This may have been posted already.....

[Allisa35]

Hopefully the link will work. A cf patient died after being given lungs from a smoker, and she's not the only one receiving bad organs. Pretty scary!

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1329606/Brutal-reality-sick-transplant-patients-given-lungs-smokers-warns-surgeon.html">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/hea...ers-warns-surgeon.html</a>

 

[Allisa35]

Hopefully the link will work. A cf patient died after being given lungs from a smoker, and she's not the only one receiving bad organs. Pretty scary!

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1329606/Brutal-reality-sick-transplant-patients-given-lungs-smokers-warns-surgeon.html">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/hea...ers-warns-surgeon.html</a>

 

[Allisa35]

Hopefully the link will work. A cf patient died after being given lungs from a smoker, and she's not the only one receiving bad organs. Pretty scary!
<br />
<br /><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1329606/Brutal-reality-sick-transplant-patients-given-lungs-smokers-warns-surgeon.html">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/hea...ers-warns-surgeon.html</a>

 

[julie]

This isn't in the US though, right?

 

[julie]

This isn't in the US though, right?

 

[julie]

This isn't in the US though, right?

 

[Proxy]

tbh this is the part that stuck out to me "They are also using tissue from those more at risk of carrying HIV and Hepatitis C such as gay men and drug users." I thought it was kind of sad they put gay men in the same category as drug users.
Anyways,I think when you make that decision to get a lung transplant you know there is risk involved, yes a smokers lung might not sound appealing but if you are dying and you have 0% chance wouldnt taking the chance on using a working lung even of a smoker make sence? like they said isnt it better to have a 50% chance then 0%? 30% of people die because the transplants came to late, this is forcing doctors to perhaps be less picky about the organs they use?
S**t happens,its alright to be aware that things like this have happened and its very unfortunate, but its good to focus also on the amount of successes there are to.

Also im pretty sure this happened in the UK

 

[Proxy]

tbh this is the part that stuck out to me "They are also using tissue from those more at risk of carrying HIV and Hepatitis C such as gay men and drug users." I thought it was kind of sad they put gay men in the same category as drug users.
Anyways,I think when you make that decision to get a lung transplant you know there is risk involved, yes a smokers lung might not sound appealing but if you are dying and you have 0% chance wouldnt taking the chance on using a working lung even of a smoker make sence? like they said isnt it better to have a 50% chance then 0%? 30% of people die because the transplants came to late, this is forcing doctors to perhaps be less picky about the organs they use?
S**t happens,its alright to be aware that things like this have happened and its very unfortunate, but its good to focus also on the amount of successes there are to.

Also im pretty sure this happened in the UK

 

[Proxy]

tbh this is the part that stuck out to me "They are also using tissue from those more at risk of carrying HIV and Hepatitis C such as gay men and drug users." I thought it was kind of sad they put gay men in the same category as drug users.
<br />Anyways,I think when you make that decision to get a lung transplant you know there is risk involved, yes a smokers lung might not sound appealing but if you are dying and you have 0% chance wouldnt taking the chance on using a working lung even of a smoker make sence? like they said isnt it better to have a 50% chance then 0%? 30% of people die because the transplants came to late, this is forcing doctors to perhaps be less picky about the organs they use?
<br />S**t happens,its alright to be aware that things like this have happened and its very unfortunate, but its good to focus also on the amount of successes there are to.
<br />
<br />Also im pretty sure this happened in the UK

 

[entropy]

yeah, this happened in the UK or Canada where they have the "NHS" or National Health Service.

I agree with Proxy in that it's unfair to apply stereotypes to certain minorities, i.e. gay men and drug users. Not all gay men and drug addicts have diseases. Perhaps if we lived in the 80s when HIV awareness was low and AIDS was rapidly spreading through the gay and IV drug using community this statement could be applicable. Thankfully, society has progressed by leaps and bounds medically and has taken some small baby steps toward implementing harm reduction policies involving drugs and other potentially harmful activities. The main reason that HIV was a problem with gay men and drug users in the 80s and 90s was because there was not much information on how the disease spread. Now we know it's a blood borne illness that can be transferred to other people via bodily fluids and some countries have taken admirable steps to curtail this. Some good examples being communicable disease education, the removal of restrictions pertaining to the sale of over the counter needle/syringes, and non-profit organizations that freely distribute condoms and unused syringes.

