Woman in Renal Failure Denied Life-Saving Procedure Because She’s Unvaccinated

[Bilgerat]

A silly mouse like you might think so. It's not. She can have the operation.

As long as she "bends the knee" and conforms, right Jake

[Gunny]

See why be that way though?

I related an event as an example of how it is. I didn't say it was okay. If you missed it, I had to move into the garage because so non-smoker zealot/activist imposed his beliefs into my house.

It's been that way for years and years (no idea how many) when it comes to transplants. They basically decided who is and is not worth saving. This is just more of the same.

[Black Diamond]

I related an event as an example of how it is. I didn't say it was okay. If you missed it, I had to move into the garage because so non-smoker zealot/activist imposed his beliefs into my house.

It's been that way for years and years (no idea how many) when it comes to transplants. They basically decided who is and is not worth saving. This is just more of the same.

I know. I remember thinking when Rev first began this thread that it sounded familiar. Ie you have to meet certain criteria before surgeon will perform procedure. Stuff like that

[revelarts]

Your examples, largely, are not on point. The transplant itself creates the enhanced risk.

As Gunny points out, Many doctors Already make up arbitrary standards for patients before doctors consent to fulfill their oaths.
Add to that Hospital Admins, Medical Boards, Insurance companies, and the Feds also crime(cough)CHIME in to block people's treatments for various BS reasons.

This simply codifies another excuse to refuse treatment. And the 'no vax no treatment' excuse does not have written on it "transplants only". It's a Blank Check.
ALL surgeries create and include enhanced risk FJ. All.
Your assumed line in the sand of 'Transplants' is arbitrary and illusory.

And I'd guess that very soon we'll see more medical refusals which do NOT include transplants, but simply based on a patient's SHOCKING lack of covid vaccine.

[fj1200]

Your assumed line in the sand of 'Transplants' is arbitrary and illusory.

I can cop to that but some of the stories that have been brought forth in recent times have been amazingly thin on details but they have been run with far longer than they rightly should have; and I'd throw this one in there too. Would you like a listing of those threads? I'll wager that the majority have been anti-vaccine threads with nothing more than unsubstantiated "whistle-blowers" as an example.

[fj1200]

It appears threads have collided.

Even though she has stage 5 kidney disease that puts her at risk of dying without a new kidney, Lutali, 56, said she could not agree to be vaccinated because of the role that stem cells have played in the development of vaccines.
“As a Christian, I can't support anything that has to do with abortion of babies, and the sanctity of life for me is precious,” she said.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/colorado-...225233203.html

A listing of drugs, OTC and prescription, tested on fetal tissue lines. (couldn't copy and paste the list)


https://www.patheos.com/blogs/throug...dern-medicine/

Ivermectin as a potential drug for treatment of COVID-19: an in-sync review with clinical and computational attributes

seven subunits of P2X receptors, P2X4 is most sensitive to ivermectin. Priel et al. studied the effect of ivermectin on whole cell as well as single channel currents of P2X4 receptors of humans expressed in HEK293 cells. Authors observed that at low ivermectin concentrations maximal current activated by ATP is predominantly activated and at high concentrations rate of current deactivation is

https://link.springer.com/article/10...40-020-00195-y

I wonder if she needs to check her medicine cabinet.

[JakeStarkey]

Those questions were already answered.

People who have transplants and are not vaxxed suffer much higher rates of serious infection and death if they catch Covid.

Does the woman have Covid?
No.
So what's the assumption here? that she WILL get covid after the transplant?
Why is that an assumption?

Also Has 70-80% of everyone who's ever gotten a transplant died if they contracted covid? really?
How close to the transplant? 6 months , 1 year, 5 years, 30 years?


Plus
Does the vaccine stop anyone from catching covid before or after a transplant.
No.

their argument is BS

[revelarts]

I can cop to that but some of the stories that have been brought forth in recent times have been amazingly thin on details but they have been run with far longer than they rightly should have; and I'd throw this one in there too. Would you like a listing of those threads? I'll wager that the majority have been anti-vaccine threads with nothing more than unsubstantiated "whistle-blowers" as an example.

