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.

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.

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).

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

That is so sad.

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]

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]

Socialist medicine at its finest. If only he could have afforded private insurance, or a trip to the US to receive healthy lungs...

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.

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.