Kidneys are at a premium and should only be offered to patients with a best chance of survival. Post transplantation patients are immunosuppressed and are easy victims to non immunised infections, they would be a sitting duck for Covid. Seems reasonable to me.
Idiotic woman. She is very lucky to be on the list in the first place. What's her problem? getting a vaccine has a minimal risk of death or illness compared with renal failure. Good Grief !
yes sqad makes a very good point about the immunosuppressants. If you need a kidney transplant you'd have to be completely radio rental to forgo it out of some misguided anti vaxxer stance. BA for for sqad. Don't thank me!
i would imagine there are already lots and lots of conditions paced on being a donor or recipient, and loads that are medical in nature. Therefore it's no more thin end of wedge than any others, surely?
Hmm, I suspect there is more to this story. It's the US I'd have thought just on vaccine alone they could be in for a very heavy legal fight. And remember in the US just fighting is expensive, even if you loose, especially as it wouldn't surprise me if some 'pro bono' legal eagle did it for free just to try make a name for themselves.
Horrendous. Nobody should be threatened with their life, to do what the government says, rightly or wrongly.
Maybe, it would be a good idea for her- but, in any case, the right to life should be equal. We give paedophiles transplants.... but reject people scared of new vaccines?
Sickening.
i would imagine Pixie that it's a pre-requisite for an organ transplant to have several medical things happen in order to give the organ the best chance of giving the recipient extra life, i dont see how this is any different. After all a kidney transplant is elective surgery. it's no different from saying a liver recipient cant drink if they are staying on the list
At some point we have to accept that healthcare can no longer be free without conditions, if those conditions directly impact on outcomes. It's something that if the US does we may follow but the we should be doing more of.. No different to asking a patient to give up smoking before lung surgery, or lose weight before you can have your knee replacement. It makes sense in terms of avoiding ongoing healthcare costs in terms of repeat treatments and morbidity post proceedure.
Yes, I know, bednobs- except, there is obviously no guarantee with vaccines...
It does need to be decided who would benefit most.
But, it also bothers me, that physically, we would put serial killers, paedophiles, rapists, murderers... as a priority over an anti-vaxxer or alcoholic, who has never harmed anyone else.
If we are going with "priority", which we have to... that can't be right.
Bednobs, stomach staples, or IVF, is purely about effectiveness for that person
Transplants are limited, due to competition and shortages. And out of everyone I think should be ruled out.... daftness wouldn't come into it.
Pixie, to receive a kidney from someone kind enough to be on the donor register comes with a duty to protect that kidney and give it every chance of lasting.
MrG was unable to have a transplant for many years as there was a danger that the antibodies that destroyed his own kidneys would attack the new kidney.
He received an experimental transplant of a damaged kidney, that couldn't be given to anyone with a better chance of it working.
She has every right to refuse a vaccine but no right to expect a donated kidney that may be wasted by her actions.
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.