What is shocking to me is that this article cites drug use and homosexuality as possible risk factors when considering the right organs to use for transplant but largely ignores the real issue this article raises: the donor's lung was diseased because they smoked cigarettes. People needing organ transplantation are going to be faced with accepting diseased tobacco smokers lungs much more often than a gay man or drug users lungs. I would take a gay man or drug users lungs ANY DAY! over a tobacco smokers lungs. There is a small chance that a gay man's or drug user's lungs will be diseased, but if the donor has smoked cigarettes all their life there is a significant risk of the lung being diseased already.

 

[entropy]

yeah, this happened in the UK or Canada where they have the "NHS" or National Health Service.

I agree with Proxy in that it's unfair to apply stereotypes to certain minorities, i.e. gay men and drug users. Not all gay men and drug addicts have diseases. Perhaps if we lived in the 80s when HIV awareness was low and AIDS was rapidly spreading through the gay and IV drug using community this statement could be applicable. Thankfully, society has progressed by leaps and bounds medically and has taken some small baby steps toward implementing harm reduction policies involving drugs and other potentially harmful activities. The main reason that HIV was a problem with gay men and drug users in the 80s and 90s was because there was not much information on how the disease spread. Now we know it's a blood borne illness that can be transferred to other people via bodily fluids and some countries have taken admirable steps to curtail this. Some good examples being communicable disease education, the removal of restrictions pertaining to the sale of over the counter needle/syringes, and non-profit organizations that freely distribute condoms and unused syringes.

What is shocking to me is that this article cites drug use and homosexuality as possible risk factors when considering the right organs to use for transplant but largely ignores the real issue this article raises: the donor's lung was diseased because they smoked cigarettes. People needing organ transplantation are going to be faced with accepting diseased tobacco smokers lungs much more often than a gay man or drug users lungs. I would take a gay man or drug users lungs ANY DAY! over a tobacco smokers lungs. There is a small chance that a gay man's or drug user's lungs will be diseased, but if the donor has smoked cigarettes all their life there is a significant risk of the lung being diseased already.

 

[entropy]

yeah, this happened in the UK or Canada where they have the "NHS" or National Health Service.
<br />
<br />I agree with Proxy in that it's unfair to apply stereotypes to certain minorities, i.e. gay men and drug users. Not all gay men and drug addicts have diseases. Perhaps if we lived in the 80s when HIV awareness was low and AIDS was rapidly spreading through the gay and IV drug using community this statement could be applicable. Thankfully, society has progressed by leaps and bounds medically and has taken some small baby steps toward implementing harm reduction policies involving drugs and other potentially harmful activities. The main reason that HIV was a problem with gay men and drug users in the 80s and 90s was because there was not much information on how the disease spread. Now we know it's a blood borne illness that can be transferred to other people via bodily fluids and some countries have taken admirable steps to curtail this. Some good examples being communicable disease education, the removal of restrictions pertaining to the sale of over the counter needle/syringes, and non-profit organizations that freely distribute condoms and unused syringes.
<br />
<br />What is shocking to me is that this article cites drug use and homosexuality as possible risk factors when considering the right organs to use for transplant but largely ignores the real issue this article raises: the donor's lung was diseased because they smoked cigarettes. People needing organ transplantation are going to be faced with accepting diseased tobacco smokers lungs much more often than a gay man or drug users lungs. I would take a gay man or drug users lungs ANY DAY! over a tobacco smokers lungs. There is a small chance that a gay man's or drug user's lungs will be diseased, but if the donor has smoked cigarettes all their life there is a significant risk of the lung being diseased already.

 

[Proxy]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>entropy</b></i>

yeah, this happened in the UK or Canada where they have the "NHS" or National Health Service.



I agree with Proxy in that it's unfair to apply stereotypes to certain minorities, i.e. gay men and drug users. Not all gay men and drug addicts have diseases. Perhaps if we lived in the 80s when HIV awareness was low and AIDS was rapidly spreading through the gay and IV drug using community this statement could be applicable. Thankfully, society has progressed by leaps and bounds medically and has taken some small baby steps toward implementing harm reduction policies involving drugs and other potentially harmful activities. The main reason that HIV was a problem with gay men and drug users in the 80s and 90s was because there was not much information on how the disease spread. Now we know it's a blood borne illness that can be transferred to other people via bodily fluids and some countries have taken admirable steps to curtail this. Some good examples being communicable disease education, the removal of restrictions pertaining to the sale of over the counter needle/syringes, and non-profit organizations that freely distribute condoms and unused syringes.



