Girl Dies While Awaiting Liver Transplant

[NVMojo]

I think we will be seeing more of this even with "legal" citizens ...

CHICAGO (AP) - A 16-year-old girl whose medical plight rallied the city's Mexican community five years ago died while awaiting a second liver transplant, doctors said.

Ana Esparza died Sunday at Children's Memorial Hospital, the same hospital that refused to perform her 2001 transplant because her mother was an illegal immigrant without health insurance.

Community members raised more than $200,000 for Ana's medical expenses through car washes and food sales.

Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami agreed to perform the transplant at a discount later that year.

more...

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/thrive/2006/feb/20/022004586.html

[LeftCoast]

1. That's very sad.

Working with sick kids in the hospital is just about the hardest thing in the world. :(

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

2. well at least the hospital saved dough! since their priorities are dollars

Wow!
I guess morality is truly secondary in our "modern" economy.

[noamnety]

8. The hospital was going to pay for it

this one isn't the hospital's fault. If more people donated their organs instead of carrying them to their grave, the odds of her finding a suitable donor would have increased - but of course, there's still no guarantee of a match.

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. I heard this on the radio today

How sad. Why oh why do we have to put a price tag on health? This just sickens me.

[iverglas]

4. important fact omitted from excerpt: she died because there was no donor

Ana had been at the Chicago hospital since December. The hospital was willing to pay for the second transplant, but no matching donor was found, said her mother, Maria Munoz, from the Mexican state of Aguascalientes.

The girl died not for lack of money or medical care, but for lack of a suitable liver.

The news report that is the subject of the opening thread was simply a story about her death and the causes, and a summary of past events (the $200,000 raised related to the previous liver transplant, not the care she received before her death, for example).

Some of those past events were indeed beyond deplorable, but there is no finger to be pointed at anyone in her ultimate death.

Well, except for the finger that needs to be pointed at all the people who do not sign organ donor cards, and all the families who do not donate the organs of their deceased spouses and parents and children ...

[supernova]

5. Yes, it's very sad

thousands of people die each year waiting for donor organs.

Yet another use for stem cells possibly in the future, grow new organs and increase the supply available.

[midnight]

18. everyone sign their drivers license to be an organ donor.

That simple act alone would help immensely. That said, I wish this countries policy's did not have such an choke hold on stem cell research. There is so many people in need of this technology.

[VegasWolf]

6. The Katrina administration strikes again. nt

[hack89]

7. Is Bush suppose to force people to donate organs? nt

[JustDoIt]

9. Seriously

Fault the administration for it all you want, but it would be wrong to force people to donate organs. I have filled out the back of my drivers license and all of my shit is going to stay here on earth when I die, my organs will be used by people that need them. but its an individual choice

[Sadie5]

10. Very sad situation

when a child dies. Too bad a donor was not found.

[NorthernSpy]

16. it's dangerous to give the government that kind of power

I'm with you on this...


:think:

[HuckleB]

11. It's time to follow Spain's lead and implement an opt-out system.

Our opt-in system simply doesn't do the job, and many families step in the way of the dying individual's wish to donate. It's time to act as a community, as Spain has chosen to on this matter.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/donation/factfilesod_comparisons.shtml

[NorthernSpy]

15. with 40 million uninsured, who have no guarantee of access to transplants

... allowing the government to create for itself a presumption of authority to snatch people's organs will also cause an already vulnerable poor population to end up commonly viewed as being literally worth more to society dead than alive.

That's monstrously unjust.

"Keep your laws off my body" -- that's what we used to demand of the anti-abortionists. Apparently, they're not the only ones who need to be reminded that the body of a person is not merely a means to others peoples' ends.

[iverglas]

19. no property rights in a dead body

Fundamental principle of the common law legal tradition. Dead bodies may not be sold, e.g., because nobody owns them. They also may not be disposed of by will, because once the person is dead, s/he does not "own" his/her body either, or more accurately, no longer has the right to decide what happens to his/her body: dead people don't have rights. (Yes, people may direct what is to be done with their bodies after death; and the legal representatives of the estate may disregard the directions.)

The legal representatives of the dead person do have obligations in respect of the dead body: to arrange for its disposal in a way that is consistent with societal norms.

