Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Special Treatment

Posted by demifloyd 8 (My Page) on
Wed, Jul 4, 12 at 9:30

In response to Jodik's speculation about the unfairness between Cheney and other heart transplant recipients:

"It just seems odd to me that Cheney needed a heart and got one immediately, while Edd has been on a waiting list forever... aside from rare blood types, what could be the possible holdup?

I know it's not the thread to bring this up on... but it just strikes me as unfair."

*

I agree with you, Jodik, that "it's not the thread to bring this up on" so I didn't, I started a new thread.


Here's what Reuters has to say, March, 2012:

(Reuters) - At 71, former Vice President Dick Cheney was older than average for a heart transplant, but doctors said on Sunday that advances in care have made it possible for older patients to still be good transplant candidates.

And not only was he older than the typical patient, but he waited longer than average as well -- 20 months vs six months to a year.

Doctors said Cheney must have been in excellent health to have survived five heart attacks and still been eligible for a heart transplant. Cheney is recovering at a Washington-area hospital after transplant surgery on Saturday.


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Special Treatment

Yes, I remember when this information came out.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

Its a good thing a govnm panel didn't sit in on THAT decision. Mr. Cheney would have been thrown over the cliff.
Thank goodness Obamacare hadn't been 100% in effect. Good for Mr. Cheney.

Does anyone think a panel would have given him a thumbs down ?


 o
RE: Special Treatment

"Its a good thing a govnm panel didn't sit in on THAT decision. Mr. Cheney would have been thrown over the cliff.
Thank goodness Obamacare hadn't been 100% in effect. Good for Mr. Cheney.

Does anyone think a panel would have given him a thumbs down ?"

Wouldn't have had to, the repugs would have filibustered just to blame it on Obama.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

It's a good thing that government panels such as the one that CW describes aren't part of the ACA.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

Where on this planet does a panel of government bureaucrats sit on a panel that decides who gets a transplant and who doesn't? With more demand than supply obviously choices have to be made and a number of factors must count to the medical professionals and the family who decide, the recipient being an evil b*stard should play no part. If on the other hand Gheney was to be the heart donor that would be a whole different matter.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

Citywoman-what government panel? Do you believe in government panels or are you just throwing this to see if it will stick?


 o
RE: Special Treatment

Now I thought we already had those panels and they had nothing to do with the affordable health care.

I thought they where called the "health insurance companies". Don't they sit there and decide what they will and will no cover?

Didn't they control who would and wouldn't have insurance based on pre existing conditions, and person's health or lack of it?

And that's just to name a few of the panels that existed?

Oh, don't forget, those panels, those health insurance companies are the ones that decided whether you would or wouldn't get the life saving treatments that you needed?

So I guess, CW, those panels are better than the fear and lies being spread by the Republicans and you are spouting out about on this thread?

Are you still really believing these lies?

Good grief, doesn't any republican stop to think about what is being said to them and actually check out it's accuracy and whether it is a lie or not?

Apparently not.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

Republicans have a sixth sense about "hidden agendas" when it comes to the Democratic WH.

You never for sure what is going to be pushed down your throat and passed with out being given a chance to be read first.

Why wouldn't Republicans be skeptical of anything concerning ObamaCare.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

Why wouldn't Republicans be skeptical of anything concerning ObamaCare.

I'd be more skeptical of your elected Republican representatives who had plenty of time to read it and contribute to it beforehand but chose not to. Those are the deceivers.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

OMG. Paranoia prevails in your post.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry after reading your post.

It's sick, it's paranoid, it's absurd, it's disgusting.

I guess Republicans should be skeptical of "Obamacare". It actually gives a hoot about the people in this country, unlike the Republicans whose idea of reforming health care is what?

Yup, I hear nothing coming out of your mouth of any Republican's mouth, other than, oh what was that?

Gut "Obamacare" and start again?

Oh yeah, but don't forget to take advantage of anything and everything you can when it concerns yourself and how "Obamacare" will help you out, protect you with your health insurance coverage.

Just like Scott Brown in MA. candidate for re-election to the senate. Yup. just wants to gut "Obamacare" while his unemployed daughter, under 26, is on his health insurance plan, thanks to the courtesy of "Obamacare".

CW, try posting facts, truth, not the absurd mantra of the Republican party.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

Republicans have a sixth sense about "hidden agendas" when it comes to the Democratic WH.

Right, but not about those for profit insurance companies that would rather see you die than risk a dollar of their profit. Yea, that makes about as much sense as anything else you've ever said.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

And reading CW's absurd post, you know what's out there and going to the polls. So scary.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

I can see Russia from my house : )


 o
RE: Special Treatment

Sure is scary, isn't lily.

Elly, I wasn't sure, is it Russia that I'm seeing too from my house?


 o
RE: Special Treatment

How on earth does one just set up "panels" to determine who gets organ transplants without anyone noticing???? The only people who would believe such a thing are those who also believe the President was not born in the US.

