If there was any premeditation involved here, the "donor" was truly demonic
He filled out paperwork in which he admitted to being gay and engaging in high risk gay sex. Why on earth would he do that if he wanted to infect heterosexuals with the organs from his corpse?
It sounds like the lab might have screwed up the HIV test on the corpse, and somebody forgot to mention that the donor was high risk. That's probably all this story is about. Human error as usual.
Yet another vile thread.
No, not even a little bit.
Your bias is certainly showing.
No one has let the hospital I practice in or doctors in my state know they cannot be sued - frivolous lawsuits to win the jury lottery are still flying. It is apparent you do not like tort reform, but you should try it from the other side for a while - your opinion might change
And lawsuits are still being won so someone must be able to sue successfully
I agree with you. As they age, they are just getting crankier, and I’m hoping this is the high water mark of the gay movement.
For me, I have no sympathy for the plight of ‘gay americans’, so long as there is no telethon raising money in search of a cure for homosexuality.
As soon as they can admit they have a problem, I’ll be there to sympathize.
What, no /sarc tag?
Apparently she was doing very good on dialysis. It was a totally unnecessary operation for her, given she was doing well AND the fact they knew she was very concerned about donor histories.
They just shortened her life for no good reason. She could have just stayed on dialysis. My father in law has been on dialysis for years and is doing excellent (also because he has watched his diet). He will never get a transplant, too old, but it doesn’t matter because dialysis works for him.
Please say you didn't need one! :-D
Unfortunately, it wouldn't surprise me if the people who neglected to inform her, had exactly that mindset. This patient is too cautious/paranoid for her own good, we know better, nothing's going to happen, blah blah...
I agree. Conventional docs spend so much time on treating symptoms rather than finding causes and real solutions. Just pump some drugs to manage the situation, but never fix it.
For example, you can do something called a liver/gallbladder flush using lemon juice and olive oil and doing a few simple things to prepare for it. The lemon juice (wiht a little water) will break down cholesterol crystals in the gall bladder and liver (or shrink them) and the olive oil will lube the bile ducts and gall bladder to help pass the cholesterol crytal/stones through so you can get rid of them. You can actually see them when you pass them.
Trying to get a conventional doctor to recognize this works is next to impossible. But it does.
Don’t they test the donors for these diseases before they use their organs??
Yes. From the article:
Four patients got organs in January at three Chicago hospitals from a donor who died after a traumatic injury. The donor had engaged in high-risk behaviors, according to a screening questionnaire, but standard testing showed the donor did not have AIDS or hepatitis C.
That's what this is about. Not the "homosexual agenda," but a false negative test.
A false negative test, or a false report of a test?
“He filled out paperwork in which he admitted to being gay and engaging in high risk gay sex. Why on earth would he do that if he wanted to infect heterosexuals with the organs from his corpse?”
Yes, he could just as easily not bothered to disclose. At least he was forthright about it.
“It sounds like the lab might have screwed up the HIV test on the corpse, and somebody forgot to mention that the donor was high risk. That’s probably all this story is about. Human error as usual.”
When I first heard of this story on Wednesday, it was mentioned that the organs were tested for HIV and Hep C and showed that they were negative. It was surmised after the infections manifest themselves in the recipients, that the HIV/HEP C infection in the donor had occurred too recently to be detected by the standard testing procedure. Another test that is more accurate is available, but it is not routinely done because, among other reasons, it costs considerably more. However, something tells me that test will now become the routine. Frankly, when something as extreme as a transplant is being done, I don’t know why they can’t do both tests just as a back up.
Homosexuals, drug users whatever, these medical staff need to give up all of their possessions to this victim and face criminal charges. One or two cases like this and the word will spread across the country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.