What is shocking to me is that this article cites drug use and homosexuality as possible risk factors when considering the right organs to use for transplant but largely ignores the real issue this article raises: the donor's lung was diseased because they smoked cigarettes. People needing organ transplantation are going to be faced with accepting diseased tobacco smokers lungs much more often than a gay man or drug users lungs. I would take a gay man or drug users lungs ANY DAY! over a tobacco smokers lungs. There is a small chance that a gay man's or drug user's lungs will be diseased, but if the donor has smoked cigarettes all their life there is a significant risk of the lung being diseased already.</end quote></div>

I guess it would depend on what kind of drug it is there using,if it was pot or meth or other inhaled drugs that could be an issue.
Also they never say anywhere it was because the lung was a smokers lung that she got phnemonia and died,they say she got sick 5 months after her surgery and died then it was discovered that it was a smokers lung.
Smokers and non-smokers alike get phnemonia, maybe she just had bad luck and it didnt have anything to do with the smoking?
This article really opens up alot of different topics

 

[Proxy]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>entropy</b></i>

yeah, this happened in the UK or Canada where they have the "NHS" or National Health Service.



I agree with Proxy in that it's unfair to apply stereotypes to certain minorities, i.e. gay men and drug users. Not all gay men and drug addicts have diseases. Perhaps if we lived in the 80s when HIV awareness was low and AIDS was rapidly spreading through the gay and IV drug using community this statement could be applicable. Thankfully, society has progressed by leaps and bounds medically and has taken some small baby steps toward implementing harm reduction policies involving drugs and other potentially harmful activities. The main reason that HIV was a problem with gay men and drug users in the 80s and 90s was because there was not much information on how the disease spread. Now we know it's a blood borne illness that can be transferred to other people via bodily fluids and some countries have taken admirable steps to curtail this. Some good examples being communicable disease education, the removal of restrictions pertaining to the sale of over the counter needle/syringes, and non-profit organizations that freely distribute condoms and unused syringes.



What is shocking to me is that this article cites drug use and homosexuality as possible risk factors when considering the right organs to use for transplant but largely ignores the real issue this article raises: the donor's lung was diseased because they smoked cigarettes. People needing organ transplantation are going to be faced with accepting diseased tobacco smokers lungs much more often than a gay man or drug users lungs. I would take a gay man or drug users lungs ANY DAY! over a tobacco smokers lungs. There is a small chance that a gay man's or drug user's lungs will be diseased, but if the donor has smoked cigarettes all their life there is a significant risk of the lung being diseased already.</end quote>

I guess it would depend on what kind of drug it is there using,if it was pot or meth or other inhaled drugs that could be an issue.
Also they never say anywhere it was because the lung was a smokers lung that she got phnemonia and died,they say she got sick 5 months after her surgery and died then it was discovered that it was a smokers lung.
Smokers and non-smokers alike get phnemonia, maybe she just had bad luck and it didnt have anything to do with the smoking?
This article really opens up alot of different topics

 

[Proxy]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>entropy</b></i>
<br />
<br />yeah, this happened in the UK or Canada where they have the "NHS" or National Health Service.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />I agree with Proxy in that it's unfair to apply stereotypes to certain minorities, i.e. gay men and drug users. Not all gay men and drug addicts have diseases. Perhaps if we lived in the 80s when HIV awareness was low and AIDS was rapidly spreading through the gay and IV drug using community this statement could be applicable. Thankfully, society has progressed by leaps and bounds medically and has taken some small baby steps toward implementing harm reduction policies involving drugs and other potentially harmful activities. The main reason that HIV was a problem with gay men and drug users in the 80s and 90s was because there was not much information on how the disease spread. Now we know it's a blood borne illness that can be transferred to other people via bodily fluids and some countries have taken admirable steps to curtail this. Some good examples being communicable disease education, the removal of restrictions pertaining to the sale of over the counter needle/syringes, and non-profit organizations that freely distribute condoms and unused syringes.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />What is shocking to me is that this article cites drug use and homosexuality as possible risk factors when considering the right organs to use for transplant but largely ignores the real issue this article raises: the donor's lung was diseased because they smoked cigarettes. People needing organ transplantation are going to be faced with accepting diseased tobacco smokers lungs much more often than a gay man or drug users lungs. I would take a gay man or drug users lungs ANY DAY! over a tobacco smokers lungs. There is a small chance that a gay man's or drug user's lungs will be diseased, but if the donor has smoked cigarettes all their life there is a significant risk of the lung being diseased already.</end quote>
<br />
<br />I guess it would depend on what kind of drug it is there using,if it was pot or meth or other inhaled drugs that could be an issue.
<br />Also they never say anywhere it was because the lung was a smokers lung that she got phnemonia and died,they say she got sick 5 months after her surgery and died then it was discovered that it was a smokers lung.
<br />Smokers and non-smokers alike get phnemonia, maybe she just had bad luck and it didnt have anything to do with the smoking?
<br />This article really opens up alot of different topics