As far as Cheney goes I believe that he got his transplant within the established protocols. I don't think he got any preferential treatment at all , his wait time seems to be well within the norms for a patient with his history and age.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

Citywoman,

The ability to get an organ transplant (like Cheney's heart transplant) is not decided on the basis of how old or how deserving the recipient is. It's all about the availability of the organs.

So we should all keep that in mind. If EVERYONE was a registered organ donor, then NO ONE would be waiting for an organ.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

My uncle is 79. About 10 years ago his kidneys failed. Back then, they told him he was too old for a kidney transplant.

-Ron-


 o
RE: Special Treatment

Ron, perhaps I stand corrected. I know there are limits for the very elderly on transplants. There is also the concern that some may not survive the operation.

When I was typing, I was thinking about the death panel story that retired people or those nearing retirement couldn't get transplants because it would be wasted on people who are no longer productive citizens. That is the part I was speaking of when saying it's not true.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

Good Insurance = Preference

"Most transplant teams, knowing that hearts are in huge demand, set an informal eligibility limit of 70.

Cheney is not the first person over 70 to get a heart transplant. He is, however, in a small group of people who have gotten one. Why did he?

Cheney has an advantage over others. It is not fame or his political prominence. It is money and top health insurance.

Heart transplants produce bills in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The drugs needed to keep these transplants working cost tens of thousands of dollars every year. Organ donations are sought from the rich and poor alike. But, if you do not have health insurance you are far less likely to be able to get evaluated for a heart transplant much less actually get a transplant.

The timing of Cheney's transplant is ethically ironic given that the battle over extending health insurance to all Americans reaches the Supreme Court this week.

If the President's health reform bill is deemed unconstitutional, those who are wealthy or who can easily raise money will continue to have greater access to heart, liver and other forms of transplantation than the uninsured and underinsured.

It is possible that Cheney was the only person waiting for a heart who was a good match in terms of the donor's size, blood type and other biological and geographical factors. If not, then some tough ethical questions need to be asked.

When all are asked to be organ donors, both rich and poor, shouldn't each one of us have a fair shot at getting a heart? And in a system in which donor hearts are very scarce, shouldn't the young, who are more likely to benefit both in terms of survival and years of life added, take precedence over the old?

Let's hope we get some answers to these tough questions as we watch both Cheney's recovery and the fate of health care legislation that is intended to minimize the advantages that the rich now have over the poor when it comes to proven life-saving treatments."

Here is a link that might be useful: Good Insurance Made them do it


 o
RE: Special Treatment

I agree that in the States good insurance is a factor and that does give him and others like him an advantage over many.

I was thinking like a Canadian who never has to think about the insurance angle.

However I still believe he was the appropriate (insured) patient to receive the heart. A lot goes into the decision of who the recipient will be when a heart becomes available, age of both donor and recipient, blood type, other matching criteria, health of the recipient and physical location of the donor and recipient. These things have to happen fairly quickly.

My sister was the transplant coordinator in Ontario for a period of time....it its a highly tuned operation that can match the correct recipient to donor in seconds....that'd when it all goes into high gear.....as our dear Joe and Edd know only too well.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

It is personal to you and I understand Chase, but in a situation of insurance in the US there can be a younger person but if they do not have good insurance and money to pay for the meds the money will win every time.

Minimum policy certainly would not have paid for a heart transplant. A Minimum policy can cost as much as a $1,000 a month if you have a pre-existing condition.

That is why we were fighting for Affordable Health Care. It is a matter of life and death but some just do not want life as you can see the fight here at HT.

Before the Affordable Health Care bill the insurance company could cut you off if they saw you would cost them money for serious health issues. My daughter had asthma and before she was out of law school I could not get insurance for her because she could only stay on my employment insurance after age 21.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Thu, Jul 5, 12 at 6:09

Money can't buy you love ... but lets not pretend that it can't buy anything else you want, including a new heart for Cheney.

And NO this is not spoken from envy, it is spoken as TRUTH. Lets not play pretend, tis boring in the extreme.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

money to pay for the meds

There is no sense giving an organ transplant to someone that can't handle the follow up - all the meds for the years that follow. You can see where that person would be rejected.

That's why folks without good insurance or perhaps without stable insurance would be rejected. Another shame that healthcare is tied to employment and the likelihood that you will keep your job.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

Marq it's not personal to me and I understand EXACTLY what you are saying. Transplants are not going to be available to those with basic or no insurance and that is just plain wrong!
That's why I said I believe he was the proper "INSURED" patient.

