How much should lifestyle (non-medical) be considered in transplant situations?

First: Thug lyfe!

Only way that upstanding citizen would have contributed to society is if he was an organ donor.

...

Also: The only way to win the "who deserves what" game is not to play. It should be first come, first serve based on pure go/no-go transplant science. Anything else is gonna get socioeconomic-stratified / race-ified / age-ified.

Everybody dying has a Good Reason (TM) to skip ahead, amiright?

Tough shit.

...

Let's say I had a family member that had a transplant. They waited many, many years and went through a lot of hell to get there. Lotsa meds. Lotsa bills. Lotsa suffering.

And let's say the hospital installed said organ incorrectly, the rotting hardware nearly poisoned said family member to death and then the hospital had to do another emergency procedure to remove said dead organ.

Take a guess on whether or not they got to keep their spot in the transplant line.

Tough shit.

 

While it may seem a waste to 'give' a donated organ to a street thug, an older person who doesn't have many years left, someone who refuses to change to healthy lifestyle, etc., what Plan9 posted (and others have also posted) is the only fair way to determine who gets the organ.

Trying to establish "fair" criteria would be a nightmare. What would the 'cut-off' age be? How extensive would the criminal record have to be? How unhealthy would the lifestyle have to be? How would "future positive contributions to society" be determined?

 

Alternatively, we could let those on the transplant list step into the Thunderdome.

Two men enter... one man leaves with a kidney.

 

Really? I've seen a few old folks with numerous health complications get on the list. I'm sure some are using these factors but clearly not all.

 

Interesting.

Health concerns were clearly not part of the equation with the people I knew based on age and, uh, let's call it durability. If there was math based on success and longevity, those involved didn't do it and approved the transplants anyway.

Then again, we live in a country largely comprised of obese people that will likely live until they're 90, so I guess 1950s Healthy (TM) is considered abnormal these days.

...

I'm not saying that lifestyle shouldn't be taken into account but that it provides that initial crack that allows erosion over time. Because organ transplants are such a human thing and the institutions and companies that make them happen are operated by the almighty dollar and the fetid worm of politics, there is room for problems to develop. I've seen enough dystopian sci-fi flicks to know how the rich will eventually keep all the organs for themselves, hovering above us in their luxury motherships.

...

On the other hand, I'd say the pick-and-choose system doesn't go far enough.

There is no way anybody morbidly obese or over 68 should get a transplant. Wasteful.

Do it for the children. So they can take gangsta selfies and wrap a car around a telephone pole.

 

Indeed. And stop posting before I've finished my 15 minutes of live editing.

It's in my contract, Borla. It's in my contract.

 

There are many factors that could? should? be considerred when selecting a potential donated organ recipient. The major questions remain: How will the qualifications be determined, and who will determine them?

This is a serious gray area. A persons position--for either side--could change dramatically if a situation arose that effected them on a personal level.

 

I keep hoping we will get the process of growing organs down to a cheap simple process sooner rather than later.
It would make all of this moot.