'Moral values' and organ donation

Blackcat99 · Dec 10, 2004

I think this may well be apocryphal. Organ donation is blind, so very few people know which organs go to which recipient. For an article to say that both recipients were subsequently diagnosed (presumably many years later) with a melignant melanoma, sound too far fetched to my mind. I also very much doubt that someone with a history of maligant melanoma would be allowed to donate their organs.
By all means make your decision based on whatever reasons you wish or even no reason at all. But don't make decisons based on this spurious story you have read.

As I recall, the story said she didn't even mention that she had malignant melanoma in the past because she had been deemed "cured" so she didn't even mention it at all because she thought it was not important. I have a history of "malignant melanoma" so no I am not even going to think about donating my organs. Even though I am now considered "cured" too. According to the article, the recipients were diagnosed with malignant melanoma a few months after the organs were implanted.

PamUK · Dec 10, 2004

As I recall, the story said she didn't even mention that she had malignant melanoma in the past because she had been deemed "cured" so she didn't even mention it at all because she thought it was not important.

Surely the transplant team would have asked her family, her doctors, whoever, fundamental questions about her medical history. Someone must have known!

Also, I still dont see how the author(s) of this article would be able to trace the donor and the recipients

Sorry, still seems a dubious story!

VizslaMom · Dec 10, 2004

As I recall, the story said she didn't even mention that she had malignant melanoma in the past because she had been deemed "cured" so she didn't even mention it at all because she thought it was not important. I have a history of "malignant melanoma" so no I am not even going to think about donating my organs. Even though I am now considered "cured" too. According to the article, the recipients were diagnosed with malignant melanoma a few months after the organs were implanted.

Organ recipients are placed on large amounts of anit-rejection meds that decrease their immunity. This makes them more succeptable to cancers that they may have been resistant to before the transplant.

Just something to think about.

VizslaMom · Dec 10, 2004

Surely the transplant team would have asked her family, her doctors, whoever, fundamental questions about her medical history. Someone must have known!
Also, I still dont see how the author(s) of this article would be able to trace the donor and the recipients
Sorry, still seems a dubious story!

Sounds 'out there' to me too.

Do you have a source for this story?

Blackcat99 · Dec 10, 2004

:chuckle Sorry folks. All I remember was reading it in my local paper about a year ago and thinking I must never be an organ donor. Remember, I suffer from CRS. Anyway, I really don't know if the story is true or false? Does anyone else remember reading about this or hearing about this story? :imbar

TechieNurse · Dec 10, 2004

I posted these two, true stories early in this thread:

(the source is http://www.thebostonchannel.com/index.html. This is our local ABC affiliate. If you type "organ Donor" in the search box, you will get both stories)

A teenager's organs were harvested and never used (because of the medications used to try to save his life). The family is suing because:

a) the organ bank misrepresented what happened, saying his corneas were tranplanted when they were not

b) all of his organs and tissues were harvested, even though the organ bank knew - BEFORE they harvested them (because of the drugs used to try to save his life) - that they couldn't use any of them, then destroyed them without the family's knowledge

Organs from a donor who had brain cancer (the highly malignant glioblastoma) has contributed to the deaths of four recipients. The hospital knew about the donor, but did not inform the recipients or families. A quote from the doctors mentioned in the article (speaking to one of the recipients): "'The donor we got your organ from -- he was dying of brain cancer. So, we are 90 percent positive that your liver has cancer, too,'" and (from one of the recipients families) "I kept on questioning the doctors why weren't we told and one of the comments was 'livers don't come on silver platters' and 'there are a lot of people waiting for livers,'"

PamUK · Dec 10, 2004

Well, all I can say about these stories is that they came from newspapers and they dont always get things right! Had they been written in a reputable medical journal, they would be more credible

A teenager's organs were harvested and never used (because of the medications used to try to save his life). The family is suing because:
a) the organ bank misrepresented what happened, saying his corneas were tranplanted when they were not
b) all of his organs and tissues were harvested, even though the organ bank knew - BEFORE they harvested them (because of the drugs used to try to save his life) - that they couldn't use any of them, then destroyed them without the family's knowledge '"

We have had huge problems, that have emerged over the last couple of years, when doctors & coroners removed the body parts of children some time ago - I think in the 70's & 80's - without parents consent, for research, education or even pure curiosity. (Alderhey Childrens Hospital in Liverpool) When the parents found out the parents took the issue to court and the hospital was found guilty of removing part without consent and I believe they won substantial amounts of money. Nowadays, all hospitals are tightly regulated about what we do with human tissue that has been removed even for a biopsy and blood tests We have to have the patients written consent to use it in any other way other than histology & diagnosis. It must be a nightmare for path labs

TechieNurse · Dec 10, 2004

Well, all I can say about these stories is that they came from newspapers and they dont always get things right! Had they been written in a reputable medical journal, they would be more credible
Granted, newspapers can be biased, but the source I referenced was ABC TV.
How about if I refer you to the Massachusetts Superior Court document with the complaint: http://www.socialaw.com/superior/supApr04kk.html

begalli · Dec 10, 2004

Did anyone else see this on 60 Minutes a couple of months ago. It's something that I find fascinating regarding heart transplant in infants

http://election.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/29/60minutes/main609225.shtml

"The heart they found was the right size, but the wrong blood type. So they transplanted a type "AB" heart into Caleb's type "O" body on the theory that, at less than a month old, his immune system was so immature, it hadn't developed the antibodies to attack the foreign heart.

