ALL AUSTRALIA BLers READ!!!! YOUR LIFE IS AT STAKE!!

[Divine Moments]

^ If you actually read Sameria's post you'll see the rich twat comment was about who determines the law regarding transplant priority/eligibility, not who gets the transplant.

Also, you seem to think that this thread is just about people whose organ damage is a direct result of their drug use. It isn't. The OP is talking about whether someone with a history of drug abuse is ineligible for future transplants. This is his specific example:

I see, but where do they draw the line I wonder? So if I went to the hospital and said I overdid it on benzos and feel fucked/withdrawing, would that already exclude me? That's about as much of an official record that I have, and I want to surely leave it at that.

You come across really arrogant most of the time Busty. Maybe try listening to what people are saying before taking your default oppositional stance.

 

[Crankinit]

Honestly, I think it should come down to who's going to get the most use out of the organ. If you have say, a liver, in the same way it makes more sense to give the liver to a teenager than it does to an 80 year old who doesn't have long left anyway, it doesn't make much sense to give it to someone who's spent the last few decades drinking their own liver into oblivion and doesn't show many signs of stopping.

On the flip side, if somebody has a history of substance use, but that substance use isn't a contributing factor in their needing a transplant and isn't likely to cause damage to the new organ or cause them to die early and waste the organ, then it shouldn't bea factor. I mean if someone needs a new heart after a car crash, they shouldn't be denied that just because they had a drug problem a decade or so ago and have been clean since.

This is something that would need to be carefully considered on a case by case basis, but sadly I think it's unlikely that those making the decision would be capable of doing so without prejudice coming into play, in the case of drug users and ex-drug users.

 

[Busty St Clare]

I'm not going to hold anyones hand and let you have a little sobbing "whoa is me" on my shoulder when you only have yourself to blame. I'm not singling Samaria out by any means, I think any drug taker who damages their health enough to be a drain on society is in the same boat, myself included. If the truth be known I don't believe anyone over 55 deserves an organ either, regardless of their drug taking history. If you haven't experienced enough of this wonderful planet by the time you are 60 then what the fuck have you been doing with your time? Shove off and let a younger person have their time. Sounds harsh? Perhaps, but I don't believe the planet is over populated because too many babies are being born but rather because too many free loaders are wanting to out live their welcome.

 

[Crankinit]

You sound like a very angry person Busty. Just my impression.

 

[mcwally]

Maybe I've just been lucky, but I don't feel that I've ever been treated differently because of the drug history on my medical records.

hm, maybe this is another region of different views towards male/female drug users?? After reading some of the posts I think that there would probably actually be a more prejudice stereotyping viewpoint in the medical community towards drug users because of their seeming self inflicted damage and extra strain on the health system. I'm imagining a doc who has never touched any substance bar alcohol, was top of the class etc and now thinks these fkn addicts taking away precious time when I could be treating someone without self inflicted damage. I dunno maybe that view would be more prevalent in emergency response/paramedics rather than the entire medical community? I guess it would just depend on the person, many would be more sympathetic in the medical field and believe all deserve equal treatment/help no matter what the circumstances.

Anyway regards organs, case by case it must be and probably is because the organ donation rates are low enough anyway. Spare a thought for those who have to make the call though I don't envy their job.

 

[Crankinit]

hm, maybe this is another region of different views towards male/female drug users?? After reading some of the posts I think that there would probably actually be a more prejudice stereotyping viewpoint in the medical community towards drug users because of their seeming self inflicted damage and extra strain on the health system. I'm imagining a doc who has never touched any substance bar alcohol, was top of the class etc and now thinks these fkn addicts taking away precious time when I could be treating someone without self inflicted damage. I dunno maybe that view would be more prevalent in emergency response/paramedics rather than the entire medical community? I guess it would just depend on the person, many would be more sympathetic in the medical field and believe all deserve equal treatment/help no matter what the circumstances.