I don't know when Americans will come together and understand that universal health care is a basic human right just like education. You need single payer....and you need the cut the legs off those behemoth insurance companies.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

Interesting EDD claimed his heart was cumming up because every time Cheney was hospitalized with in a week of so EDD would be hospitalized. EDD had an angioplasty 2 or 3 days later you'd read about Cheney having an angioplasty. They were always neck & neck accept when it came to the vads. The Vad Cheney got was a different company & worked EDD's failed twice. Cheny was put on the same UNOS list EDD was on Just a different region and it's stats not names. & it's a list of factors an arms length long that need to match for the recipient to receive the organ least of which is blood type.
If anything Cheney's wait was about average you get to be on a 1 A status after the vad is implanted that status last only for a period of time.
The last time EDD was going down the tubes his doctor pushed for him to remain on 1 A status because of his previous 2 8 hour surgeries. The staff at the hospital tried to figure every way they could to present him in the end the only thing that counts are the stats.
To learn to start reading the UNOS columns is a feat in itself. For Region 9 NY Vermont there have only been 44 heart transplant's since January that's down form last year which was down from the previous year.
This factor could be that some folks have opted to turn down a transplant because they are doing well with a vad. I met a fellow from Georgia several months ago who turned down an opportunity for a transplant because his quality of life was so good on the vad. Unfortunately he had a bike accident which damaged the vad & he needed to be flown to NY
to be kept on a total artificial heart.

Chney looks to have followed all the same shoots & ladders as anyone else his length of time for his blood type seem about right. I don't know what other factors he had in terms of proteins that need to be matched.
In The end the current UNOS is a crap shoot & the threats to drop you from the wait are constant & real if you do not follow protocols.
get your calculator out & slide rule & figure the week to week stats which are still blind of many other little factors.
The only person who really is assured something may be coming their ways soon is someone who is 1 A E and that's a status no one waiting wants it means beyond critical. Withe very specific drugs being administered together that usually aren't.
If Clinton returns to NY Presbyterian fora transplant it is likely the same surgeon DrNAka who performed EDDS transplant will perform Clinton's. Dr Naka performs nearly all the LVAD & Heart Transplants at NY Columbia Pres.
A President or someone on disability no matter.

Here is a link that might be useful: STATS


 o
RE: Special Treatment

I have come to believe that it would be a true kindness to CW to simply ignore all future CW's responses or new threads. That is what I think I will attempt to do, at any rate.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

The other INSURANCE post topped out so instead of adding a part two I will answer it here....

"The better surgeon will be down the hall taking care of patients with insurance."

But aren't surgeons and doctors and nurses always unequal in skill and experience, regardless of private insurance or any other factor? Even in countries with universal health care, the rich hire their own care and of course they hire the best available, which means the less capable work for the masses.

If we look at through this analysis. We are now adding a new level

Top - Rich - Going to get the best regardless
Middle - Insured - Good and possibly the as good as the rich
Bottom - Uninsured - Roll of the dice

I think if you chose no insurance you will be perceived as not real concern whether you live or die. It goes to intent. It is not as vague about income when people say "Personal Responsibility". When you refuse to purchase health care under the new law it is going to look like you do not care to the medical profession.

Bottom is not where I would want to be when it concerns my health. Betting extra money I have is not a problem my health care I only one chance I have one no extra in that area.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

Ignorance is bliss & some posters are generally hysterically happy by those accounts.
I do know a private Insurance Company dropped EDD years ago after his first heart attack & just in the last 3 months he's had 3 government approved LVAD operations that probably came in somewhere around $1 Million.
This Heart transplant in 2007 went like this on average.

According to Transplant Living, the average total cost of a single heart transplant in 2007 was $658,800. This figure includes the cost of obtaining a donor heart, at an average of nearly $90,000, about $23,000 in evaluation fees, $40,000 for doctor's fees, $383,000 in hospital costs, $93,000 in post-operative care, and over $29,000 for immunosuppressive prescription medications. Transplants that involved both a heart and a lung cost an average of $874,800, while heart and kidney combination transplants cost an average of $758,700.

The first time we even thought about the cost about 5 years ago one of the directors at the Hospital laughed. Forget about it "Health Care is a Right" & my wife wouldn't be able to have one of these if we had to pay out of pocket & I bet he had good insurance as well as a nice little nest egg.

Still the original topic before the attempt to derail was about special treatment. EDD did manage to get in on a gene therapy trial only 38 people in the country were on it & it took him off the transplant list for over a year it did so well & it worked very rapidly the results were astounding if only good for that year. Cheney didn't get a slot in the study.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

Mylab, you have a point about Citywoman but at the same time I always think it is a good thing to know what the right wing is thinking. Who would have thought that the idea of secret death panels could have such legs.

