Woman died after being given smoker's lungs

Woman died after being given smoker's lungs

www.independent.c o.uk

The Government's "transplant tsar" insisted today that organ transplants were carried out on the basis of whether they would work - after it emerged that a cystic fibrosis sufferer died after receiving the lungs of a long-term smoker.


Chris Rudge, national clinical director for transplantation, said smoking was not the "issue" in the case of cystic fibrosis sufferer Lyndsey Scott, whose family have lodged a complaint after she received a double lung transplant from a 30-year smoker.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Here they actually say that smoker's lungs work just fine! If they work just fine, while all of the taxes on smokes, why all of the public awareness campaigns, why all the non-smoking buildings?

Whats this about? It is why folks don't trust their government. Here they made a mistake, they obviously, regardless of the explanation either did not properly screen the lungs or their qualification of what would constitute a healthy lung is wrong. Clearly in this case it was wrong as the gal died.

They simply can not come out and say "we made an error and we will compensate the family accordingly" or something. Admit that something here is not OK.

Should they believe that technically the lungs were workable, hence viable for transplant, which is what I gather they should, they should disclose what you're getting. Getting an organ and living with the prospect of emphasyema or lung cancer might make me think twice about the transplant in the first.

www.independent.c o.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

I remember from grade school seeing a picture of a smokers lungs in a textbook. They looked like black death in the picture. So it would seem that the textbooks have been lieing to us or either a trained physitian cant tell if something is black or pink? Smokers have been used as scapegoats for far too long. Good thing smoking will be totally illegal before long. What do you think will be the next scapegoat?

MessOnTheFED!

reply to post by dolphinfan


Ah, don't you think that its possible that her body rejected the DOUBLE LUNG transplant? Thats some major surgery right there.

To me I think its like saying man dies after having potsmokers brain transplanted.

They act like this is perfect science when in all reality, they are merely "practicing". Anytime they cut into you, its a risk of death.

I wonder if the doctors told the family that this was a perfectly safe procedure, 100% success rate? If they did, they lied. Also, how often do people get the opportunity for a matching pair of lungs? In the patient and her families case, they were most likely desperate and angry at the docs failure, so they come up with this sensationalism.

Originally posted by dolphinfan


Here they actually say that smoker's lungs work just fine! If they work just fine, while all of the taxes on smokes, why all of the public awareness campaigns, why all the non-smoking buildings?

They said THAT smokers lungs worked just fine, not that the lungs of ALL or even MOST smokers lungs work just fine. Genetics have something to do with how you will be affected, as does all the rest of your environmental exposures. Smoking is not good for your lungs, or the lungs of those around you. Just because some people do fine does not mean most will.

As for the article, I suppose some limited amount of medical history should be made available to the recipient in order to give them a choice, but this isnt Macy's, where you get to browse your organs. Time is of the essence, and they dont have time to tell you every little detail about what the donor did or did not do. If you are on a transplant list, your butt is dying anyway. Organ transplantation is risky, and it is a CHANCE to have a longer life, not a guarantee.

Her family is probably grief stricken, and lashing out, but they really are acting like ungrateful jerks. If their loved one had lived, they would likely not have cared at all what the habits of the donor were.

People have told me that I'm incredibly selfish because I refuse to be a 'parts donor' upon my death. I am a 15 year survivor of breast cancer. Would you want any of my body parts if you knew that? I would much rather donate my body to the body farm than to think I might possibly infect someone who thinks they are getting good parts.

Bottom line is transplant surgery is very risky because we don't know in advance if a person's body will accept or reject it. Just because a person dies in an accident or due to natural causes does not necessarily mean their body parts are in top condition.

Hmmmm, so after the person having CF, why give the person smokers lungs, makes no sense :S

What the hell are they doing transplanting smokers lungs? I guess in an absolute last ditch effort I'd take black charred clogged up lungs over no lung at all but geez.

How many livers of drunks get transplanted into patients?

Next they'll be scooping brains off the sidewalk and transplanting them into coma patients.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I am pretty sure the article says that they make sure the organ is functional and an improvement over the organ being replaced.

They use what they can, its not like there are tons of healthy organs available for transplant. The organs are coming from dead people, after all, they have to match you, the dead person had to want to donate, etc. I suppose they could just kidnap people in the prime of life and harvest their organs for the sickly, but the law frowns on that. IMHO, if your own body is so shot that you are dying anyway, you really dont have much room to be choosy. If you are worried you might get organs that are a bit abused, dont sign up for transplant and take your chances with your own organs. Its what nature intended anyway.

Organs are a gift, the ultimate gift, from someone who has lost their life. Its just damned ungrateful to be criticizing that persons lifestyle choices, or sniping about the organs. You guys make me want to take myself off the donor list. I would hate to have my organs go to people who were such ingrates that they didnt consider that someone had to die to give them that chance, but who instead bitched about my organ care program while alive.

Sheesh.

