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.

 

Woman died after being given smoker's lungs

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


Quite. Good punctuation seems to be optional these days!


Maybe I am just getting old. Anyhoo, good to see you again. I'm sure you've been around, just haven't seen you post much recently.




posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
I'm sure you've been around, just haven't seen you post much recently.


Stealth mode


It's always good to see old friends.

I agree that the patient should be advised that their organs may be "marginal." I'd want to know.

Can six months really be worth such an ordeal?

I guess it would depend on the individual, but I'd decline unless I had some serious business to attend to.


[edit on 2010/6/16 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   
I didn't know they used smokers lungs, it seems they would of been discolored and had a odor to the lungs 30 years of smoking and the woman was only 28 years old, they gave her a old person lungs, had two feet in the grave to start.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Sounds to me like she died from complications from surgery. Not like they transplanted some cancer into her....


Do 2nd hand lungs mean 2nd hand phlegm?


MM



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   
I see a lot of misconceptions here
Understandable really... but the smoking had nothing to do with it. How do I know? My 11 yr old daughter is a liver transplant patient. The organs are checked for many MANY things before they are deemed suitable for transplant. Its not a quick or easy thing. You get several calls when you are on the list to come in that they have a possible organ... they check it out extensively and if its not found suitable, you go home and wait for another organ to come available. My daughter got a liver from a teen boy who shot himself.. Im no fool.. the kid wasnt an angel and the liver was more than likely exposed to things
However, if its not diseased and in working order is the important thing. The thing you dont hear abotu much is that even a perfect organ just may not work when transplanted. No real reason, it isnt an exact science. There are SO many things that can go wrong its incredible that ANY transplant ever works! LOL! Heart transplants are less intensive than liver transplants.. and she had serious complications... but one year later she is now at summer camp acting like a normal kid for the first summer in her whole life. Its luck of the draw I guess. Getting pnumonia is a huge issue in ANY transplant... moreso in a lung transplant. Besides, we poison ourselves daily and 24/7.. smoking is less damaging than a lot of things we put into our bodies... and people still have very successful transplants. For the rest of my daughters life she will run the risk of rejecting the liver... and will be on meds until the day she dies to try to prevent it. Its simply a miracle that any transplant works.. youll see this if you investigate it a little.

The family is needing someone to blame. Its common and I saw it many times living for years among the transplant crowd before she got hers. Its especially difficult on parents of young children when it doesnt work. I'd think the family of an adult would at least have investigated the facts before going ballistic, but to each his or her own hysteria. It doesnt always work out like you want it to. This case if they sue will go NOWHERE.

This is another case of demonizing smokers and smoking since it has absolutely nothing to do with the lungs being fit for transplant. The lungs were 30 yrs old, it never said she smoke for 30 yrs. Facts folks.. look for them before making decisions. Lungs like livers repair themselves in amazing ways before, during and after transplants.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by googolplex
I didn't know they used smokers lungs, it seems they would of been discolored and had a odor to the lungs 30 years of smoking and the woman was only 28 years old, they gave her a old person lungs, had two feet in the grave to start.


They never clarified how long the donor smoked, for one. 28 and 30 years old are very close you know?

They give you limited 'facts' when we never know whether or not the donor smoked 10 packs a day or 10 cigarettes a month. But, I think its safe to say that the 30 year old donor was, A: Dead, being since you need lungs to live, and B: she never smoked since birth, because that just never happens.

The article only demonstrates a point that so many are so happy to hear. Its sensationalism, without much merit.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by dfens
 
reply to post by Dixie70
 



Her family have said they were not told that the donor smoked - and she would have been "horrified" to discover the organs were from a smoker of 30 years.

www.independent.c o.uk


The lungs were from someone who smoked for thirty years.




[edit on 2010/6/16 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


OK, point taken. After rereading the article, you are perfectly correct. As they worded it.

Still that gives us zero insight into how old the donor was, what they died from, male/female, how much they smoked, or what actually killed the poor young woman who needed the lung transplant, other than cystic fibrosis. Maybe the young woman was a smoker herself? and needed similar lungs?

So many variables involved. Sure, the patient wants to live, the alleged 30 year smoker(no age given, plus nomenclature being different towards every country)had to have been dead because NO ONE in their right mind would willingly donate both their lungs! That said, the donor did not choose to kill this lady.

The recipient and the family both decided to take a huge risk by getting a double lung transplant because she obviously had fibrous tumors in her lung tissue which prevented her from breathing properly, so much so that they decided to take the drastic option of double lung transplant. She had a terminal condition that she was going to die from eventually anyway.

Don't buy the story that she was screwed by smokers lungs, buy the idea that she was screwed by having CF and needing a DOUBLE LUNG TRANSPLANT in order to POSSIBLY ride it out longer.

I have never heard of a doctor handing out a 100% success rate ever in my life.

Prognosis
These statistics are based on data from 2006. The source data made no distinction between living and deceased donor organs, nor was any distinction made between lobar, single, and double lung transplants.[13]

1 year survival---- 5 years survival--- 10 years survival
Lung transplant -84.9% --51.6% ---25.6%


Transplanted lungs typically last three to five years before showing signs of failure.
en.wikipedia.org...

No hospital would ever allow the procedure if there was never any waiver of liability signed by the patient/family/power of attorney. NONE. Conveniently laying to blame a smoker is simply aggrandizing a story that is contrary to reality. A smoker didn't kill the young lady, her chronic illness did.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by dfens
 


I agree.

The article is not a clinical paper, so we have to go with what we have.

The patient had never smoked and her lungs were shot.

The donor had smoked for decades and the lungs were deemed to be suitable.

There are no guarantees in life.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
reply to post by dfens
 
reply to post by Dixie70
 



Her family have said they were not told that the donor smoked - and she would have been "horrified" to discover the organs were from a smoker of 30 years.

www.independent.c o.uk


The lungs were from someone who smoked for thirty years.




[edit on 2010/6/16 by GradyPhilpott]


Ahhh I read it as a smoker of 30 years (old).



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Dixie70
 


Well, the article is in British English, so for us Americans the wording is pretty vague. The two interpretations present two very different situations.

However, as is pointed out in the article, the important thing is not the donor's social history is less important than the functioning of the lungs.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Yes the lungs came from a smoker, but they checked out fine didn't they?

Someone posted that 4/5 organs are thrown away because they aren't suitable, yet this one made it into the mix to be used.

Smoker or not the lungs worked just fine.

It's not like the lungs caused the death, she died from what seems to be normal happenings when dealing with a lung transplant. When you're dealing with a closed system like the internals of the human body any little thing can wreak havoc.

[edit on 16-6-2010 by Judohawk]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join