Alberta woman dies after being denied transplant for refusing to get COVID vaccine
Sheila Annette Lewis had an incurable disease. She was refused a transplant because she refused to get the COVID vaccine
You're viewing a single thread.
rip bozo. That was her fully conscious choice to die
No, it was not her choice to die. Don't be ridiculous
It literally was. She had the choice to get vaccinated and get it. She choose not to and die. That is an extremely easy choice. Which part of that is not having a choice?
No, she did not choose to die
In what world does this make sense to you. She choose to die because she didn't want the vaccine. Is point A to point B just not connecting to you?
She's not choosing to die, they're choosing to kill her
If you're choosing to jump off a cliff because it offends you to walk on a paved road and you're being offered to walk on the paved road then it really is your own fault.
Doesn't fit
You're given a very reasonable and next to no effort choice. You're choosing against that and choosing to hurt yourself by not picking that option. Except in this case you're also hurting others around you. It's like you're suggesting it's the grounds fault that she died when she choose to launch herself off the cliff, she could've just taken the paved road for no effort.
You have to be trolling at this point
It's like arguing with ChatGpt
Sure, here are some ways to be annoying online!
Remember, bringing down the other person to your level means you won the disagreement!
They're choosing not to kill 2 people instead of 1.
It's no different to prioritising someone who has never smoked instead of a smoker. The person who doesn't smoke has a better chance of survival
“It was not her choice to die”. Please explain. It looks to me like it very much was.
She did not make the choice to die, someone else made the choice to refuse to help her
She refused to do all of the things necessary to get a transplant.
Incorrect.
If I was drowning in a raging river and somebody threw me a rope, I could refuse the rope and demand that somebody else risk their life to swim out to get me. When they refuse, I am not going to say that they made the choice for me. I chose to die.
I understand that I am not going to convince you. That is fine. That does not change the fact that they gave her the choice and told her the steps she needed to take. The choice was hers and she chose. The fact that they did not decide to risk or kill somebody else waiting for that organ to accommodate her “choice” does not transfer the responsibility to them.
It is tragic to see somebody destroyed by their choices. That said, I am glad that somebody that was willing to save their own life got a chance at that organ instead. I hope that nobody that I care about is ever impacted by the kind of decision making you are defending here ( the woman who refused the organ that could have saved her life ).
The "my body my choice, I should be allowed to take that risk" crowd when the risk turns out poorly for them.
"She didn't choose to risk her life by not getting the vaccine. She chose to risk your life by not getting the vaccine!"
Are you kidding? Should we not give narcan to OD'd drug addicts? Should we keep people from dying from lung cancer because they smoked? Should we not try to help people dying from liver disease because they're alcoholics? They chose those situations, right?
Actually smokers who haven’t quit don’t get lung transplants either. Same with alcoholics who keep drinking, they are not put on the waiting list for liver transplants. There is a whole list of requirements you need to follow before you are even considered for a transplant. One of them is being fully vaccinated.
I bet they had a chance to rectify as well
Should we keep people from dying from lung cancer because they smoked? Should we not try to help people dying from liver disease because they're alcoholics?
When the smoker/drinker fully admits they have zero intention of quitting, I would much rather give my lung/liver to someone who isn't going to get a full, healthy life out of it, rather than someone who clearly would rather continue abusing it and burn through it in a couple years.
Organs are a limited resource, that's why there is a list - and we should absolutely dedicate limited resources to doing as much good as possible
Yeah medical providers routinely do deny limited treatments (like organs) to people who refuse to stop taking drugs, smoking, or drinking. It makes complete sense too.
In the US, no one forces anyone to get a vaccine. But if a patient doesn't cooperate with the doctors' orders, they won't get the treatment.
It's not even really denying. They are just giving that organ to someone else. I'm sure if there were a glut of organs on the market somehow, then they could get less picky, but you don't. For every successful organ donation there are probably a dozen people who die waiting.
We respect those who have given life as their final act by making sure their organs aren't wasted.
Those going through organ transplants are immunocompromised and it is especially important that they be vaccinated. Giving someone who is rejecting medical advice related directly to the transplant and it's aftermath isn't something we can do while there's an organ shortage.
That's the other angle. Someone has to die to donate organs (other than kidneys and I think liver). There aren't enough organs to go around. Who lives and who dies? It's a classic philosophical conundrum.
You have to remember that anyone that receives an organ is another that don't. doctors are very strict to not give organs to ppl that can suddenly stop taking meds to keep a thing so important working, receiving an organ is not a right, is a gift from someone that died to keep another alive.
If you were in the wilderness with only 1 dose of Narcan and you had to choose between administering it to a drug addict dying from a bender, or their 8 year old that accidentally got into what was causing their parent to OD who would you give the single dose to? That is the kind of decision being made here.
Yep, not enough organs to go around. Some people are doomed to die waiting. It's right out of a philosophy textbook.
You're escaping from a burning building, the stairs are about to collapse. Do you assist the elderly smoker or the teenager? The pregnant woman or the father?
Classic. In this case do you save the entitled woman demanding an organ who refuses to follow medical advice, or the next person waiting?
The trolley problem in real life!
Your example of narcan doesn't even make sense - no one has to die for there to be more narcan. They just make more. So yeah, obviously we should give people narcan even if they're making bad choices. People dying of lung cancer or liver disease require someone to die (or at least permanently give up part of an essential organ, in the case of livers), and we can't just go to the pharmacy and pick up some spare organs just in case. It's part of the deal that you don't get an organ if you don't meet a whole bunch of criteria, like being sober, getting vaccines, generally doing as much as possible to ensure the success of the transplant, because there's someone else who will. Maybe they can't change the past behavior that got them in the situation, but choosing not to change current/future behavior is absolutely grounds for denial.
I agree with you on all points but one. The liver is the only organ that can regenerate itself. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liver_regeneration
If they plan to continue smoking or heavily drinking, then yes we should skip over to the next person on the list.
If they refuse to take up the lifestyle changes or follow medical advice, the organ should be used for the next person on the list.
People who've got transplants need to take immunosuppressants to reduce risk of rejection. Making them much more vulnerable to COVID. If the person is adamantly refusing the vaccine for bogus conspiracy theory reasons - it doesn't give me much confidence that they would even follow through on other medical advice to prevent rejection.
There's a finite number of organs at play here, that's why all the conditions.
That comparison makes no sense lol. You can get a vaccine for zero downsides at any point in time with next to no inconvenience. And you compare that to someone dying of lung cancer?? Especially when lungs are extremely limited and they are clearly showing they don't care. You can't say the same about the other comparisons you've made and that's why it makes no sense.
Should we not give narcan to OD'd drug addicts
A lot of people would say no to this. From a personal perspective I'd say "depends on the circumstance but not repeatedly of signify continues to use".
As for smoking/alcohol and transplants... yes they did and those are already exclusionary factors.