 

[Proxy]

Of course a lung from a healthy 20yo would be what we would prefer to have but unfortunately that is rare,its upsetting that there is the chance you could get a smokers lung but on the same breath when your at the end of your rope can you afford to be picky?
There are many successful situations where the lungs saved a life,then there is this sad situation,if they became extremly picky on the organs used wouldnt that kill more people thn with the current system?
Her parents said in the article that if she were informed the lungs had been a smokers lung she would have denyed the lungs, would it be possible if when a lung became available the docs would call the recipient and say " we have a lung avaiable but its a smokers lung,do you want it?" and if denyed go to the next person on the list until someone says yes,when I think of transplant I think of time being of the essence and dont know if that system would work?

okies im done ^^

 

[Proxy]

Of course a lung from a healthy 20yo would be what we would prefer to have but unfortunately that is rare,its upsetting that there is the chance you could get a smokers lung but on the same breath when your at the end of your rope can you afford to be picky?
There are many successful situations where the lungs saved a life,then there is this sad situation,if they became extremly picky on the organs used wouldnt that kill more people thn with the current system?
Her parents said in the article that if she were informed the lungs had been a smokers lung she would have denyed the lungs, would it be possible if when a lung became available the docs would call the recipient and say " we have a lung avaiable but its a smokers lung,do you want it?" and if denyed go to the next person on the list until someone says yes,when I think of transplant I think of time being of the essence and dont know if that system would work?

okies im done ^^

 

[Proxy]

Of course a lung from a healthy 20yo would be what we would prefer to have but unfortunately that is rare,its upsetting that there is the chance you could get a smokers lung but on the same breath when your at the end of your rope can you afford to be picky?
<br />There are many successful situations where the lungs saved a life,then there is this sad situation,if they became extremly picky on the organs used wouldnt that kill more people thn with the current system?
<br />Her parents said in the article that if she were informed the lungs had been a smokers lung she would have denyed the lungs, would it be possible if when a lung became available the docs would call the recipient and say " we have a lung avaiable but its a smokers lung,do you want it?" and if denyed go to the next person on the list until someone says yes,when I think of transplant I think of time being of the essence and dont know if that system would work?
<br />
<br />okies im done ^^

 

[entropy]

Most people who smoke crack or meth don't do so for very long. If after a few years they don't die, it will destroy their lives and they'll end up in jail or be forced by family into sobriety. Cigarettes (and marijuana) are insidious in the way that people will smoke them for their entire adult life while remaining relatively healthy but cause irreversible long term damage to their body. People who smoke illegal drugs like crack and meth simply CAN'T sustain a habit of regularly smoking said drugs for very long, at least under normal circumstances. Generally, any damage done to the crack/meth smokers body will heal after a period of prolonged abstinence.

Smoking the combustion products of any material is harmful but pot has relatively low levels of carcinogens and toxins in comparison to tobacco. There are conflicting studies on this subject, but the general consensus amongst the medical community is that smoking marijuana is overall less harmful than smoking cigarettes. More tar is produced when marijuana is burned than when tobacco is burned, but the tar contains significantly lower levels of toxins. If I was told by a doctor "OK, we have two sets of lungs but there is something we need to discuss with you. Each of the donors were smokers. One smoked marijuana for the past 15 years and the other cigarettes for 10 years. We are letting you decide which pair you want.", I would take the marijuana smokers lungs.

 

[entropy]

Most people who smoke crack or meth don't do so for very long. If after a few years they don't die, it will destroy their lives and they'll end up in jail or be forced by family into sobriety. Cigarettes (and marijuana) are insidious in the way that people will smoke them for their entire adult life while remaining relatively healthy but cause irreversible long term damage to their body. People who smoke illegal drugs like crack and meth simply CAN'T sustain a habit of regularly smoking said drugs for very long, at least under normal circumstances. Generally, any damage done to the crack/meth smokers body will heal after a period of prolonged abstinence.

Smoking the combustion products of any material is harmful but pot has relatively low levels of carcinogens and toxins in comparison to tobacco. There are conflicting studies on this subject, but the general consensus amongst the medical community is that smoking marijuana is overall less harmful than smoking cigarettes. More tar is produced when marijuana is burned than when tobacco is burned, but the tar contains significantly lower levels of toxins. If I was told by a doctor "OK, we have two sets of lungs but there is something we need to discuss with you. Each of the donors were smokers. One smoked marijuana for the past 15 years and the other cigarettes for 10 years. We are letting you decide which pair you want.", I would take the marijuana smokers lungs.