Woman received lungs of a 30-year smoker

The_Minister

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_britain_donated_smoker_s_lungs

LONDON – The family of a 28-year-old British woman who unknowingly received a lung transplant from a smoker says she would have been "horrified" and have lodged a complaint.

Cystic fibrosis sufferer Lyndsey Scott in February 2009 received a double lung transplant from a donor who had smoked for three decades. She died in July of pneumonia.

Britain's top transplant official Chris Rudge defended the decision and said patients should be told they are not getting a "brand new" organ. He said on the BBC that "lungs from a smoker can be working perfectly normally."

Scott's family called for patients to be told more information about organ donors before accepting a transplant.

Tbh, I always thought that someone looking for a double-lung transplant would be desperate - I can't imagine them saying "No thanks, give someone else the dirty lungs, I'll wait for a nice grey pair".

If the lungs are functioning then surely that is what is important?

recylingbin

needs new lungs
gets new lungs

Bitch needs to take a deep breath and count her blessings.

The_Minister

recylingbin wrote: »

needs new lungs
gets new lungs

Bitch needs to take a deep breath and count her blessings.

She's dead.

Berty

recylingbin wrote: »

Bitch needs to take a deep breath and count her blessings.

Somebody else needs to do some blessings BECAUSE SHE'S DEAD!

recylingbin

The_Minister wrote: »

She's dead.

Well then, that's the end of that.

javaboy

Patients should be told they're not getting a brand new organ? Ahaha. If they need to be told that, then it's probably a brain transplant they need.

"Sorry doc. I only want brand new original genuine parts. No refurbs thanks."

biko

Oops, she died in July 2009 of pneumonia.

Zombienosh

i lol'd so hard at the above posts.

seamus

Scott's family called for patients to be told more information about organ donors before accepting a transplant.

Anyone who refuses an organ donation should be thrown off the transplant list and left to die.

Cunning Stunt

recylingbin wrote: »

needs new lungs
gets new lungs

Bitch needs to take a deep breath and count her blessings.

LOL - let's hope you're not a brain doner

chin_grin

See the problem was that they didn't be-lung to her in the first place.


Gets lab coat. Runs.

This is a disgrace. The donor gave his body and the family of the recipient are just ungrateful. Do they think the pneumonia is the donor's fault? **** imo.. Beggars cant be choosers.

recylingbin

Cunning Stunt wrote: »

LOL - let's hope you're not a brain doner

Likewise

Stark

I got Georgie Best's old liver. ****ing sucks :mad:

Teutorix

recylingbin wrote: »

needs new lungs
gets new lungs

Bitch needs to take a deep breath and count her blessings.

Congratulations, you are officially going to hell.

tmax

I know little about transplants but I think there's something ethically wrong with giving a long term smokers lungs or an alcoholics liver to someone else. And I dont credit the donor much for this.

If it was the only option to avoid death then fair enough, but the patient should be told. Sort of like telling a cancer patient they've two years to live when in fact its likely only 4 months

Teutorix

tmax wrote: »

I know little about transplants but I think there's something ethically wrong with giving a long term smokers lungs or an alcoholics liver to someone else. And I dont credit the donor much for this.

If it was the only option to avoid death then fair enough, but the patient should be told. Sort of like telling a cancer patient they've two years to live when in fact its likely only 4 months

Smoking dosent "cause damage" it can cause damage, as in this case they were bad lungs, but a smoker could have very good lungs, or even a ****e heart, but then again so could a non smoker, its pretty much a gamble.

Yakult

recylingbin wrote: »

needs new lungs
gets new lungs

Bitch needs to take a deep breath and count her blessings.

The_Minister wrote: »

She's dead.

What a waste

The_Minister

Teutorix wrote: »

Smoking dosent "cause damage" it can cause damage, as in this case they were bad lungs, but a smoker could have very good lungs, or even a ****e heart, but then again so could a non smoker, its pretty much a gamble.

Where does it say that there was anything wrong with the lungs?

Ann22

The lungs after a few years can be as healthy as someone who's never smoked. The heart's the same actually. One takes 5yrs to recover and the other 2yrs. I can never remember which. Lord have mercy on the poor woman and her donor... she probably got longer than she would've got without a transplant.

Capt'n Midnight

who had dibs on the lungs next ?

Since CF affects all of the body a new set of lungs is not a miracle cure
24% of those who receive a lung transplant will be dead within 2 years
over half will be dead within seven years


But on average a new set of lungs gives CF sufferers an extra 4.5 years so well worth doing. For others who get lung transplants it's about 5 years on average, so no reason for CF patients to have lower priority. Also if the lungs are healthy then no reason not to use them, we've all heard of people who smoked 50 a day well into their eighties


http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/478865

Despite the generally high risk of early death after a lung transplant, cystic fibrosis patients lived almost 4.5 years longer on average after receiving new lungs at a major transplant center.
...
Average life expectancy is 33 years for patients with cystic fibrosis, which is not cured by the surgery. The young, predominantly white population at Barnes-Jewish was 47% female and had an average age of 28.1 years.

Patients spent a median of 1.48 years on the waiting list for new lungs, which are given to only about 1,000 lung disease patients per year in the U.S. Nearly a third of the study population, 79 patients, died within two years on the waiting list. Forty-seven patients were still on the list at the end of the study, which reviewed patients who were waitlisted from 1988 to 2002.

Nearly half the population, 121 patients, received new lungs. Of these, 76% lived two years. Survival after transplantation was reported to range from 84% at one year to 45% at seven years. A total of 65 transplanted patients were still alive at the end of the study.

walshb

The_Minister wrote: »

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_britain_donated_smoker_s_lungs



Tbh, I always thought that someone looking for a double-lung transplant would be desperate - I can't imagine them saying "No thanks, give someone else the dirty lungs, I'll wait for a nice grey pair".

If the lungs are functioning then surely that is what is important?

I guess no good deed goes unpunished!