Thats terrible. That should of never happened. I hope that the family files for some type of suit.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by gpena]

"Lungs from a smoker can be working perfectly normally and be perfectly suitable for transplantation lungs from a non-smoker can not be working and not be suitable for transplantation," he told BBC Breakfast. "Surgeons have to make decisions - about four out of every five lungs that become available for transplantation are not used because they are not working well enough. "It is nothing to do with the history of the donor, it is whether the organ is working or not, whether it is going to produce a successful transplant or not, and, in this particular case, smoking isn't the issue." He added that people who go on the waiting list for transplants must be told that human organs that become available are not "brand new", perfect organs.

as above i dont think they would transplant blacked damaged lungs in to a transplant patient, you can smoke for 60 years and have very little damage to your lungs, its to do with subset-ability to resist smoking related diseases, you don't have to smoke to have damaged lungs either, if these lungs were a genetic match and worked, it would be reasonable to transplant the organs into a patient to give either a better quality of life, or to prolong life, no matter how short these may allow.

[edit on 15/6/2010 by weemadmental]

[edit on 15/6/2010 by weemadmental]

In other news a cirrhosis sufferer received George Best's liver in a 3 hour operation, plus 20 minutes of extra time.

This story is nothing but fear mongering, and litigation fishing.

When she went under the knife, i would suppose her lungs were in bad shape? So her only chance at survival was to transplant. She gambled and lost.

Me? I would never have another persons organs transplanted into me. It is far to macabre for my psyche.

I believe that if I were at death's door and if I chose to prolong my life that I would take the next organ that was available.

Thirty percent of the patients waiting for lungs die on the waiting list.

Her condition was deteriorating and this transplant was her last hope, so I think that whether or not the lungs came from a smoker, her chances were slim under the best of circumstances.

It's a sad story, but such is life.

reply to post by GradyPhilpott


That is the reasoning behind using these "sub standard" organs. They were to "prolong her life", not to cure her as she had deteriorated so badly.

She eventually died of Pneumonia, which I understand is common amongst lung transplant patients as it is, even with the best lungs available, a high-risk operation.

She didn't die because she received the lungs of a person that smoked, she died because she had pneumonia. Even healthy people with healthy lungs that don't smoke can still die from pneumonia.


Her body probably couldn't handle the pneumonia after having lived with cystic fibrosis and having had a lung transplant just six months earlier.

The 28-year-old, from Wigan, underwent the double transplant at Wythenshawe Hospital in Manchester in January last year and died in the July from pneumonia.

"I can honestly say she would have been horrified to have known those lungs were from a smoker and quite definitely she would have refused that operation," Allan Scott, her father, told the BBC.

If she would have refused the operation then she really didn't want to extend her own life. What an ungrateful attitude to have towards someone that cared enough about helping others that they would donate their organs after death.

Joyce Robins, co-director of Patient Concern, told BBC Breakfast: "Most patients would say that they should be informed of any pertinent fact. If the family are saying that she would have refused a transplant had she known, then that is an important issue."

She added: "You can't buy a pair of nice new organs from a shelf.

"They have all been used somehow, and therefore it is viability that is important, it is for the surgeon to put that to the patient and say 'We believe that these are good lungs and they will do you well'.

"It is for the patient to say ' Well, OK, I'll take my chance, that is fine'... or to say 'No, thank you, I would prefer not to do that'."

They have a very narrow window of time to transplant viable organs, and the donor must also be a match to the receipient. They don't have the time to go around asking patient after paitient "these lungs are from a smoker, but they are in good working order, do you want them ?" until they find someone willing to take them. IMO take the organs no matter where they come from if you want to have a chance at living longer.


www.independent.co.uk...

Originally posted by stumason

That is the reasoning behind using these "sub standard" organs.

There is nothing in the article that says that the lungs were sub-standard. In fact, the article states just the opposite. The lungs were in working condition and were suitable for transplantation.

reply to post by dolphinfan


wow.

that seems kind of weird that they would even take a smokers lungs for transplants..

I think that just seems wrong?

Wouldn't it increase the chance of the body rejecting the lungs in the first place? That's sick.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by stumason

That is the reasoning behind using these "sub standard" organs.

There is nothing in the article that says that the lungs were sub-standard. In fact, the article states just the opposite. The lungs were in working condition and were suitable for transplantation.

Maybe not the Independant article posted, but I do read from other sources, Grady.

These were called "marginal organs", which are deemed to be of higher risk, but still considered safe. See BBC Article

Never the less, I also surrounded my "sub-standard" comment with quotation marks, which should be a good indicator that I was using language used by others, namely the reactionariy "OMG! How Evil of the Doctor" types in this thread. Although I haven't see you around in a while Grady, it's good to see you're as nitpicky as ever

reply to post by stumason


Thanks for the link. Your quotation marks are appropriate, but you never know what people mean by their punctuation.

A link almost always clears up any confusion.

I'm not really nit-picky, but when I get confused, I need some clarification.