That may be, but this woman's case is real.
and the reason for the refusal is BS. And sets a precedent that others can follow. A precedent that has no real boundary except the fact that a patient is not vaccinated.

--
Here's some info from article in a Memphis Newspaper that ask if hospitals and doctors ARE in fact refusing... or considering to refuse to treat unvaccinated patients.

https://www.commercialappeal.com/sto...cs/8210503002/

aug 2021

Across the South, hospital systems are in distress, and many administration officials have said facilities will soon have to start triaging scarce healthcare resources based on a patient's likelihood of survival. This has led some healthcare officials to consider whether vaccination status ought to be a factor when deciding who gets care and who doesn't when hospitals are operating under so much strain. The Dallas Morning News published an internal memo, circulated among Dallas physicians, that raised the question of whether a person's vaccination status should figure into a patient's chances of survival, and by extension, treatment access. In Alabama, one doctor made the decision to no longer treat unvaccinated patients, explaining to the Birmingham News, "If they asked why, I told them COVID is a miserable way to die and I can’t watch them die like that."

the same article ask several state hospitals and associations if they have or have plans to deny the unvaccinated care. most said they would not deny care others made less clear statements.
they asked the "National Hospital association" and they replied:

"During an emergency situation or if the patient is in labor, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) requires hospitals to stabilize and initiate treatment. If a patient is in need of non-emergency surgery, or other care that might leave the patient with a weakened immune system or the inability to mount a strong response to the vaccination, doctors may want to delay services long enough for the patient to get vaccinated so that they are as safe as possible."

Is it clear to anyone what that means exactly? i'm not sure. Sounds like they expect everyone should get the vaccine BEFORE they'll do a NON-EMERGENCY surgery. Or in other words, they reserve the option NOT to do non-emergency surgery unless people are vaccinated.

the article ends with this:

Daniel Wikler, a medical ethicist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health recently penned a column for The Washington Post that argues a patient's access to care should not be contingent on whether they have received the COVID-19 vaccine.
The same ethics that guarantee a life-long smoker will be treated for lung cancer should also apply to the unvaccinated, Wikler argues.
Wikler's stance contradicts that of Trish Zorino, a scientist and expert in behavioral neuroscience for the University of Colorado - Denver.
In a piece for NC Policy Watch, Zorino opined, "As controversial as it may be, we should deprioritize the eligible unvaccinated patients during medical triage. It’s a free country, and you can absolutely choose not to get the vaccine. But choices have consequences, and the willingly unvaccinated have made this consequence necessary."
For now, hospitals in the South will likely continue to allocate scarce resources in order to treat patients who are unvaccinated. But the question of whether it is fair or ethical to do so is being debated.

So, bottom line, there are Docs and hospitals that think it's A-OK NOT to treat unvaccinated patients for various "medical" reasons. The operative issue being people's right to make their own medical decisions about what drugs they'll take.

Basically because they do not have the holy faith in the new experimental vaccines.

[JakeStarkey]

There are no "ifs".

She has a particular case, and the doctors say she is much better off for survival if she gets vaxxed.

If she wants the op, she gets vaxxed.

[Gunny]

There are no "ifs".

She has a particular case, and the doctors say she is much better off for survival if she gets vaxxed.

If she wants the op, she gets vaxxed.

Or finds another surgeon that isn't forcing personal views as a condition to his professional services.

[revelarts]

Other info along that line


hear's a story from PBS-Frontline about Pedetricians who had already begun to refuse to treat children who have not had all the vaccines the doctors want them to have.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/ar...ed-or-get-out/

https://slate.com/human-interest/201...them-away.html


.....

