Soldier receives smoker's lungs in transplant, dies

eeuuww!

Notice how the article glossed over the fact that the health care worker who was suppose to check the lungs and clear them from disease failed to do their job? And that screw-up is what made him ineligible for a 2nd transplant...preexisting disease.

Second point, it also seems as if smokers are the majority of organ donors...what the anti's wont give up their parts? For those smokers who are donors...you CANNOT get on the transplant list. If 2 people, a smoker and a non-smoker had their lungs damaged in a freak accident, the non-smoker would receive either a non-smoker or a smoker lung transplant. The smoker would not qualify and could only get a smokers lung if that donor specified for smokers only and it would have to be a private arrangement.

amazed wrote:

Notice how the article glossed over the fact that the health care worker who was suppose to check the lungs and clear them from disease failed to do their job? And that screw-up is what made him ineligible for a 2nd transplant...preexisting disease.
Second point, it also seems as if smokers are the majority of organ donors...what the anti's wont give up their parts?

I see nothing in the article to support either of your main premises. It says nothing about the pre-existing disease issue, which is a bit different from glossing over anything.

Nor does it say that smokers are the most common donors or even that they make up a large percentage of donors. It only says that there are not enough lung donors to go around and that, therefore, they go ahead and use smokers' lungs when they are donated and pass screening.

Not everyone who smokes will develop lung cancer, and not everyone with lung cancer previously smoked. I am sure they are not using long-time smokers lungs that resemble black deflated inner tubes! This sounds like an unusual case to me. Life is a crap shoot!

Silent Bob7 wrote:

Not everyone who smokes will develop lung cancer, and not everyone with lung cancer previously smoked. I am sure they are not using long-time smokers lungs that resemble black deflated inner tubes! This sounds like an unusual case to me. Life is a crap shoot!

At two and a half packs a day, the guy couldn't have left a pristine pair of lungs behind. Unless he died right after he started smoking, you'd expect there to be a lot of sludge inside the lungs. Of course, it DOES say "up to" 50/day. It's possible that figure was used for sensationalism.

Mazed wrote:

<quoted text>
At two and a half packs a day, the guy couldn't have left a pristine pair of lungs behind. Unless he died right after he started smoking, you'd expect there to be a lot of sludge inside the lungs. Of course, it DOES say "up to" 50/day. It's possible that figure was used for sensationalism.

If I read correctly, the donor lungs showed a tumor prior to being transplanted. They should not have been used at all. A smoker's lungs could still be viable for transplant as long as there are NO signs of disease.

amazed wrote:

Notice how the article glossed over the fact that the health care worker who was suppose to check the lungs and clear them from disease failed to do their job? And that screw-up is what made him ineligible for a 2nd transplant...preexisting disease.
Second point, it also seems as if smokers are the majority of organ donors...what the anti's wont give up their parts? For those smokers who are donors...you CANNOT get on the transplant list. If 2 people, a smoker and a non-smoker had their lungs damaged in a freak accident, the non-smoker would receive either a non-smoker or a smoker lung transplant. The smoker would not qualify and could only get a smokers lung if that donor specified for smokers only and it would have to be a private arrangement.

Maybe it was the drug to prevent rejection

however, we must stress that all donor organs are screened rigorously prior to transplantation.

BleuJei wrote:

<quoted text>
If I read correctly, the donor lungs showed a tumor prior to being transplanted. They should not have been used at all. A smoker's lungs could still be viable for transplant as long as there are NO signs of disease.

I think they said the radiologist had "missed a spot". Too, the treatment to avoid rejection caused it to balloon quickly.

Given the described shortage, it may be justifiable from one standpoint to use smokers' lungs in cases where death is otherwise imminent. However, there are restrictions on organ donation if the donor has taken steroids. Surely the same logic could be legitimately applied to lungs bathed regularly in known carcinogens for prolonged periods of time, whether any effect is apparent or not.

On the other hand, when using suspect organs, is the use of medical staff and facilities justified given the reasonable cause to anticipate problems?

Not saying it isn't, here, just pointing out that there are complexities involved here.

Why are there two threads for this one?

Ill, he was an unluckily person through.
If smoking is good, there would be no one to offense them at all.