CW did you realize that your idea of a sixth sense makes you sound like a crazy woman? Just saying because I dont believe for a moment that you believe in secret death panels but it is a good bit to sling so that the weak minded will stay fearful of our legally constituted government-anything to make the Obama administration look illegitimate. Since you seem to be civically impared I will point out that Obamacare did not come from the White House but from Congress which is where all legislation comes from in our system of government. Many Conservatives were intimately involved in hammering out the details of the law that passed to, I think, the detriment of the bill. Since in this case the process took a very long time any of our representatives who were interested had plenty of time to keep up with what was in the bill-that we did not get much of a chance to read the whole thing before it passed is not relevant since we are a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. We have hired people to make decisions for us. Decisons made by those representatives cant be thought of as being crammed down our throats. It is how our government works. If you dont like the system then you are free to work to change it. Maybe they have courses on Civics at your local community college?


 o
RE: Special Treatment

Many Conservatives were intimately involved in hammering out the details of the law that passed to, I think, the detriment of the bill. Since in this case the process took a very long time any of our representatives who were interested had plenty of time to keep up with what was in the bill-that we did not get much of a chance to read the whole thing before it passed is not relevant since we are a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC.

Of all the comments against the bill I think that "it is too big to read" and they did not know what was in it because it was so big.

Think about this. Many of them are Lawyers, at best all have higher education. I have never seen anyone get through college by only reading at a 3rd grade level and can only read" See Jane Run Size books." Can you imagine saying I cannot read a novel because it has to many pages at our age and we are not elected officials. That is their job is to read and understand what else do they have to do but read and vote.

That alone would piss me off if someone used that excuse why the bill is bad. How do they know it is bad if they still have not read the document?


 o
RE: Special Treatment

I agree marquest (and others that have said this). It is a poor and lazy excuse. These people have support staff as well. They could be reading parts of it and sharing it back with the legislator.

And I honestly say this to both sides of the aisle. We have elected you to do your best to represent us. Not understanding or even reading the bills is unacceptable.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

patriciae....you have some knowledge of Civics but I'm finding on this forum, some people have no understanding or knowledge of humor nor when anyone is being facetious.

"Republicans have a sixth sense about "hidden agendas" when it comes to the Democratic WH."

Of course Republicans don't have a "sixth sense".
Republicans have common sense.
I should have been more clear on my wording.

After Republicans have been shafted behind closed doors , it tends to make for skepticism.

Now...getting back to the tone of words from some posters.

Each poster should read their post in reference toremarks
to other posters before they hit the send button.

I do and I can't tell you how many times I delete comments that sound snarky or comments that might sound like a direct remark that might tend to make a poster feel belittled.
I have let some get by before and I felt bad about it later because no one deserves being made to look like they are not smart enough or savvy enough to submit an opinion.

I also understand this is a hot topic forum but should any poster feel more superior than another?

Does one's intelligence(and by who's measuring stick?) give one poster the right to grade and score another poster?


 o
RE: Special Treatment

Maybe when said poster makes no sense.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

CW, I didn't realize I was running late for a lunch date with DH and his working friend when I made the above reply - as I was leaving, I thought about how condescending they were. It was too late for me to come back and say so, as I was running too late already.

My apologies are extended, I do regret making them.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

Mylab, you CAN be a peach :)


 o
RE: Special Treatment

Mylab...this is the second time you have apologized to me on this forum and your remarks have been nothing compared to some directed from others.

I know this might be "too saccharin" for some , but I like to give credit when due.

Your respect for others and your sense of fairness clearly comes through on such a difficult means of trying to convey opinions.

I always read your posts and am always reminded of what makes a HT forum enjoyable.

I am not one of the smartest , well spoken, intelligent persons as others have pointed out and my beliefs sure aren't popular but my heart is good and to me that takes precedence over knowing "more than the other person."

Your apology made for a brighter day. Thank you.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

Remember the Mickey Mantle liver transplant controversy? I believe that anyone with a congenital organ malady should have preferential treatment over someone who has abused their body. That's not saying the latter shouldn't ever receive an organ.

I also understand this is a hot topic forum but should any poster feel more superior than another?

Yes, CW, some feel superior. They aren't, but have to pretend to be. That's the way people deal with their insecurity and low self-esteem. You don't need Psych 101 to figure that out.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

Okay, Okay. Lets not lay down into a "poor me bed". Many have said some things that may not have felt so good coming from someone. But as an adult and since this is a HT forum anything is subject to hurt your feelings. Because you cannot see facial expression and voice inflections no one can read your mind that you are joking.

It is not out of the realm of expectation if someone who would say "it is fact" many times and if someone ask for where are these facts? it should be taken of oh you insulted me? My feelings are hurt Boo Hoo.

If I say something and you do not understand or believe my fact you are welcome to ask if I have facts I promise you I will never whine that Oh my feelings are hurt.

You can call me dumb, correct typos or whatever. These things have been done and you have not seen others crying poor me. That is my feelings. Yep and I do not apologize for my feelings.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

Most times on these forums marquest...opinions are just that opinions..not fact.

You have stated your opinion many many many times without backing it up by fact.

Most "facts" are just someone elses opinion.
Everything is not a fact because the "wording" of a so called fact, can be construed in relation to ones mindset.

