General News Teenager Denied Heart Transplant Over 'Noncompliance'

Its not. Its terrible.

 

Are you shitting me?

 

No just the USA

 

I'm no medical expert, but does "noncompliance" mean differently in medical legality?

PS. does the news even say everything or omit things?
Is there bias I'm not seeing?

 

The choice of wording is very poor - 'noncompliance' is doomed to make people feel outraged over this.

However I do see exactly where the hospital is coming from. Let's say they have 100 people waiting for a heart transplant and they get maybe 10 heart donations a year (I don't know the actual numbers but I know it is much less than the number that need them). They can't give them to everyone; realistically they have to give them to the people with the greatest chance of success. If the hospital is correct in saying that he has a history of not undergoing his treatment correctly, then that immediately puts him at a low chance of success. If I was the person deciding who gets the very limited supply of transplants, then I too would be apprehensive in selecting someone with a history of not following their treatment.

What seems to be the issue is whether he actually does have a history of not following treatment, because the hospital says he does while he and his family say he doesn't.

 

Makes sense to me.

 

I agree. It isn't that irrational.

 

Heart transplants, or any transplants, require a lifetime of taking drugs to suppress the immune system so that it does not recognize and destroy the non-self part that has been grafted on.

There has been a shift away from the word "compliance", which has almost dictatorial connotations to "adherence". In this context, the use of "noncompliance" is an especially unfortunate use of the term.

Given the choice between someone who will adhere to a strict drug regimen or not...well, it makes a difficult decision easier to justify, but I hasten to agree: how do they come up with an answer as to whether a patient will be "compliant"? Seems to me, if my life were on the line, and this pill is all that's keeping me alive, I'd be a little more "compliant"...

 

I would also like to add that this is not true. Even though I wouldn't be surprised if the US was the most selective, all countries have transplant regulations and priority. You can't tell me that in the UK they are going to prioritize a prison inmate and a polite teenage girl on the same level.

It sad, but the reality is that the very fact that there is a transplant waiting list in the hospitals of every country in the world should explain it. Organs don't grow on trees. There are millions of wonderful people that die without transplants every year worldwide. Its not like the hospital is choosing let him die. Everyone simply cannot get one.

 

slightly off topic, isn't this the point of stem cell research or other similar researches whose technical term(s) I forget

 

The great tragedy and moral outrage should be directed to a system that is failing to meet the needs of desperately ill patients. A situation that in itself forces these tragic decisions.

In Sweden, you must deliberately opt out of being an organ donor if you die in an accident; as opposed to being given the option of being a donor, as in most jurisdictions, this has made a world of difference!

 

Nah, you don't have to delete it. You learned something new today? :3

 

Further down the line; not in our generation, I'm sure. I wasn't knocking the idea though. It will be a great day once we can recreate organs in the same fashion as they are naturally found at the drop of a dime, but until that day comes we have to prioritize.

I mean, I'm a psychologist at heart. I know this guy would probably been a great person if he had the right people and influences around him; but this is not a perfect world and we have to be realistic. Especially, for a heart transplant; those are the diamonds of organs.

No, you were definitely justified with your response. I'll admit when I first looked at this I would have pulled out my pitchforks right with you. Though after reading the other responses and bringing myself back down to reality, I had to agree with them. Its tragic, but its just one of those things.

 

I face the same issue. The doctor tells me that because I have refused some treatments they consider me non-compliant. She says that if I need a kidney or heart transplant my history of non-compliance could keep me off the list. In other words you have to do every little thing they tell you to do regardless of how you feel about it.

 

<rant>

Doctor's never tell someone they have 3 months, or 6 months, 2 years to live. They don't know, and they can't know. There are expected survival rates, as in 25% of people in this condition live longer than 6 months. That is what he would been given and that what should have reported.

To do differently is just an attempt to play on peoples emotions and stir the pot. On top of that the article is completely lacking in details. What is noncompliance, how is it determined, is their an appeals process. To report that is to provide the full story and allows me to make an objective informed opinion on the situation.

To do differently is just irresponsible journalism. Now this kid has already gotten a raw deal by having a bum ticker and is facing death at 15. That is tragic, plain and simple.

To take this tragedy and sensationalize it to make a quick buck just a shitty thing to do, and does the kid a major disservice.
</rant>