Hospital denies woman’s kidney transplant due to medical marijuana use

slimvictor said:
^ I agree with most everything Hexaslug said, except for one thing.
If she was smoking it, and therefore raised the risk of infection, should she be denied a transplant?
Isn't that her risk to take?
What if the cannabis gave her the greatest relief from her incredible pain, and she decided that it was worth the risk?
What if she was extra careful to eat a healthy diet with plenty of vitamin A and C in order to reduce the risk of infection?
It is all too controlling, too demanding, too short-sighted and closed-hearted for me.
She was taking a medicine.
A medicine prescribed by her doctor.
To relieve pain.
What in the name of God is wrong with that?
Click to expand...

While I agree with the sentiment, DooMMooD does have a valid point, in that there just aren't enough organs to go around. From the health services point of view, why give a much needed organ to someone who is increasing their risk of infection? They need to have rules such as that to determine who is a priority. For instance, why should someone who is waiting for a liver transplant be given it if they are still drinking and harming their liver, or what if someone dies from getting an infection after a transplant because they have a suppressed immune system from smoking? That organ could have gone to someone else who would live because they didn't do anything to put their health in further danger. The state of organ transplants is a painful one. The health service has to heavily prioritize, if you break the rules then other people must be prioritized above you. It's horrible but at the same time it has to be like that, there is no other way to do it.

If the woman was vaping or eating it, I don't think there would have been a problem. She should have discussed it with her doctor to find out whether it was okay. It's unfortunate, I agree, but there are unchanging rules for everyone, and if they're broken, by mistake or not, then you can be denied. Hopefully we can perfect stem cell research and all that good stuff in the near future so so many people who get sick needn't die waiting for treatment.
 
I wonder how much medical validity this has. After a transplant, the patient is bombarded with immune suppressants, so any bug they have inside them is prone to kick into high gear and threaten their life. Essentially what they're saying is that they don't trust her ability to survive the transplant.

At least, that's what they're saying. It begs two questions:

1) is it honest?
2) is it reasonable?
Click to expand...
A study is mentioned right in the article that YOU posted, heh. It says:
Only one person is known to have died due to an aspergillus infection directly linked to inhaled marijuana smoke, in 1988, but the fungus is still a serious problem for post-transplant patients. One study, published in 2010 (PDF), looked at 642 cases of post-transplant aspergillus infections over the course of about four years. Roughly half of the patients had died by the time the study wrapped up, which is why most high-end medical marijuana dispensaries contract with laboratories to test their products for potency and contaminants, including mold.
Click to expand...
The link to the study is also in the text.

While I guess it's unfortunate that she wasn't told she shouldn't be smoking cannabis from the start, it's not that surprising. According to "the rules" posted about earlier in this thread she was told "no intoxicating substances, and obviously every separate substance can't be explicitly named individually. This arguably ought to have been a cue to ask her docs about her medical marijuana. Also, if she wasn't smoking it but rather eating it then that point would have been made in the article, as it is clearly a pro-cannabis article attempting to argue possible discrimination.

About half of the post transplant cases infected with this mold died according to the study linked to in the article. The article's author notes that we are exposed to this mold every day, and that MOST medical marijuana dispensaries contract with labs to keep their products free from mold, and talks about politicizing the issue. But the author is the one politicizing the story not the medical staff. Clearly the total exposure from smoking mold infested weed is far higher than our daily exposure, and there's no way for the medical staff to know for certain where all this woman was smoking came from or if mold was indeed removed effectively. Despite these facts, these defensive arguments are made despite them. Only someone distracted by political motivations (or desperate for organs) wouldn't consider the obvious like this.

We're talking about organs and a long list of people who want to be recipients. Whether it's medical marijuana disqualifying her because of the mold issue or some other X disqualifying her for evidence-based plausible reason Y, the rules are in place to maximize the probability that the sacrifice of something rare (organ) stands the greatest likelihood of paying off (the person lives and remains strong enough to accept the organ) based on what can be known beforehand. That's it. Whether doctors, the "establishment," or whatever holds discriminatory attitudes towards marijuana users doesn't matter because it doesn't need to in order for the stated one to be a good reason to boot her. Everyone who breaks the rules is treated this way, and she broke the rules, so no discrimination. There's no substantive story in this article, just an unfortunate case of circumstances. That's why the hospital is ignoring the whole story and declining comment.

For the record I love drugs. This is not a "goddamned druggies are gettin uppity" post I'm making. It's just taking full account of the information given.
 
THC2LSD said:
I think there should be mandatory organ donation, or at least an opt-out rather than opt-in donation. But I could see the right-winger screaming, "The governments gonna steal your organs!"
Click to expand...

Christian right wingers are taught to be fanatically averse to charity. Their sermons these days are apparently all about the evils of communism and the sanctity of the embryo.

But is the DMV the only place where people can be approached about the final disposition of their organs? Nobody is in a caring mood at the DMV.
 
23536 said:
^(to condumbpope): what they're saying is that weed contains the toxic mold and an immuno-suppressed person that's infected by the mold stands a good chance of dying. The insult to the immune system comes after the transplant because they give you a bunch of drugs to suppress your immune system so that your body won't attack the new organ.