They are lazy, dirty, stupid and so irresponsible!

Tony

Mazed wrote:

<quoted text>
I think they said the radiologist had "missed a spot". Too, the treatment to avoid rejection caused it to balloon quickly.
Given the described shortage, it may be justifiable from one standpoint to use smokers' lungs in cases where death is otherwise imminent. However, there are restrictions on organ donation if the donor has taken steroids. Surely the same logic could be legitimately applied to lungs bathed regularly in known carcinogens for prolonged periods of time, whether any effect is apparent or not.
On the other hand, when using suspect organs, is the use of medical staff and facilities justified given the reasonable cause to anticipate problems?
Not saying it isn't, here, just pointing out that there are complexities involved here.

This is a very sad story.

As long as the lungs are, for all intents and purposes, healthy, they should be considered for transplants.

You are right; there certainly are complexities involved.

Mazed wrote:

Why are there two threads for this one?

Glitch, I suppose. I would click on the thread which showed about 26 comments but would only see a few. It has been like this all day.

BleuJei wrote:

<quoted text>
This is a very sad story.
As long as the lungs are, for all intents and purposes, healthy, they should be considered for transplants.
You are right; there certainly are complexities involved.

It is sad, if the cancerous lungs had been from a non smoker there would not be a story. One thing that would make a good story that will never hit the news is smokers lungs saves many lives

u cannot own me wrote:

<quoted text> It is sad, if the cancerous lungs had been from a non smoker there would not be a story. One thing that would make a good story that will never hit the news is smokers lungs saves many lives

Hey, saved this guys for a couple of years, didn't they?

As I said, any aorta in a storm, or something like that.

I guess I'd better get some sleep. It was a little less than one year. Still, it was a little while.

Here's a bit from a different article on this:

"Following the death of Matthew Millington, 31, at his home in Brown Lees, near Stoke-on-Trent, and investigation at Cambridge's Papworth Hospital pinpointed a series of failings.

"These included poor communication, record-keeping and patient handover, and the failure of radiographer to identify the growth of a cancerous tumour.

"'There were a number of failures. I didn't feel the team performed to the standard I would expect,' said Dr. Steven Tsui, clinical director of transplant services at Papworth Hospital in Cambridge, where the procedure was performed."

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html...

What kind of a jackass blames the donor and not the doctors that should have caught this before it was transplanted?

Mazed wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey, saved this guys for a couple of years, didn't they?
As I said, any aorta in a storm, or something like that.

I think it is sick that they are making victims out of both people especially for an anti smoking agenda. If that lung had been from a non smoker it would not be news, just a rejected lung.

It does point out one thing though, even though it was not their intention, smokers lungs save many lives. Do you have a problem with that fact?
Both of those people are being victimized publicly and I think that is a shame

u cannot own me wrote:

<quoted text> I think it is sick that they are making victims out of both people especially for an anti smoking agenda. If that lung had been from a non smoker it would not be news, just a rejected lung.
It does point out one thing though, even though it was not their intention, smokers lungs save many lives. Do you have a problem with that fact?
Both of those people are being victimized publicly and I think that is a shame

And I think it's beyond sick that you can't get over yourself long enough to stop screaming "WAAAH They're out to get me and I don't deserce it!" when something like this comes up.

Lil Ticked wrote:

What kind of a jackass blames the donor and not the doctors that should have caught this before it was transplanted?

I don't know. Who IS blaming the donor? So far, I see questioning of the policy and acknowledgment of hospital foul-ups. I also see people--both in the article and in the comments--pointing out that the need exceeds the availability even with the smokers' organs in the mix.
Using such organs is, though, an obvious issue with the connection between smoking and lung damage.
There is also an opportunity for gathering information here. For instance, how do nonsmoking transplant recipients (of smokers' lungs) compare to smokers who quit in terms of subsequent lung problems?
The article quotes someone as saying this case is an anomaly, but how much of one? Is it just a question of "it usually takes a little longer for this to happen" or is it closer to "there isn't statistically any difference between smoking and nonsmoking donors' lungs"?
Perhaps someone will invent an artificial lung that fits inside the chest and is well-tolerated, and the question will become moot.