Also I don't think anyone on this forum is a cry baby.
Some people on this forum want to be treated with common decency and not have to be subjected to verbal abuse.

I think everyone on this forum deserves that common decency.
I hope I never get to the point I could care less if I make another person feel belittled just because they are anonymous.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

Most "facts" are just someone elses opinion.
Everything is not a fact because the "wording" of a so called fact, can be construed in relation to ones mindset.

You are right CW opinions are not facts but there is a large difference between an opinion based on nothing and an informed opinion based on facts.

The problem comes when someone does provide links with information and / or someone debunks misinformation with varified facts, and it all gets ignored.

Of course Republicans don't have a "sixth sense".
Republicans have common sense

That is an example of an opinion since anyone with common sense knows that just because one decides to support a particular political party it doesn't automatically give them common sense. Unless of course you would like to point us to where it is shown to be fact.

You have stated your opinion many many many times without backing it up by fact. isn't an informed opinion either since it is easy to pull up past posts where Marquest has provided links providing facts to back up her opinion. It was posted simply to insult and belittle.

Which is why I can't help but feel the insincereity of this:

Each poster should read their post in reference toremarks
to other posters before they hit the send button.
I do and I can't tell you how many times I delete comments that sound snarky or comments that might sound like a direct remark that might tend to make a poster feel belittled.

You loose any credibility when you post those words while demonstrating the opposite. You can't tell us you delete your snarky comments when they are right there in black and white. In the future you should heed your own words before you lecture others.



 o
RE: Special Treatment

CW, if I were you, I would give it a rest.

;-D


 o
RE: Special Treatment

I know elvis :)
I'm just gonna take my lil ole pea-picking heart to Walmart.

Really :)


 o
RE: Special Treatment

Anyway it would help to read UNOS web page about how organs are allocated. When all else fails follow the facts since they decide who will & who wont they get to decide what the fact are.

The person who is sickest & compliant(in this country gets it ) & the best match of a lot of factors gets it PERIOD!

We have a suggestion for a morals death panel based on Housefuls comment or am I reading that wrong?
Who would be on the panel to determine in a short period of time that an organ is available. Whose qualified to moralize about your past.... !

Currently if you have a problem taking your medications you can be bounced from a transplant list, if you smoke you will not get lungs, if you appear to have a drinking problem or take drugs you will not get anything as it is assumed you will not be able to maintain the strict requirements for post op care. You are submitting blood works almost twice a week if not more often, so they get an idea of what kind of lifestyle you lead.
If you have certain diseases no transplant as immune suppression drugs will make them spread like wildfire.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

Citywoman I give an opinion but unlike you I do not say it is fact. You love to say "That is a fact" refuse to post your fact filled info but now people are suppose to feel sorry because you do not have facts and you want a pity party.

You made some ugly racial remarks and started a special post looking for a pity party.

I think everyone on this forum deserves that common decency.

I hope I never get to the point I could care less if I make another person feel belittled just because they are anonymous.

Keep hoping you have not made that hope come true yet. You should think of that next time you feel like sharing your racial comments. I have friends of color and nationality and I find it offensive. There are all races on this board too. Try respecting them before you make your I am not smart pity me bed.

Remember you will get what you give. Common decency will get common decency.

Yes take elvis advice and give it up.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

What a jerk.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

Citywoman-when one of your statements lays an egg I have noticed you then pass it off as a joke-are we to take all your posts as attempts at comedy? Please give us a smiley face or something to go by so those of us with no sense of humor wont be left guessing...it would be a simple courtesy ;)


 o
RE: Special Treatment

What a jerk.

elvis, I do not agree you should call CW a jerk. My opinion is she should get an apology for that comment.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

lol, Marquest...

CW :here's an OPINION. "Republicans have common sense", you say. How do you explain Herman Cain , Newty, Santorum, Trump, Perry, and Bachmann?


 o
RE: Special Treatment

Lily, it is impossible to explain the inexplicable. The only possible explanation is "Awwwww, shucky ducky now!!!"


 o
RE: Special Treatment

I have a feeling that sensitivity training was the brain-child of the libs. Seems that none of them are ever willing to take any classes though.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

Bravo, Marquest, Lily, Frank, House--I like your funny side--brings out the best in all of you, I think.

Patricae: That's a great idea, I hope CW takes you up on it.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

elvis. I did not see your name added to the "Bravo" I will give you a thumbs up if you feel to modest to add yourself to the list.

In your opinion has your comments brought out the best in you? I am curious.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

Sometimes. Participating here on HT has had a huge positive impact on my life. It may not show here (sorry! maybe you are my teachers in a way), but it sure has made me think about a lot of habits, mannerisms, I could go on and on--but don't worry; I won't.

You asked!


 o
RE: Special Treatment

Joe, it wasn't a heart but are are people who have gotten other organ transplants - are all transplant approvals basically determined on the same basic criteria?