Father of 3 refused kidney transplant unless he takes experimental coronavirus vaccine.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/fa...navirus-shots/

https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-07-...d-patient.html


LaPierre’s wife Meagan told LifeSiteNews that she has recently completed most of the tests required for donating one of her own kidneys to her husband and “so far, everything looks good” to allow her to be his living organ donor.
The parents of three young boys ages 12, 10, and eight, said all was going well with their preparations for the major dual surgery and they had inquired about vaccination – which they were reluctant to undergo – and were re-assured on “at least three occasions” by UMass personnel that the decision to take any vaccine was their own medical choice.
UMass administration suddenly pivoted its policy, however, said Meagan. According to electronic patient notes she provided LifeSiteNews, a nurse identified as “Linda S.” wrote on June 25 that Bernard had become “understandably… upset” that morning when she told him that a Patient Selection Committee met on June 23 “and while we believe he is a good candidate for transplant, we want him to have the vaccinations recommended (Hep A, Hep B, Prevnar, pneumovax).”

On July 7, another “progress note” written by infectious diseases specialist Mary Dawn T. Co said that Bernard would also be required to take coronavirus shots.

STD vaccines
Hepatitis A is a liver infection spread primarily by fecal-oral transmission and affects mostly international travelers, homosexual men, drug users, and homeless people.
Hepatitis B affects one in 100,000 Americans, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – most of whom are homosexual men or prostitutes with a high number of sexual partners or injection drug users or babies born to infected women.
Both hepatitis vaccines are a series of two doses. Prevnar and Pneumovax are vaccines against different kinds of pneumonia.
LaPierre had pointed out that he was very unlikely for him to acquire sexually transmitted disease from his own wife’s organ.

“I explained that vaccines were recommended to get infections in general rather than those transmitted from his donor,” Dr. Co wrote in Bernard’s progress notes on July 7.
“We talked about the increased risk of infections post-transplant and the possible compromise of his transplant should he develop an overwhelming infection.”
“The patient said he was willing to assume the risks of going without vaccination, but I said that our program is not,” Co wrote....

..........

Rantz: UW Medicine patient forced into unwanted COVID vaccine to get his liver transplant
Patients at UW Medicine are being told they must get a COVID vaccine before going through a life-saving organ transplant. One patient says he doesn’t want it, effectively forcing him to decide if he’ll forgo a liver transplant to address his vaccine concerns.
Derek Kovick is a 41-year-old father of two. He suffers from Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis (PSC), a rare and serious liver disease that damages the bile ducts. Kovick is waiting on his third liver transplant and is concerned with the side effects of the COVID vaccine....
https://mynorthwest.com/3087637/rant...er-transplant/


'A death sentence': Critically ill patients denied transplants amid coronavirus outbreak
Without a new liver, Zach Branson might have only a month left to live. Doctors just canceled his transplant surgery, citing concerns about the coronavirus.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/healt...break-n1163066

Hospital in this last case changed it's policy and went ahead with the transplant.

[fj1200]

That may be, but this woman's case is real.

I specifically acknowledged that she had a real case and that details are thin in most cases. So many anecdotal cases and stories to weed through and it starts to border on the ridiculous. If someone has a condition that treatment may expose them to higher risk factors then don't be surprised if doctors don't just sign on. YMMV.

[JakeStarkey]

This is about best medical science.

[jimnyc]

I think medical decisions not only should be between a doctor and a patient, vaccine status really should have nothing to do with it.

I'm not even sure why such a service would be denied.

Suppose for a second this other made up scenario:

You have a child, she's 23 years old and in otherwise great condition. She gets into a terrible car accident. Looks like she won't make it. They can do a procedure to possibly save her life but the odds are very low. Do you go for it to maybe save your daughters life, or since the odds are low, do you just let her die? Most sane people will try at all costs to save a loved ones life. Seems like an easy decision to me.

But if the hospital were to make that choice for you, and tell you that since the odds are only 10% chance of survival, they aren't even going to bother with the surgery.

IMO, it's no different here. They are telling the patient that the odds are lower since she's not vaccinated. And since the odds are lowered, they therefore won't do the surgery and choose to let the patient die.

I could make an argument for the other side. But I think performing a necessary life saving surgery is more important. Should a patient ignore instructions going home and make their situation worse, that's on them. Plus, FJ has more than given a solid argument for that side already, IMO.

But at the end of the day, the oath, the patient, saving a life should be priority #1.

[JakeStarkey]

... she can have the operation if she gets the vax.

She most likely gets the death panel if she does not get the vax.