It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Soldier dies after receiving smoker's lungs in transplant

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   


LONDON, England (CNN) -- A leading UK hospital has defended its practice of using organs donated by smokers after the death of a soldier who received the cancerous lungs of a heavy smoker.




A close up X-ray view of a cigarette smoker's lungs.
Corporal Matthew Millington, 31, died at his home in 2008, less than a year after receiving a transplant that was supposed to save his life at Papworth Hospital -- the UK's largest specialist cardiothoracic hospital, in Cambridgeshire, east England.


click here for link to full article

(Edited to repair broken link)

[edit on 12-10-2009 by Scooby Doo]




posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Wow. I can't even express how much that sucks. I mean he DID get an extra year out of the deal, but geez. What a sad story. I just can't believe the Uk would give out cancerous lungs as transplants.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by KSPigpen
Wow. I can't even express how much that sucks. I mean he DID get an extra year out of the deal, but geez. What a sad story. I just can't believe the Uk would give out cancerous lungs as transplants.


Yeah, it's shocking. I can't believe they did that either.
Especially the fact that they new the organs were from a donor who was believed to have smoked 30 to 50 roll-up cigarettes a day.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Scooby Doo
 


And they are actually defending the practice...makes me wonder if we get to look forward to the same....and why even BOTHER with that....and for a soldier. It really bums me out because I read about an artificial lung they created a few months back and used it for a guy on a long plane ride. I know it's creepy as all get out, but I hope we can come up with some usable 'attachments' like that soon.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Well, it says pretty plainly in the article that the cancerous tumor was simply missed (which is very possible if it was small, tumors can be microscopic for years). It also explains that the tumor was prodded into a faster growth curve by the immuno-suppressive drugs the patient was a taking, which is a requirement for ANY transplant case.

I think it's a big silly to think that doctors anywhere are actively implanting known cancerous organs, as someone above seemed to suggest. Smoking raises the risk of cancer, absolutely, but it isn't like an on/off switch for cancer. For all intents and purposes, the lungs seemed to be healthier and more functional than the patient's completely non-functional set, so the organs were accepted.

You must also take into account the VERY short time period pathologists have to examine the organs before they are rushed off for transplantation, often on the order of hours. Some of the more sensitive and accurate techniques simply can't be done within the time-frame of a transplant (which typically must be performed within the day, leaving only a few hours each for excision, examination, transportation, and implantation).



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   
How pointless - he had to go through all that surgery to get cancerous lungs, which they obviously knew about beforehand.

That is so sad.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by spellbound
How pointless - he had to go through all that surgery to get cancerous lungs, which they obviously knew about beforehand.

That is so sad.


Can you point to the bit in the article where they indicate that the doctors "knew beforehand" that the lungs were cancerous?

[edit on 10/13/2009 by VneZonyDostupa]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Can you point to the bit in the article where they indicate that the doctors "knew beforehand" that the lungs were cancerous?


It did say this however:



The statement added that the hospital had no option but to use lungs from smokers as "the number of lung transplants carried out would have been significantly lower," if they didn't.


That indicates that they knew how high the chances that of the Lungs containing cancerous cells were high. This tops it off even more:



Tests found that he had received the lungs of a donor who smoked up to 50 cigarettes a day, the inquest at North Staffordshire coroner's court heard.


(Edited Typo's)



[edit on 13-10-2009 by Scooby Doo]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


yea i think they knew,and said "well its not that black" its not hard to see the difference between a healthy lung and a cancerous lung...




posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


one would asume that the donor in question had undergone checkup for the so called organ that was being donated like blood type, drinker, smoker, diseases in family tree, his/her own diseases you know basic stuff
secondly one wuold asume that they clean the organ/s before they assemble them back to the organ reciver

or is it just an attempt to look "socializes medicine" look bad,

well to quote Cnn .


The statement added that the hospital had no option but to use lungs from smokers as "the number of lung transplants carried out would have been significantly lower," if they didn't.


besides one can always start to speculate as to why the patient needed two new lungs in the first place...........



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


The donator was a heavy smoker - I always understood that when donating organs, you had to fill in all your habits.

And they knew he was a heavy smoker, so why even try to transplant those lungs?



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Socialist medicine at its finest. If only he could have afforded private insurance, or a trip to the US to receive healthy lungs...



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by stevegmu
 


well since he was a soldier and asuming he got his lungs trashed in a war , other wise the mention is pointless, private insurance dont cover that and he would have been at the mercy of any " medical care" the goverment would have given him...



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:47 AM
link   
To all those above responding to me (too many to list one by one):

Of course they knew he was a smoker. Smoking does not remove one from the donor list, not even in America in all instances. Smoking, even heavily, does not give you a 100%, or even 50% chance, of developing lung cancer.

The fact of the matter is, organ transplant procedures have to be quick and efficient. I can tell you from personal experience that it can be VERY difficult to differentiate a cancerous lung from a noncancerous, even when holding them in your hands, if the tumor is microscopic or otherwise early in development.

These doctors have absolutely no reason to inflict harm on their patients by implanting cancerous organs. Unlike America, they are not paid a massive amount more per procedure. They simply missed a cancer, which is incredibly unfortunate and heart-wrenching. It's a human error, and an understandable one at that, if you have ever been in a surgical transplant situation.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by spellbound
How pointless - he had to go through all that surgery to get cancerous lungs, which they obviously knew about beforehand.

That is so sad.


They didnt know about it.

The radiographer simply missed the cancerous growth when the lungs were being screened for tumours and other abnormalities. I know its a terrible thing to miss, but they did not intentionally give him cancerous lungs.

Anyway, after their stuff up, they should have given him a new set, its completely disgraceful that they didnt.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by zerbot565
reply to post by stevegmu
 


well since he was a soldier and asuming he got his lungs trashed in a war , other wise the mention is pointless, private insurance dont cover that and he would have been at the mercy of any " medical care" the goverment would have given him...


He did not get his lungs "trashed" in war, he had a rare degenerative disease which causes the lungs to not function.

Gee some people are heartless



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


Yes, but why take a smoker's lungs to transplant.

It is a shame on the world that no-one cares about their soldiers, those people who have battled to defend their country.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by spellbound
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


Yes, but why take a smoker's lungs to transplant.

It is a shame on the world that no-one cares about their soldiers, those people who have battled to defend their country.


Like I said in a previous post

All organs are screened for possible abnormalities prior to them being donated. The radiographer missed the tumour in this case...and while he shouldve been allowed to get a new set of lungs, it was just an unfortunant mistake by inproper screening. It couldve happened to anyone...



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


then i fail to see why they even mentioned that he was a soldier and how does one become a soldier if one has bad lungs that needs to be replaced, are soldiers now more valuable then civilians besides lung ilnesses / diseases just dont pop up for no reason..

and my statment has nothing to do with what you describe and i take it quite offensive that you call me heartless since you your self failed to understand what i wrote.

ignorance



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


OK, but I still have a huge issue about countries seeming to think their brave soldiers are worth nothing.

And this encompasses homeless soldiers, soldiers so traumatised that they are wrecked, and soldiers living on a pittance.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join