If that's true though, doctors shouldn't be recommending weed to patients with bad kidneys.
Click to expand...

I lold reading your post as I've worried about this myself while being treated with steroids and antibiotics, having lyme and a few co-infections my immune system is definitely below the radar.... I have smoked weed that is browner than shit and probably came out of some mexicans ass in a tied off balloon.


Considering the heat of lighters, vaporizers, and baking when it comes to edibles this is a really stupid "threat".

common "weed" molds are not serious considering THC itself has anti-fungal properties... (Patients in other nations with Candida / systemic mold problems are not shoo-ed away from cannabis treatment... any risk is a result of PROHIBITION)

Why do i even care?

Also in my country the USA patients with Lyme disease are constantly persecuted, told they are crazy, denied health insurance, and doctors will straight up refuse to treat them because they are afraid the feds and medical board will shut them down. Any medical study coming from the USA has to be taken with a grain of salt as it goes through the grinder that is the politics of a squirming and uncomfortable nation.
 
Last edited:
as the son of someone who received a liver transplant, that shit is SERIOUS BUSINESS> There is a GIANT LIST of rules and things you must follow and agree to. ONE OF THEM IS TO NOT USE ILLICIT AND INTOXICATING SUBSTANCES. Whether it be alcohol, marijuana, heroin, whatever, you AGREE (willingly I might add) that you will not engage in such behavior up until (and supposed to be afterwards) your transplant.
Click to expand...
she wasn't denied an organ because she refused to stop smoking cannabis for a period of time. nobody in their right mind would do that. she was refused an organ for being prescribed a medication that frightens doctors for absurd and irrelevant reasons.
 
slimvictor said:
My understanding - based on the explanation of a close family member, who is a nurse working at a large hospital - is that the protocol at at least some hospitals for harvesting organs involves declaring death based on different standards than when not harvesting organs. The difference means that doctors give up on you before they would otherwise, in order to keep the organs fresh and working.
Click to expand...
Me personally, if I was that fucked up to the point of brain death or near death, would rather die and save someones life since I'd bet life would be hard even if I came threw.
 
This is absolute bullshit! I mean wtf? Literally wtf 8o . This is one of the most retarded stories Ive read in a long fucking time and that is saying alot.

Then again the fact that a doctor once told me he was not going to give me marinol for my severe nausea due to nerve pain because he was not giving me a prescription so i could get high right after he wrote me a script for 90 4mg dilaudid's says alot about the medical community indeed 8)
 
^It's because of the study referenced in the article that reported roughly half the donor organ recipients who became infested with the mold died. Smoking pot vastly increases exposure to this mold beyond background levels. The immunosuppressant drugs organ recipients receive profoundly increases their susceptibility to infection. Therefore, you smoke pot no organs for you. She was told "no intoxicating substances." That was her cue to ask about her prescription. There are many other rules that have nothing to do with recreational drug user discrimination that will also disqualify people just the same. There's no discrimination here, just rational policy given that organs are rare and a lot can go wrong in any transplant case. This is a shitty situation with drug advocates taking advantage for political gain and ignoring sense to play the victim. Yes, drug users are discriminated against in many ways that are immoral, but this isn't a case of that. See my last post for more.
 
slimvictor said:
^ I was convinced by your arguments, Psood0nym (and those of the 6-slug).
I didn't expect to change my mind, but ended up seeing it differently.

However, if she was vaping or eating the weed, I still don't see anything wrong with it.
Click to expand...
I agree entirely, as I alluded to in my post previous to my last. But what evidence is there that she was doing either of those? Breaking the "rules" consists of smoking pot. Even vaporizing could involve inhaling the mold. If she wasn't smoking pot, than why not involve that as part of her defense in a very pro-medical marijuana article? Why wouldn't she have been quoted saying, "I didn't smoke it, I ate it?" What evidence is there that organ donor recipients who exclusively eat pot have been put to the bottom of the donor list because they were exclusively eating pot? Maybe she could have been tested for abnormal levels of the mold in her body to verify that she did or did not pose a threat to the integrity of the organ donation process or something, I don't know. But that sort of willingness to give the benefit of the doubt would need to apply to every person shot down to the bottom of the list for whatever reason amenable to evidential counter argument, when there are who knows how many people desperate for those same organs who the medical authorities have no reason to disqualify. That's what I'm getting at. The organ reception process is desperate. That's why there is a thriving organ harvesting industry preying illegally on the third world: because there's just not enough to go around. It sucks, it's an injustice, and it's unfortunate. But it's a fact. This is a tragedy of circumstance, not discrimination. There are many other perfectly valid stories about drug user discrimination to write articles about, but so far as the article has shown this isn't one of them. If further evidence shows otherwise, I'm totally open to changing my stance.
 
Last edited:
psood0nym knows whats up. This is not discrimination at all. This IS a fucking tragedy, to be sure, but one I feel they kinda brought on themselves.