Anyway regards organs, case by case it must be and probably is because the organ donation rates are low enough anyway. Spare a thought for those who have to make the call though I don't envy their job.

That'd be fine if they took the same view on the obese, the drinkers, the smokers, the self-inflicted diabetics, but do you think that's really the case?

 

[footscrazy]

My understanding was that there's no all encompassing database of medical records. You have medicare, which I guess tracks which doctors you visit and which medications you're prescribed, and then each practice/hospital will have it's own records, but I didn't think those could be accessed except by someone within that enclosed system. I'm sure it happens (ie, one doctor will call up another on the DL and ask what they can dig up about X patient), but I thought officially they needed consent to do so.

You're right, there isn't one at the moment, but they are developing one , or at least thinking about developing one.

 

[Crankinit]

You're right, there isn't one at the moment, but they are developing one , or at least thinking about developing one.

Well that's no good... though I can understand the benefit for doctors, it seems like it would lead to easy breaches of privacy.

 

[Mr Blonde]

You're right, there isn't one at the moment, but they are developing one , or at least thinking about developing one.

Might take them a while as they usually have trouble getting things organized between the states and the federal government. Also, weird aspects of the Privacy Law come into play in these situations too: for example, that's why Project Stop hasn't been made national yet and why pharmacists aren't supposed to accept federal forms of ID (e.g. passports) to enter into Project Stop. I don't understand the legal aspects of it, but it has to do with the program being a state legislative instrument and not a federal one and something to do with privacy.

As for treatment by doctors and nurses towards drug users: nurses are the absolute worst in my opinion. That is the reason I left rehab to detox myself over the weekend; too much prejudice from the nurses and I didn't feel that sitting around with nothing to do other then hear other people's junkie war stories was conducive to my health.

 

[rm2x]

I'm torn between this one.

I will say however that I am certain that they'd use an addicts organ if it was clean and healthy for transplant no questions asked.....

 

[Busty St Clare]

Good point rm2x, although they seem to still give homosexual's blood the big swerve so who knows?

 

[rm2x]

Very true, I can see why though, I'd hate to undergo a transfusion only to find a newly found love of Liza Minnelli and assorted show tunes...

 

[Christ!]

Surely they would take into account whether your drug abuse would actually affect the organ in question? Unless it's some blanket 'drug abusers die earlier' kind of thing...

You would hope so.

Probably just talk...don't think they could get away with this.

I do think being clean for an amount of time in order to be eligible is ok. It's disgusting when alcoholics get a liver transplant and keep on drinking...The flat out - no drugs users eligible is crazy.

 

[Christ!]

Well that's no good... though I can understand the benefit for doctors, it seems like it would lead to easy breaches of privacy.

Good for patients as well.

Some lady goes to see a doctor that isn't her usual...maybe her english isn't so good. Gets put on antibiotics despite being allergic and dies. Or some pain patient isn't getting proper relief from methadone that his usual doctor prescribed recently, goes to see another doctor and tells them that they used to be on OC40's and they worked well, doctor prescribes them and the patient starts to take them while the methadone is still in his system. He overdoses and dies.

lol could come up with lots of those situations but I'm sure you get the point. A centralized database that every doctor has when they see a patient would be great, one that shared what prescriptions had been written recently and when they were dispensed, all medical conditions since birth, what treatment they've been through, surgery etc.

Would be good to have automated alerts for doctors as well, if there's interactions between two meds and the doctor prescribes both a screen pops up to warn them - (You want to prescribe oxycodone, this patient is currently prescribed alprazolam KNOWN INTERACTIONS - Central nervous system- and/or respiratory-depressant effects may be increased in patients taking multiple drugs that cause these effects, especially in elderly or debilitated patients. Patients should be carefully monitored while on this combination for CNS/respiratory depression. Would you like to continue? Yes/No)

When we have our new broadband network it'd be sweet to have appointments via webcam where doctors can prescribe stuff and send it to your pharmacy electronically.

