Doctor accused of hastening death for patient's organs Posted: 6 months ago by moe
Ugh
Comments: 13 Score: [-] 466 [+].
< 1 >
Posted: 6 months ago by badbud:
I hate to be the one to say it, but...this happens every day in hospitals across the US. Most times it's not to harvest viable organs... and most times no one gets caught, or should I say prosecuted.
Every now and again some unlucky schmuck gets a patient with a nurse for a granddaughter, and said nurse takes cookies after the fact. But that is another story.
Score: [-] 175 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by tdiggity:
Can we trust ANYONE anymore?
Score: [-] 13 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by 2manyusernames:
Update to this
This is one of those hard cases. Neither side is fully correct.
Did the doctor hasten the INEVITABLE death of mr. Navarro? Did he hasten the death by a minute or two, several minutes?
Who knows. It is true that the guy was dying. There was no way to prevent that.
Yes hastening the guys deaths even by a short time is awful. It is quite sick and morbid.
However, if it was done it was done with good intentions. Think about it from the view point of the person needing organ. Think about it if it was you or your child/spouse.
It would be hard to accept that your loved on died because the man took 15 minutes to die instead of 10.
Yes, it would be hard to accept that you are only alive because someone else's death was sped up to save yours.
Neither side is good. Still if I was forced to decide one way or the other, I would probably find on the behalf of the surgeon and the family that received the organ so that their loved one could live.
It isn't like they took some guy in a coma that might have lived for years and offed him to harvest his organs. No they took someone who was dying, who had been taken off life support to be allowed to die and sped up his death by a tiny tiny minute fraction in order that someone else could live.
Score: [-] 152 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by maven:
I think one of the reasons this case made it to trial is because none of the organs ended up being viable. Cynic? Yeah, probably I am.
Score: [-] 70 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by Nicky666:
« 2manyusernames : Neither side is good. Still if I was forced to decide one way or the other, I would probably find on the behalf of the surgeon and the family that received the organ so that their loved one could live.
It isn't like they took some guy in a coma that might have lived for years and offed him to harvest his organs. No they took someone who was dying, who had been taken off life support to be allowed to die and sped up his death by a tiny tiny minute fraction in order that someone else could live. I can see your point, but I cannot agree.
The fact that the guy was an organ donor didn't give the surgeon the right to go shopping before his time.
Like the article states, this is going to cost a lot of donors.
I think I'd have a harder time knowing one of my loved ones died because someone else decided not to become a donor because of this, than I'd have because someone in the other room "didn't die in time".
Score: [-] 56 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by coldbladed:
The only reason I'm not an organ donor is because I know that things like this happen. And not just to people who were going to die anyway. If there is a procedure that has a slim chance of saving my life but will harm my organs if it fails I want the doc to take the risk to bring me back. Right now, if my license says donor, he won't.
Score: [-] 30 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by gammerus:
I KNEW IT!
Score: [-] 0 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by tragluk:
Fine cold, believe in the boogeyman doctors who are out to get you but before you do, tell that nice little 7 year old girl down the hall that she's going to die and even if you were dead you don't want to help her. You'd rather take your organs to your grave (fat lot of good they'll do you) than give the gift of sight, the breath of air, or the beat of a heart to someone else.
Because you think that a doctor is going to kill you to get your organs.
Guess what? If someone is going to go through that trouble how hard do you think it will be to put a little 'X' on a form and say that you signed it? Who is going to check with a dead guy and make sure that he actually wanted it?
...
The truth..
Transplant doctors aren't there when a patient dies. They are only brought into the room after the patient is dead and only then do they take over. The fact that this one was even in the room should have sent up ENORMOUS red flags that something was wrong.
Transplant doctors and even the surgeons who declare death don't know where the organ is going. They don't 'kill someone' so that someone else they know will receive the organs. They don't get any benefit from the death of a patient whose organs are harvested. It simply makes no sense from a 'gain' standpoint for a doctor to kill a patient for their organs.
....
Speculation
My guess is that the transplant doc was called in, he saw that the patient was there, he went to work. He assumed that the patient was already braindead and went through the motions of getting the body ready for harvesting.
The mother has already 'settled' with the hospital and gotten her money from it. The hospital being too chicken to stand up, and the mother grabbing at money opportunities just as alot of people tend to do when there is a CHANCE that they can grab their 1.2 mil off someone elses mistake.
Now she can buy that condo she's always wanted.
But don't for a moment be afraid to be an organ donar because someone made a mistake. Mistakes happen, but life can also happen and to deny little 'jenny' a heart because of your fear is just wrong.
Score: [-] 141 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by 2manyusernames:
« tragluk : an amazing eloquent speech
Score: [-] 0 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by donteatpoop:
« tragluk : tell that nice little 7 year old girl down the hall that she's going to die and even if you were dead you don't want to help her. Can I tell her?
Score: [-] 50 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by coldbladed:
It does make sense. I never described a situation where the transplant surgeon was present or the doctor who declares death has a friend earmarked for a transplant.
The situation I described is one where the treating doctor knows I am an organ donor and hesitates or refuses to perform a procedure that may harm my organs because it has a smaller chance of paying off.
The doctor never benefits personally, of course not, but in their place the decision is save a handful of organs that could help a handful of people or put those organs at risk to maybe help this guy.
You know what I can't say that in the doctors place I wouldn't choose to save the transplantees either. But in my place, I want that life saving procedure because I believe in small chances and I want every single one I can get when it comes to my life.
Score: [-] 5 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by weasler7:
« coldbladed : The only reason I'm not an organ donor is because I know that things like this happen. And not just to people who were going to die anyway. If there is a procedure that has a slim chance of saving my life but will harm my organs if it fails I want the doc to take the risk to bring me back. Right now, if my license says donor, he won't. I'm having a bit of trouble reading through the English here. I take it you're posturing a hypothetical situation in which a doctor lets you die because he wants to take your organs. This is most definitely not the case. If you read the headline, it says "Doctor accused of hastening death...". In this case, the patient had minimal brain function, in the throes of death. This was most definitely NOT the case where the primary physician chose to let him die for his organs. Rather, it was the transplant surgeon acting separately. Therefore, your fear of getting screwed because you have donor status on your license is unfounded.
In addition, the idea that a treatment will harm your organs in order to save your entire body IMHO is preposterous. When would that ever happen?
The doctor's interests should lie with patient the is currently treating. This philosophy is in both the best interests of the doctor and the patient. Therefore, I don't believe that your oncologist will ever even consider f**king you up so other people can get organs. In the article, it is strange that the transplant doc was in the room as it represents a clear conflict of interest.
Score: [-] 23 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by maven:
I think you parsed the English correctly.
Score: [-] 0 [+].
< 1 >