I ask because I've heard of famous people who had addiction problems with drugs/alcohol perhaps both who have been given liver organ transplants, I'm thinking specifically of David Crosby and Greg Allman .

I couldn't understand how that could be when there must have been others on the list who had not abused drugs?

Perhaps because livers are easier to come by and doesn't have to come from a desceased person in the first place , they are much more widely available and therefore doesn't really exist a waiting list?

That is the only thing that makes sense to me.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

I had this site in my favorites because it covered so many health issues .

I had forgotten it would also have info on organ transplants.

Very interesting and it covered some of the questions some had.

www.thehastingscenter.org/publications/briefingbook/detail.aspx?id2198

Sorry, I can't do links.
If someone wants to submit the link I would appreciate it.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

How long was David Crosby sober when he got the transplant? Again you are constantly being tested for all manner of things just as a course of treatment. Your personal Dr may look the other way but your data is submitted to a hospital panel which is reviewing raw data not connected to a name or face & that data is submitted to UNOS. In 1999 UNOS changed it's practice policies on livers to the sickest recipients go first.
Liver transplants are based on MELD scores & how that works I haven't a clue it's hard enough following the factors for heart. AGAIN it has to be a match and blood type is just the start.

When we started out on our journey one of the first things we learned would be what would exclude EDD from transplant.
Do you have now or have you had cancer, are you HIV positive, do you have any chronic infections like hepatitis C, do you iuse recreational drugs & what are your drinking habits. Each time not 1 but a team told us as you get sicker you will think I can't get any sicker than this "oh yes you can & oh yes you will" by the time most you get your transplant your ejection fraction will be so low you may find it hard to simply walk across a room (this was before the explosion of LVADS on the scene) You will have had other organs start to fail, you will ahev lost a tremndous amount of weight if you are heavy & survive to this point. You will be having your blood drawn almost 3 times a week to maintain clotting & thinning (if we notice illicit drugs in your system or see the evidence of alcohol abuse you will be eliminated from the waiting list as we feel that it would be a waste of an organ.
We were questioned about our social connections & who would be a back up for me post transplant. We were told matter of factly that people who tended to be loners would have no one to take them to Doctors appointments as they got sicker or no one to fall back on post transplant & they had a less than favorable shot at recovery & this didn't guarantee they would be excluded but it weighed heavily. Wehad to sign documents saying we would follow the protocols set down for us. Dr's felt very free to use the term "your lack of compliance may threaten your standing in an evaluation"
In other words do as I say & don't balk at what I'm suggesting.
There are people constantly calculating factors a yard long & submitting them over & over & then the final factor your antibody tests towards certain proteins. How great a factor will rejection be with regard to the organ available. What good is the right blood type if it has other factors that they know already that your body will reject.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Fri, Jul 6, 12 at 16:50

Funny how the recent snark/nastiness that has been thrown at me (which I choose to ignore) has not come out of "left" field.

I knew a young man who tested positive for marijuana, he was removed from the kidney donor list (or whatever they call it) and had to do a year of drug (?) therapy and then I guess probation and testing. Lost contact with him, so I do not know if he ever got his kidney. He was only 19 years old at the time. Another friend we buried this past Christmas, her wait for a kidney ran out on her.

My brother needed, not an organ, but a bone marrow transplant ... neither my sister or I matched him ... so they got a total stranger, he was gone within 6 months.

We sure do fight to live don't we? Makes me wonder how many truly are looking forward to "the rapture".

Guess I better duck and run now ...


 o
RE: Special Treatment

You never know what will happen when you are waiting for an organ. There's a local family here in town wherein the wife needed a kidney. Family was tested, and lo and behold, her husband was a suitable match. She's still going strong and I'll bet it's been 10 years now (he's fine, too).

You never know.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

When you are sitting in a very large medical center a nurse could be any nurse comes draws your blood & is gone those results are in a computer often for a number of days before your primary cardiologist gets to see them. During those days other tests are being taken for other factors again people who you will never meet have no idea about your need your family if your famous or not famous are looking at tubes with factors & proteins & enzymes assaying data. The data is being added to a growing portrait of need & qualifications. When the window of opportunity for a harvested organ is only hours the pandemonium is extreme as as 7 & 8 vials are drawn urine is taken rushed to lab while the organ waits.
The organ donors blood is also being screened the people try to make it look calm but the loner it takes the more hysterical they can get.

The idea that you have a single doctor DR OZ who can go speak to who? A National board and say I gotta guy here he's a good buddy give him a heart a lung a liver is again a fantasy that cannot take into account the day after day process that involves hundreds of people most of whom will never meet.
People are dying people are developing other disease that are disqualifying them people are having lifestyle problems that will disqualify them. When EDD first started it was assumed if you were over 70 you could not get a heart transplant as you would probably have other factors that would disqualify you. 10 years ago if you were over 65 they simply said we are sorry there is nothing we can do for you.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

You and Edd have had a very rough road to walk, I am so very glad for you both that the transplant day finally came. I look forward to future pictures of your Edd as he physically improves and begins to actually feel good for a change! Perhaps one of these days there will be another picture of you both at a NYC parade for us to enjoy!

