Posted on 05/27/2010 2:42:26 PM PDT by smokingfrog
Vincent Liew waited five years for the kidney that was supposed to change his life. Instead, the organ ended it.
The kidney came from a woman who had uterine cancer, but she and doctors didn't know it. Once her disease was discovered after the transplant, Liew's doctors highly doubted it could spread to him.
But in seven months, Liew was killed by cancer that his autopsy linked to the transplant. His death, the subject of a medical malpractice trial in which closing arguments were scheduled for Thursday, is believed to be the only reported instance of uterine cancer apparently being transmitted by transplant, medical experts say.
The case has reignited questions about the sometimes hidden risks carried by transplanted organs, risks that transplant experts say they have worked to minimize but can't eliminate — but are worth taking for many patients.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Well, to be fair, ending your life is definitely changing it. But man, that’s harsh.
Wow. How tragic.
If I were on the jury, I would not be able to side with the plaintiffs, if the uterine cancer was unknown to be in the woman when the transplant was conducted. That is the risk you take with a transplanted organ.
And why pray tell are not organs screened for diseases before being transplanted?
Just asking.
well, there are a couple of other issues. 1: the delay in getting the word out of the donor’s cancer, and 2; the recommendation that he had little to worry about. He COULD have had the kidney removed and/or started chemotherapy. In 20/20 hindsight it was the wrong advice. They will fight it out in court whether it was malpractice.
Whoa - never heard of this happening before. Strange. Tragic.
Sounds like it became known and he was told the risks were low.
Papers please. < /sarc >
Tragic is the right word. This is sad, but it’s not negligent or in any other way malpractice. The plaintiff’s lawyers are just being greedy.
If I were a juror on this case I would be on the side of the organ recipient. Ignorance is no excuse and therefore the doctors are responsible. Testing of organs for disease should be mandatory before transplantation if it isn’t already because it is just plain old common sense.
That’s one of the big worries with cancer, metastasis. I’m surprised there’s a trial though. The guy decided to keep the kidney, and they found the donor’s cancer mere days after the transplant.
I would agree. No one knew there was cancer. How is that malpractice?
Lawyers - ahhhh!
I am very confused here - I thought that the danger of cancer was that the cells were one’s own so that the immune system doesn’t recognize them as foreign.
It was discovered after the transplant. Too late to do anything at that point, except to watch out for the cancer and treat it. My sister has been battling re-current endometrial cancer for more than a year and a half. She’s gone through 2 surgeries, radiation, and most recently completed chemo. Her recent CAT scan was negative of ca anywhere in her body! This is truly a praise report! (praise God!)
I didn't have much choice, die or take the transfusion. My son also had to have a transfusion during a surgery to keep from bleeding out. My dad got a bunch of transfusions before the hospital finally let him bleed to death. If death is the other option, I'm thankful those crackheads and whores are providing another alternative.
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.