Probably cost a decent chunk of change to implement all this stuff or else they would have done it already.

The above wouldn't be good for doctor shoppers, haven't really thought through all the privacy implications but I'm sure there's reasons against having this kind of thing.

 

[Mr Blonde]

Would be good to have automated alerts for doctors as well, if there's interactions between two meds and the doctor prescribes both a screen pops up to warn them - (You want to prescribe oxycodone, this patient is currently prescribed alprazolam KNOWN INTERACTIONS - Central nervous system- and/or respiratory-depressant effects may be increased in patients taking multiple drugs that cause these effects, especially in elderly or debilitated patients. Patients should be carefully monitored while on this combination for CNS/respiratory depression. Would you like to continue? Yes/No)

I'm not sure about prescribing software, but dispensary software in pharmacies definitely picks up on and alerts the pharmacist to drug interactions for a patient. The pharmacist can then counsel the patient or if necessary call the doctor to discuss the issue.

 

[drug_mentor]

I don't have a problem with this if it is only in cases where the drug abuse had a real impact on why they need a transplant and/or ongoing drug use is going to reduce the likleyhood of the transplant being a success.

Busty I think you are missing the point a lot of people are concerned about which is having any recreational drug use/abuse on your medical record being enough to basically disqualify you from being able to recieve an organ donation, this would clearly be very unjust and a concern to anyone who uses drugs, particularly if their current medical records would already show drug use. I don't think there are many (if any) bluelighters who would suggest a hardcore drug abuser get an organ transplant over another individual who lives a healthy lifestyle but the fact is if you are automatically looked over for ANY history of drug use that is discrimination that could severely impact many on this board.

Wasn't sure I would ever agree on you with anything Busty but IMHO our increasing life span is becoming problematic and while I am not sure I would neccessarily draw the line at 55 I also feel as though the amount of medical resources used on the elderly is unsustainable and not entirely unfair to factor into a decision of who should recieve an organ transplant.

 

[Busty St Clare]

I feel kind of warm and tingly now DM.... do you want to hug it out? I actually think they should lower the retirement age to 55 and introduce an extirmination age at 75. You would not see people wasting their lives or chewing up valuable resources. Will it happen? You just have to look at the greed of the Baby Boomers to know they will try and horde every last dollar to the very end if they thought they could live forever.

I don't think I am missing the point when it comes to the medical records. I am asked yearly on all manner of forms if I take drugs and I am honest when I say No. Never have, I don't even speed or have sex other than in missionary position. The truth is you have to play the game and if that means keeping your activities to yourself and on the down low then so be it. It is a shame that you are outed as soon as you go into rehab or detox but that just happens to be the rules of society right now, you can sulk about it or cheat your way through life.

I choose to cheat and I will take tht extra kidney when the time is right

 

[Jakeperson]

Even now any form of previous substance history would place us so low that we wouldnt get one any way.

 

[Mr Blonde]

It is a shame that you are outed as soon as you go into rehab or detox but that just happens to be the rules of society right now, you can sulk about it or cheat your way through life.

I hope my one day in detox won't affect my future career. I plan on moving once I graduate though so will be in a city where they have no medical records on me at all.

 

[What was it?]

^ If you actually read Sameria's post you'll see the rich twat comment was about who determines the law regarding transplant priority/eligibility, not who gets the transplant.

Also, you seem to think that this thread is just about people whose organ damage is a direct result of their drug use. It isn't. The OP is talking about whether someone with a history of drug abuse is ineligible for future transplants. This is his specific example:



You come across really arrogant most of the time Busty. Maybe try listening to what people are saying before taking your default oppositional stance.

Thanks dude. This is exactly right. I have one hospital having me on record for coming in totally phased out with rebound anxiety and shakes due to a 10 day benzo bender with 150mgs of oxazepam plus a bottle of wine each day. I know-stupid. But I a have learnt my lesson. Just hope this doesnt exclude me from getting a spot for an organ down the track if I need it.