Quote:
Originally Posted by dr2005
Agreed - I take no issue with the quality of life argument (my only remark on it being that there isn't enough information to comment either way). I'm just baffled as to why mental condition was deemed a criterion at all, given that as you say it's the physiological conditions which are more significant. It just smacks of ulterior motive somewhat, and that is cause for concern. It may well have been an honest error of judgement - doctors are human, after all - but as things stand it doesn't look the best.
|
I can understand why the mental condition would be included for other disorders, such as Lesch-Nyhan Syndrome where one of the common symptoms is cognitive impairment that results in frequent and severe self-mutilation to any part of their body, even if they do not have a mood disorder. However, for the girl in question, I understand the doctor's position if there was evidence she harmed her body and internal organs. If there was no such evidence, then I lean more toward the side of an ulterior motive because it's one thing to emphasize her mental condition in only part of the response but to mention in throughout suggests there is a reason that is kept hidden.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ShimmeringFaerie
Firstly, you are assuming that this girl won't live as long as whoever does get a kidney. Without being able to see the future, we can't know that. We can't know that the child who does get the kidney won't be hit by a car the very next day.
|
The decision panel usually is composed of medical doctors so their decisions and assumptions focus is physiological and medical. If they were to nitpick over potential risks, such as death by a natural disaster, drunk driver, suicide, and every single other possible risk known to human kind, they would get nowhere. Hell, even if there was no decision panel and it was on a first-come first-serve basis, your nitpicking would still leave people thinking they didn't benefit at all from the organ transplant, after all, when their parents are driving them home on the high-way, a kangaroo could hop in the middle of the highway causing them to serve to avoid collision, resulting in the car going airborne and land in the middle of a gun fight between rival gangs.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ShimmeringFaerie
But your argument is based entirely on assumptions.
...
Secondly, we can't know that the child who does get the kidney will have a happier or "better" life than this girl. In fact, I would argue that they probably won't. Living until only 10 or 20 means that this girl won't face a lot of the unhappiness and stress that people who live for longer do and since she'll know that she won't live long, she will probably focus on being happy.
|
You're a hypocrite. You accused BDF of making unfounded assumptions yet you just made one of your own. For all you know, the girl may feel her life is hopeless and cannot see any positive light but you suggested this is less likely to occur based on your assumption. I'm sure individuals of all ages who are facing terminal illnesses would love to hear your warped view when you state they should be happy because their life is coming to a very quick and abrupt end.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ShimmeringFaerie
And thirdly, we don't know that another child getting this kidney would be more beneficial for everyone. The child who does get this kidney could grow up to be a horrible person, a criminal, anything. Or this girl could make a positive difference in a lot of people's lives.
|
True, the child could do something amazing, however, that is when it is important to look at their symptoms, disorder, medical history, etc... . The fact she is mentally retarded rules out the possibility of her making a landmark discovery. She could still make a positive difference but this is equivalent to saying the world is such a dangerous place, people can die by any means so they should stay indoors and away from all dangers. Same premise: everything is possible. You're being overly optimistic.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ShimmeringFaerie
Basically, I don't understand why the donation shouldn't be run on a first-come, first-serve basis. I can understand not giving a liver to someone with an alcohol addiction, but I don't think that this is the same. I do not feel that giving a kidney to such a young girl could ever be a waste even if she won't have a normal lifespan.
|
I don't think there's a single doctor, let alone any human being who wouldn't wish there was a large enough supply of organs so donations were on a first-come, first-serve basis. However, since the supply is heavily restricted, there are two options: first-come first-serve or use a decision panel. You supported a decision panel when you wrote a liver should not be donated to someone with an alcohol addiction because they will not benefit as much and would in all likelihood need another liver transplant down the road unless they overcome their addiction. The fact you give support to using a decision panel tarnishes any argument you have against it.