So if the next of kin do not have a property interest in the family member's dead body, and do have obligations to dispose of it in a way that society approves, there is essentially no reason why a government could not mandate donation of organ/tissue from dead bodies, as being the way that society has decided to approve for disposing of the bodies.

"Keep your laws off my body" -- that's what we used to demand of the anti-abortionists. Apparently, they're not the only ones who need to be reminded that the body of a person is not merely a means to others peoples' ends.

There really is a distinction between a living human being and a dead human body. You know: born, human, alive: the characteristics of a "human being". Fetuses aren't born, dead bodies aren't alive. No one there, off whose body anyone's hands need to be kept; no rights.

with 40 million uninsured, who have no guarantee of access to transplants
... allowing the government to create for itself a presumption of authority to snatch people's organs will also cause an already vulnerable poor population to end up commonly viewed as being literally worth more to society dead than alive.

That's possible. But actually, the statement would apply to everyone, not just poor people. Everybody would be more valuable to somebody dead than alive. Everybody who has signed a donor card is right now, in fact. I'll bet there are poor/uninsured people in the US who have signed donor cards.

If mandating donation of organs/tissue from dead bodies led to medical care being denied to someone, well, I'd think we'd be seeing it already in the case of known donors. Mandating would certainly offer more situations in which it could occur. I just wonder who'd be making that decision: doctors? I'd be surprised, and I'd wonder how that might happen without some vast cover-up conspiracy. Not insurance companies; the victims are by definition uninsured. Not hospital administrations; the victims are presumably already being denied care for lack of funds.

Denial of medical care because of inability to pay is an atrocity and a tragedy in the US, but I really don't see how mandating post mortem organ donation would exacerbate it.

In the US, at present, organs for transplant go, in a way, to the highest bidder: to people who can afford the transplant surgery. Because organs are scarce, coverage for transplant surgery for the uninsured doesn't become an issue, because it would just create more competition for the scarce commodity.

It's the supposed scarcity of healthcare services in general that is the basis for the form of rationing currently in effect in the US: price rationing. What if organs for transplant ceased to be scarce?

I might wonder whether denying transplant surgery for the uninsured might become more difficult to justify and continue if organs ceased to be scarce. Yes, they would still be unable to pay, but rationing life-saving treatment based on ability to pay and denying it to the uninsured, when the organs themselves were available, would really be pretty ugly. A few more people might actually decide to reject the rationing system, if only for this particular element of it.

[HuckleB]

20. What a great attitude.

We've got a problem with uninsured folks, so let's use that to shut down any attempt to improve health care in another way.

Sorry, that's just not ethical. In Spain's system, anyone can opt out. It simply makes it easier for those who want to opt in to have their wishes acknowledged. That saves lives. That is doing the right thing.

Your argument rings too close to fundie "pro-life" arguments against stem cell research. I don't find either argument to meet ethical standards. However, by your response, I suspect that you did not actually read the article I posted or look into what an opt out system actually means, as your argument isn't against an opt out system, but a system where no one has any choice.

[NorthernSpy]

22. same to you

We've got a problem with uninsured folks, so let's use that to shut down any attempt to improve health care in another way.

In other words, let's just let the government declare ownership of all human remains. As long as doing that improves access to organs for those affluent enough to afford transplants, it's worth it. Even if the uninsured continue to go without care forever, those who matter more must, as always, be served first. Never mind that the uninsured -- and anyone else who fails the means test that prospective transplant candidates must pass -- will not benefit at all from these organ-taking schemes. Unless you consider having ones own body valued only as the stuff of life for other, richer folks a benefit...

Sorry, that's just not ethical. In Spain's system, anyone can opt out. It simply makes it easier for those who want to opt in to have their wishes acknowledged. That saves lives. That is doing the right thing.

Not ethical how? You mean it's not ethical for me, Sally Uninsured, to treat you, Jane Affluent, as you treat me? That is, with the exact same level of concern for your health and wellbeing that you have for me and mine: none.