The 5 year survival rate for recipients is already like 75% for liver and kidney recipients. Why in gods name would they give it to someone who is going to keep abusing drugs is my point?

Illicit drugs. Youre 100% right, oxycodone SHOULD BE UNDER THAT TOO, but sadly if the TEAM (and you have a TRANSPLANT TEAM when you get an organ) say oxy is Ok than its ok.
Youre all 100% right, patients SHOULD be able to vape/eat weed. But theyre not, and they should deal with the reality of the situation. Its made very clear that weed/booze/heroin/illicit drugs/etc are not ok

The fact is there are RULES if you want a 2nd chance of life and theres no other way to split that. Follow the rules, get the organ, or dont and die. It should be an easy choice no? And if you cant follow those rules, how the FUCK are you expected to follow the GIANT LIST OF RULES/PROCDURES you must do for the rest of your life?

All those immunosuppressants....and they are NOT like steroids. Go look up Prograf or Cellcept and tell me what you think about smoking weed while on those. Cyclosporin too, check all that shit out. Calcineurin inhibitors, IL blockers, etc. Shits CRAZY. Did you all know you cant drink grapefruit juice or take tagamet while on tacrolimus and cyclosporin? Yeah, and how many of you on here would follow that chasing an opiate high?

Christ I dont like even coughing around my dad when I'm sick. No way I would want him to introduce mold to his lungs...thats just crazy talk and asking for him to not make it to the 10 year mark. Some of you are saying "Oh the molds no big deal I do it all the time dont have mold in my lungs!" Think about that for a second...are you on cyclosporin?

Why should a 12 year old not get a kidney after another person breaks the rules? Why should someone who follows the rules not be rewarded and those who break them suffer?

As I said 18 people die every day waiting. Theres no shortage of people who want the organs that follow the rules. Youre all thinking of how horrible it was for this pot smoker, what about a fucking kid who is on the list below them? They aren't deserving as well?

@SLIMVICTOR: that is an entirely bullshit myth. Why the fuck would a doctor give up on a patient? From a purely logical perspective they make $ treating patients so why would they kill an easy to care for one? Its pretty easy to put people on life support and leave them there, like a wall flower. Its such bullshit people think that a DOCTOR will give up on YOUR LIFE to save a DIFFERENT life. Like does any of that even make any sense? And theres not even a guarantee that those organs will be usable, AND its not like they give them to people in their own hospital. Organs are distributed over geographical areas of the country based on position on the list.

That is if someone donates an organ in PA it could possibly go all the way up to vermont instead of to someone in PA.

As I said, if we had enough organs to go around, everyone would get a 2nd chance...
 
Last edited:
This IS a fucking tragedy, to be sure, but one I feel they kinda brought on themselves.
Click to expand...
if you get a throat infection, take antibiotic A for it, and then a month later you can't get a kidney transplant because it might be complicated by antibiotic A... you did not bring it on yourself. it's just a tragedy.
The 5 year survival rate for recipients is already like 75% for liver and kidney recipients. Why in gods name would they give it to someone who is going to keep abusing drugs is my point?
Click to expand...
what evidence do we have that she abused anything?
Did you all know you cant drink grapefruit juice or take tagamet while on tacrolimus and cyclosporin? Yeah, and how many of you on here would follow that chasing an opiate high?
Click to expand...
but opiates are OK according to you and the transplant team, and tagamet doesn't effect weed.

-

i see what you're saying psood0nym. i think we can put these few hundred (this isn't the only article) unnecessary deaths to ignorance and prohibition. if we were allowed to do the research to see if eating or vaping weed was a problem or not for transplants... if we didn't keep a class of medicines off-limits to doctors for macro-financial reasons... we wouldn't have had to put these patients in a position where they have to let themselves die due to their past medical needs.
 
Not that I want to discourage organ donation in any way,
but to expound upon the point of view I described earlier, that definitions of death may change based on the purpose,
this article describing some of the difficulties with definitions of death is relevant.


Organ harvesting/transplantation and the science surrounding death. You suggest that the two have difficulty playing nice. Why is that?

Plain and simple: we want the organs. Organ transplantation is a $27 billion per year business. Most of the people harvested for organs today would not have been considered dead prior to 1968. But really dead people-those whose hearts have stopped and are not breathing-do not make good donors. The blood stops bringing oxygen to the organs, and, for lack of a better word, they spoil. But if the donor is just "mostly dead," meaning that his heart is still beating and he can still breathe with the aid of a ventilator, then the organs remain fresh and juicy and bring huge prices in the transplant business.

The average cost for a heart transplant, such as the one Dick Cheney just received, is nearly $1,000,000. Kidneys will cost you about $250,000 each. The donors by law cannot be compensated, so this is a very, very profitable business, one in which the raw material-human organs-do not have to be paid for, thanks to federal law. It is one of the great federal subsidies of our time.
Click to expand...

http://io9.com/5915339/the-meaning-of-death-how-do-we-know-someone-is-no-longer-alive
 
I'm not a communist or anything, but donated organs should not bring financial profit to anyone. That's the point of the word "donated".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top