West says her colleagues advised her against the operation. "I said, 'There's no choice. There is no choice for Caleb. He will die. This is why I think it will work,'" says West. "There is no antibody. Caleb doesn't have antibody. This will work, I believe. It will at least buy us time. And otherwise he's going to die."

That was seven years ago. Today, Caleb can do anything any normal 7-year-old boy can do. This second-grader is quick on his feet and a little better than he should be at this age with a chess piece.

Caleb has never missed a beat. The transplant was a complete success. His type "AB" heart is pumping in his type "O" body. And he still takes routine anti-rejection drugs that all transplant patients take.

But the blood type mismatch has not been a problem. In fact, doctors have discovered something unexpected. Now that Caleb's immune system is mature, it appears to accept all blood types. In theory, for example, he could get a transfusion from anyone.

"It was an enormous leap of faith. And where was the faith? It is in the science," says West. "I can only say this isn't magic. It's not voodoo. These are facts. There are scientific facts there."

Doctors have done approximately 38 mismatch transplants in Canada, Britain and a few in the United States. But in the United States, it still hasn't caught on widely. That may soon change."

Being a transplant RN myself, I watched this segment of 60 Minutes sitting on the edge of my sofa. One part that's not included in this article is that it was said by the Canadian doctor that there is one school aged child now who no longer needs to take his immunosuppressant drugs (or maybe it was this child Caleb and the show filmed before they discovered he could live without them)! I think that's simply incredible. He lives a completely normal life.

I wonder why we don't do this more here in the states? I asked one of our transplant docs here and he looked at me with one raised eyebrow as if I was nuts?! But later said he too "had heard about it."

The undeveloped immune system part makes total sense to me. The thing that really fascinates me is the part about the child being able to receive any blood type!

I mean, if something has been proven to work and people are willing to risk it.....

NiobiusSwan · Dec 11, 2004

I guess I'm confused here...assuming that the cases in which recipients contracted cancer due to the donated organs are valid - aren't most people who recieve organs going to die if they don't get a transplant? And aren't organs terribly difficult to obtain? So I suppose I don't understand, even if that is a risk, isn't the other alternative death anyway? Or is this not the case?

PamUK · Dec 11, 2004

Well, all I can say about these stories is that they came from newspapers and they dont always get things right! Had they been written in a reputable medical journal, they would be more credible
Granted, newspapers can be biased, but the source I referenced was ABC TV.
How about if I refer you to the Massachusetts Superior Court document with the complaint: http://www.socialaw.com/superior/supApr04kk.html
Apologies TechieNurse! The way I structured my posting was misleading... my comment about the newspapers were aimed at the stories about the malignant melanoma case that Blackcat99 posted.
I believe your comment about the harvested but unused organs. As I have already said, a similar situation arose over here with enormous consequences

TechieNurse · Dec 11, 2004

Hi NiobiusSwan

You're correct that most of these patients would have died if they had refused the organs from the cancer patient.

However, there are two other issues:

First, the patients weren't told that the donor had cancer until after their surgeries. The choice was taken out of their hands. They weren't given the option of dying from liver failure or dying of cancer. Granted, we have a lot of treatment options for cancer, but the issue remains that the control of the situation was out of their hands.

The second issue, the kidney recipient, and one of the first to die from the cancer, could have waited for another kidney. According to his wife, he was stable on outpatient dialysis. As I recall, he did not do well with the transplant surgery and died within 6-9 months of the procedure. His quality of life was terrible. He was started on anti-rejection drugs and chemotherapy. His wife said that he was sick and vomited for every day of the rest of his life. She also said, that if they had known that the donor had cancer that they would've refused the organ. Of course....hindsight is 20/20.

To me, the issue gets back to having faith and trust in your doctor. They are the ones that will be evaluating potential organs. Maybe there needs to be a discussion between potential recipients and their surgeon about what is, and is not acceptable...?

Certainly, most patients cannot medically judge if an organ is acceptable, but they can certainly say something like: "I don't want to go through transplant surgery, for only 6-9 more months and all that time being sick from chemotherapy"

Having said that though, there could be issues with having a 'cafeteria' style organ program.

Could you imagine if people said things like "I don't want a heart from a woman" :nono: or "I only want a liver from someone who's Jewish" ?

Just my 0.02