hollywood3586 Posted June 15, 2010 Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 http://www.fox8.com/news/wwj-news-lung-transplant-smoker,0,2140022.story Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted June 15, 2010 Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 $$$ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSVDon Posted June 15, 2010 Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 Sounds like Chris Rouge is a tool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted June 15, 2010 Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 Just because the donor was a smoker, they have the right to donate their lungs if they wish. If the person receiving them won't take them, the donor is being denied their right to help people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollywood3586 Posted June 15, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 But why would you donate your smoker lungs to someone. Doesn't sound like helping anyone, not saying that she died from the cause of the smokers lungs, but the famy should have been notified Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likwid Posted June 15, 2010 Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 I drank in college and have an occasional drink now: don't give anyone my liverI drink a lot of soda: don't give anyone my kidneysI smoked a bit in high school: don't give anyone my lungsI don't exercise enough and I like red meat: don't give anyone my heartI wear contacts and like to stare at the sun: don't give anyone my eyesHolly I know were you were going with it, but unfortunately this is one of the times you are way off... I know it may be hard to believe since you are, indeed, a woman. But it occasionally happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReconRat Posted June 15, 2010 Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 I dunno, how about the other 300 items on the hazardous environment list that the feds put out every year. Over 180 of the items are more serious than smoking. It's stuff we run into every day, but it's not newsworthy. It will still harm or kill people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarvismb Posted June 15, 2010 Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 I dunno, how about the other 300 items on the hazardous environment list that the feds put out every year. Over 180 of the items are more serious than smoking. It's stuff we run into every day, but it's not newsworthy. It will still harm or kill people.my musk is actually #74 on that list... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted June 15, 2010 Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 That's what you get with those Communist State Run Health Care Systems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsheikh Posted June 15, 2010 Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 It all depends on availability and urgency. Sometimes lungs soaked in smoke for 30 years gives more time than someone with cystic fibrosis which is a pretty serious disease. I'm sure the situation is more complicated than it seems. The recipient should have been notified about the lung's condition regardless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyJ Posted June 15, 2010 Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 Based on that miniscule news clip, there's not nearly enough information to draw any kind of conclusion (other than an uninformed knee-jerk reaction, which is what the news networks are going for). The pneumonia is most likely completely unrelated to the donor's smoking history. I worked as a transplant coordinator for several years; the surgeons are made very aware of the donor's history, for lungs they would come to the donor hospital to evaluate them in person before recovering them, etc. Surgeons are VERY cautious with selecting donors for their patients, and will typically err on the side of caution. I've seen cases where smoker's lungs were suitable for transplant before, and where the recipients did fine afterward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tblade Posted June 15, 2010 Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 Just because the donor was a smoker, they have the right to donate their lungs if they wish. If the person receiving them won't take them, the donor is being denied their right to help people. where exactly is one granted the right to help peopleps: dont donate your brain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd#43 Posted June 15, 2010 Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 Let me see if I got this right:Lady with Cystic Fibrosis gets "used" lungs from a smoker, dies from pneumonia (not necessarily connected to the "used" lungs) and her family has their collective panties in a knot because she would have been "horrified"??Gimme a fucking break.Two questions:Why is this "news"?Who fucking gives a shit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted June 15, 2010 Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 where exactly is one granted the right to help peopleps: dont donate your brainWow, really man? Did you not notice the little at the bottom? Thank you. You just made my day! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollywood3586 Posted June 15, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 Let me see if I got this right:Lady with Cystic Fibrosis gets "used" lungs from a smoker, dies from pneumonia (not necessarily connected to the "used" lungs) and her family has their collective panties in a knot because she would have been "horrified"??Gimme a fucking break.Two questions:Why is this "news"?Who fucking gives a shit?would you have taken lungs from a smoker given the circumstances? If she would have known i doubt she would have taken them.. I would have taken my chances until something else came along. IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd#43 Posted June 15, 2010 Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 would you have taken lungs from a smoker given the circumstances? If she would have known i doubt she would have taken them.. I would have taken my chances until something else came along. IMOSeriously??Lets see, worthless lungs ravaged by cystic fibrosis, or slightly used, reasonably healthy lungs from a dead smoker? Hmmmmm.....let me ponder this.....Still with me?MY LUNGS DON'T FUCKING WORK - I HAVE CYSTIC FIBROSIS!You found some lungs that are in better shape than the ones I'm using?? You can put them in tomorrow?Fuck yeah - SWAP THEM OUT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jporter12 Posted June 15, 2010 Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 where exactly is one granted the right to help peopleps: dont donate your brainReally? Go away.Two questions:Why is this "news"?Who fucking gives a shit?Come on Todd, really? Do you REALLY need to ask why this is news? Give a shit? Too many people do, people that shouldn't even know about it. would you have taken lungs from a smoker given the circumstances? If she would have known i doubt she would have taken them.. I would have taken my chances until something else came along. IMODo you know that for sure? Have you been in that situation? I'm not trying to argue with you, or mess with you on this. I don't think one can answer this from an outsider's standpoint. I'm going to guess that the days were becoming fewer, and the options were running out, just from the little I know about CF. I may be wrong though (big surprise if I am. ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAMBUSA Posted June 15, 2010 Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 I'd have no problems with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fazerlady Posted June 15, 2010 Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 It all depends on availability and urgency. Sometimes lungs soaked in smoke for 30 years gives more time than someone with cystic fibrosis which is a pretty serious disease. I'm sure the situation is more complicated than it seems. The recipient should have been notified about the lung's condition regardless.exactly...who knows how bad she was and how desperate...maybe she had been waiting for years to get lungs...Pneumonia is an infectious disease and she could have died from it with perfectly good lungs, due to the medicine she was taking...immunity is lowered due to the meds a transplant recipient has to take to prevent the body from fighting the "intruder" organ making the patient vulnerable to infectious diseases...I think everyone could get upset if she died of lung cancer, but I think this is blown WAY out of proportion!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidgetTodd Posted June 15, 2010 Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 Beggars cant be choosers. It's not like going to Walmart and picking out apples, she needed a lung she got a lung, and it was better than the one she had. People like that would bitch if you hung em with a new rope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted June 15, 2010 Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 Beggars cant be choosers. It's not like going to Walmart and picking out apples, she needed a lung she got a lung, and it was better than the one she had. People like that would bitch if you hung em with a new rope.This made me chuckle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gearman Posted June 15, 2010 Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 I would rather have my donor lungs broke in. My 2 pack a day habit wouldn't be such a shock to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidgetTodd Posted June 15, 2010 Report Share Posted June 15, 2010 I'm not apathetic, I just don't give a damn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.