Altruism is a two-way street, HuckleB. America's affluent don't feel like paying the taxes that would entitle everyone to medical care? Fine. Maybe I don't feel like presumptively entitling the government to pick over the corpses of the poor for useful bits on behalf of our betters after we've gone -- hastened, perhaps -- to our demise.

Your argument rings too close to fundie "pro-life" arguments against stem cell research. I don't find either argument to meet ethical standards.

I've yet to read an argument against stem-cell research that was based upon social justice concerns, so I'm not sure what resemblance you've convinced yourself that you're seeing. As for your not finding my "argument to meet ethical standards", well same to you, friend.

:eyes:

[HuckleB]

23. Oh brother.

When you actually respond to the actual proposal instead of a cardboard cut out "evil," I'll waste my time responding to nonsensical posts such as this.

In the meantime, please start to think through things rather than offer up purely emotional responses to something different than actually proposed.

[NorthernSpy]

24. in other words, you have no real answer for my concerns

No surprise there.

But you'd do well not to shrug off these issues of fairness. Remember the poor people in Brazil who lined up en masse to sign "I am NOT an organ donor" cards (back when Brazilians were still given a choice in such matters)? That can happen here, too. After all, Texas had to get rid of that "mandatory choice" organ donor law when too many people started opting out...

[SoCalDem]

12. My friend has been on the transplant list for 5 years..no luck so far

She has polycystic kidney disease, and her health is failing..soon she might not be healthy enough to even stand the surgery.. She's 41.

[HuffleClaw]

13. "the same hospital that refused to perform her 2001 transplant" ??!!

good god, that is appalling.

[w8liftinglady]

14. I'm asking because I don't know-Re: socialized medicine

If I were in a place like Canada illegaly-would they provide this level of care for me(Transplant)?

[Ferry Fey]

17. Have that talk about your wishes with your family today

I'e learned a lot about organ donation from a friend who is alive only because someone's family decided in the midst of their grief to donate their loved one's heart.

It's important to understand that just signing the donor card is not automatically going to put the process in motion. Your next of kin still have to consent.

Sometimes it is real hard to have that conversation with your family. Make the effort to do it today, while this child's death is still fresh in your mind. When you can focus on someone in specific, it can touch people in a way that the purely abstract reasons might not.

Talk to your friends and co-workers about having that talk with their families too. Ask them to pass on the action. There are times when our actions have a multiplying effect that reaches further, and this news may provide that impetus.

[iverglas]

21. sorry, no

If I were in a place like Canada illegaly-would they provide this level of care for me(Transplant)?

People legally in Canada -- citizens, permanent residents (equivalent of resident aliens), students, temporary workers -- are covered by the public health care plans. Visitors must purchase insurance before they come here, and it will of course cover only unforeseen medical problems that have to be treated immediately, essentially.

Any kind of surgery in Canada will be considerably cheaper than in the US, for cash payment by people not within the public plans, on the other hand. I looked into vasectomy reversal surgery for someone I knew on line once, and found that the cost would be just about exactly half here what it was in the US.

The problem with transplant surgery, as I understand it, is that a non-resident would not be able to get on the list. I think that organ distribution systems operate on a national basis, and organs go outside a country only if they are not needed inside. So one could not come to Canada for the purpose of getting transplant surgery, or so I'd think.

However -- if someone were already here and developed the need for a transplant while here (or, I suppose, came here when already sick for the express purpose of getting treatment), then even if s/he were illegal, I don't see the surgery being denied if an organ is available and s/he qualified for it in every other way (greatest need, match). Someone would cover the cost, likely by fundraising, and the surgery wouldn't be withheld until the funds were raised. It would certainly be a touchy situation though; imagine the outcry from certain segments of the population if an illegal resident were given an organ that would otherwise have gone to a legal resident. And not just from the usual suspects, really; it would be one of those situations in which a lot of people would say that a line has to be drawn between those entitled to the benefits of membership in the society and those not. One of those very tough choices that individuals and societies have to make. I don't know of it ever having arisen, and I wouldn't be looking forward to it arising.

[mopinko]

25. children's memorial

i do not know about this story, but i do know about this hospital, and they DO NOT, REPEAT, DO NOT usually turn people away who cannot pay. in fact, they turn people away who do have insurance, if they have to make a choice between the two.