Ohiomom, for the record, you are on my list of "greatly admired" forum members. I can't understand why people would take issue with you - especially when you come from what I think is a most interesting and more unique perspective.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

Funny how the recent snark/nastiness that has been thrown at me (which I choose to ignore) has not come out of "left" field.

Don't forget the anti-OWS snark that was circulating in HT.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

I got an answer from one of the doctors regarding substance or alcohol abuse or use in general 3 months of clean tests are necessary to even been considered to be put on the list.
Indications of abuse while on the list will get you bounced from the list.
hey I would have been bounced from EDD's list 20 years ago for smoking in order to even go out with him I had to be a non smoker.
Here's where appearance health can hide a problem. His first heart attack in his 30's he went to Cedar Sinai in LA emergency room complaining of shortness of breath &n chest pains. Vegetarian, no drugs, no booze, non smoker go home guy, look at you your a weight lifter a dancer they told him he probably had indigestion after an EKG showed no problems in fact EKG's missed nearly 50% of heart attacks years ago,
Today a simple enzyme test can tell an emergency room that your having or have just had a heart attack elevated creatin kinase MB is a good indicator of a problem.
Previous to 1995 people presenting in emergency rooms might have an EKG which might tell them of a heart attack. Often they were kept for observation & run through a battery of tests to rule out a multiple of problems. If the coronary unit was full they may just have been sent home. The old story walked out of the hospital & dropped dead. Went home went to bed didn't wake up.

My family is big on miracles holy water, novenas, (while there are spontaneous remissions in many disease Chronic end stage congestive heart failure isn't one of them)
It follows a course & it is down.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

Heart attack in his 30's with a clean lifestyle should have put him first on the list!


 o
RE: Special Treatment

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Sat, Jul 7, 12 at 9:00

Why thank you Mylab .. there are days that I get so discouraged, mostly because of the partisan divide among us.

We actually have a two headed party in this country that benefits from the divide among "we the people".

I have a dream....


 o
RE: Special Treatment

I disagree Houseful chronic end stage heart failure should put someone on the list & it takes awhile from the first heart attack to chronic end stage heart failure.
Gambling for a better life with a new organ should be a last resort for turning off someones immune system which needs to be done for a heart transplant. Perhaps one day that will be remedied but for right now he will wear a mask oustide for the first month or so home will be prey to many opportunistic infections due to the anti rejection drugs.
For lifestyles anyone who eats red meat should be excluded

Carnivore's dilemma: Eating meat ups the risk of cardiovascular and cancer mortality
MARCH 12, 2012 Michael O'Riordan
inShare

Boston, MA - Long-term data from two large studies might have more people considering a switch to vegetarianism, with investigators reporting results showing that processed and unprocessed meat consumption is associated with a significantly increased risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, as well as increased risk of death from cancer [1]. After adjustment for multiple risk factors, eating one additional serving of meat daily was associated with a 16% increase in the risk of cardiovascular mortality and a 10% increased risk of death from cancer.

"I think the overall message is that we should reduce our meat consumption and for processed meats we should definitely try to avoid or eliminate these from the diet," lead investigator Dr An Pan (Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA) told heartwire. "For unprocessed red meat, most people should reduce the amount consumed to less than three servings per week and to replace these servings with fish, poultry, and healthy whole grains. The problem with the US diet is that a lot of people eat more than one and sometimes more than two servings of red meat per day. That's a lot."

To Dr Dean Ornish (Preventive Medicine Research Institute, Sausalito, CA), who wrote an accompanying comment on the study [2], there is an emerging consensus among nutritionists as to what constitutes a healthy diet. Individuals should aim to eat little to no red meat, more good carbohydrates such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, and soy and fewer simple and refined carbohydrates, and more healthy fatty acids. In other words, "more quality, less quantity," he writes. Such a diet would go a long way toward treating the health crisis in the US, as well as reducing global warming and energy consumption.

"At a time when 20% of people in the US go to bed hungry each night and almost 50% of the world's population is malnourished, choosing to eat more plant-based foods and less red meat is better for all of us��"ourselves, our loved ones, and our planet," writes Ornish. "In short, don't have a cow!"

The study and editorial are published online March 12, 2012 in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

Long-term follow-up from HPFS and NHS

Previous epidemiological studies have shown that eating meat, particularly red meat, is associated with an increased risk of diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke, and some types of cancers, including colorectal cancer. With these risks, the researchers sought to determine whether eating red meat was associated with an increased risk of death from cardiovascular causes or cancer using data from 37 698 men from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS) and 83 644 women from the Nurses' Health Study (NHS).

