Cystic Fibrosis sufferer was given lungs from a heavy smoker

[dimity_blue]

This article is on the BBC website.Basically, the lady in question was given the transplant, then, 10 months later, they discovered a malignant mass in her lungs. She died 16 months after her operation. At no time previous to the operation was she or her family told the lungs were from a heavy smoker

Comments

[kittenmommy]

The incompetence here is staggering. I can't even.

[dimity_blue]

I'm still just astounded that anyone thought it was a good idea...let alone that a *group* of people (doctors too!) thought it was good.

[kittenmommy]

Yeah, I just can't wrap my head around it.

[cat63]

I am gobsmacked that anybody thought it was a good idea to use a heavy smoker's lungs for a transplant. That poor woman :(

[quiet000001]

Seriously. Don't they screen things somehow? (I don't actually have a donor card because with the various medications I take, I figure my organs wouldn't be good to put in someone else anyhow. But I was thinking of changing it on the theory that they'd probably find out medical history stuff and then decide if the specific thing they wanted was useful - but perhaps not.)

[cat63]

Don't they screen things somehow?

Well they do, but apparently "smokes like an industrial chimney" isn't one of the things they screen for. [facepalm]

You'd think that'd be a glaringly obvious contra-indicator really.....

[quiet000001]

I can kind of understand the argument of not wanting to limit potential donors too much, because it's hard enough to find a match as it is, but it seems like it really shouldn't be THAT hard to have some kind of system to minimize risks. Like, we know smoking is associated with an increased risk of specific types of cancers in particular, so perhaps donors with a history of heavy smoking would be considered a viable source for some organs, but not others.

And obviously they completely dropped the ball on the whole informed consent concept. Someone might well be happy to have any lungs, even from a pack-a-day smoker - but it should be their choice to take the risk. (Plus, if they're aware there MIGHT be an issue then they're far more likely to stay on top of any weird symptoms that might arise, which would mean if something like cancer did develop it'd have a better chance of being caught in the early stages when perhaps something could be done about it.)

[4o5pastmidnight]

Pardon my language, but that is one of the fucking stupidest medical decisions I have ever heard of. I sincerely hope her family sues.

[dimity_blue]

I hope so too - at least, I hope they win if they decide to sue. It just boggles my mind that anyone thought it was a good idea, and then to not even give her the choice by not telling her about the donor being a heavy smoker!

[lilacsigil]

I have seen stories of people getting poorer quality organs because it's that or death, but that was an informed decision and this is obviously not the case for this poor patient.

I'm banned from donating organs because I had a malignant tumour - even though the chances of it re-appearing in a recipient are very low - so I find it quite astonishing that they would implant lungs at such a high risk of already having a growth.

[dimity_blue]

I think part of the problem with it is that the patient has to go on immuno-suppressant drugs, so even their own immune system can't fight something like that. :o(

[lilacsigil]

Yeah, exactly. If my organs are not suitable for donation, despite the fact that my particular cancer never spreads below the diaphragm even in the worst cases, why on earth would the lungs of a heavy smoker be suitable?

[sammason]

This makes perfect sense, natch {sarcasm}. Any man who's ever 'had sex' (whatever that means) with another man can't donate blood here in Britain (unless the law's changed now). Of course normal people don't want blood from poofs. Of course it would give them AIDS.

But when the donor smokes like a chimney, we can't discriminate can we?

[dimity_blue]

I didn't know that law was still in place. It might well be, but considering AIDS can be spread by het sex as well, it seems a bit stupid to me.

Another thing that struck me, re-reading the article, was this:

"It is very rare for patients to specify that they do not wish to be considered for clinically healthy lungs from smokers."

Uh, maybe because it doesn't occur to the patients that you'd *use* lungs from smokers?!

[fallconsmate]

i dont know if the law has changed here in the US, but i was denied the right to donate blood because my first husband had anonymous sex with men in the 80's. i do not have any diseases from his actions, HE lucked out and does not have any diseases from his actions.

but i'm banned. oh yes, and because he's a universal donor, he LIES about his activities so he can still be a hero by donating blood.

[dimity_blue]

That's just... Good grief.

No wonder he's your ex. What a louse. :o(