In total, 8926 deaths, including 2716 deaths from cardiovascular causes and 3073 cancer deaths, were reported in follow-up of 22 years in the HPFS. In the NHS, with 28 years of follow-up, there were 15 000 deaths, including 3194 from cardiovascular causes and 6391 deaths from cancer. Overall, men and women who ate more red meat were less likely to be physically active and more likely to be current smokers as well as more likely to drink alcohol and have a higher body-mass index (BMI). Higher intake of red meat was also associated with eating more calories but with reduced intakes of grains, fruits, and vegetables, as well as lower intakes of fish and poultry.

Overall, eating processed and unprocessed red meat was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and cancer mortality in men and women in risk models that adjusted for age and multiple risk factors, including physical activity, BMI, and smoking status, among others. When red-meat intake was treated as a continuous variable, each additional serving of red meat was associated with a significant 12%, 16%, and 10% increased risk of all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality.

Mortality according to red-meat intake* in HPFS and NHS

Variable
Quintile
(Q) 1
Q2, HR (95% CI)
Q3, HR (95% CI)
Q4, HR (95% CI)
Q5, HR (95% CI)
p for trend
HR (95% CI) for each 1-serving/day increase
All-cause mortality, total red meat
1 (reference)
1.10 (1.05)
1.15 (1.06-1.26)
1.21 (1.14-1.28)
1.30 (1.18-1.43)
<0.001
1.12 (1.09-1.15)
All-cause mortality, unprocessed red meat
1 (reference)
1.08 (1.05-1.12)
1.10 (1.03-1.17)
1.15 (1.05-1.25)
1.23 (1.14-1.34)
<0.001
1.13 (1.07-1.20)
All-cause mortality, processed red meat
1 (reference)
1.05 (1.00-1.09)
1.11 (1.04-1.18)
1.15 (1.11-1.20)
1.32 (1.16-1.30)
<0.001
1.20 (1.15-1.24)
Cardiovascular mortality, total red meat
1 (reference)
1.12 (1.03-1.22)
1.13 (1.04-1.24)
1.23 (1.13-1.34)
1.40 (1.29-1.53)
<0.001
1.16 (1.12-1.20)
Cancer mortality
1 (reference)
1.05 (0.98-1.12)
1.09 (1.02-1.16)
1.16 (1.08-1.24)
1.19 (1.11-1.28)
<0.001
1.10 (1.07-1.13)
*Red meat consumption in Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, and Q4 was 0.22, 0.62, 1.01, 1.47, and 2.36 servings per day in the HPFS and 0.53, 1.04, 1.52, 2.01, and 3.10 servings per day in NHS
The researchers also performed a "replacement analysis," reporting on the reduction in mortality risk if one serving of red meat was replaced with healthier options. Replacing one serving of red meat with fish, poultry, nuts, legumes, low-fat dairy products, or whole grains was associated with a 7%, 14%, 19%, 10%, 10%, and 14% lower risk of total mortality, respectively. The group estimated that nearly one in 10 deaths in men and 7.6% of deaths in women could be prevented if the population consumed fewer than 0.5 servings of red meat per day.

"We are not telling people to totally eliminate red meat," Pan told heartwire. "That's not possible for a lot of people. Instead, we'd like them to try to replace red meat with other healthier options. We don't want everybody to be a vegetarian."

For Ornish, the substitution analysis also confirms the relative importance of what is included in the diet. Plant-based foods, he notes, are high in phytochemicals, bioflavonoids, and other protective substances, and individuals have a whole range of healthy food options available to them when reducing or eliminating red meat from their diets.

To heartwire, Pan said there are several possible reasons for the increased risk of death with red-meat consumption, most notably that red meat contains saturated fat and cholesterol. Adjusting for saturated fat and cholesterol attenuated the risk of mortality in their analysis but did not eliminate it, suggesting other factors might mediate the increased risk. Heme iron, primarily from red meat, has previously been associated with an increased risk of MI and fatal coronary heart disease. Adjusting for heme iron in this analysis moderately attenuated the risk of death, suggesting heme-iron intake might partially explain the association between red meat and cardiovascular mortality. High cooking temperatures might also create possible carcinogens, which might partially explain the cancer risk, say researchers.
Edd came form an eastern Kentucky diet that if it moved or didn't move you could fry it in lard. His arteries were well on their way to a death spiral by the time he moved to LA and became a dancer & fitness fiend.

Here is a link that might be useful: healthy heart


 o
RE: Special Treatment

Most "facts" are just someone elses opinion.

What?


 o
RE: Special Treatment

jill is this a fact or is this an opinion.

jill is always quick to jump in a post to be snarky.

That seems to be a fact AND my opinion.


 o
RE: Special Treatment

If pointing out that you make no sense is snarky, so be it...

If you'd like to explain what that means, go right ahead.

Not that I expect you will because there is no explanation. Or is it that it was your attempt at humor again?


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here