Cheney Has Heart Transplant

Beerina said:
Ok, my dad just died of congestive heart failure at 73. They said he was too old for a transplant. Cheney is 71. Is the cutoff line 72 or 73?
Click to expand...
It's probably a case of nobody with higher priority being a match. The story linked earlier about when he got his heart pump said it's unlikely he'd get a transplant because of his age.
 
OK, after a night of sleeping on it, I've changed my mind. Why would a man this old get a transplant when I'm sure there were much younger people who probably needed it just as much? I don't care so much about "he's evil, let him die". I'm more of the "he's old, the heart should have gone to someone younger".
 
ponderingturtle said:
Don't you know how morally disgusting it is for suggesting someone should die from lack of treatment when they have money? It is not like he is a random poor slob. Then his demanding his death would be fine.
Click to expand...
He was 71 years old. The data mostly lumps everyone in that age group into "over 65". With the number of people needing a heart and the limited supply one has a right to question why a rich 71 year old received the organ knowing there were poor 18 yr olds on the waiting list.

And in addition, if you thought your dead child's heart was going to Cheney, like it or not, it's enough to drive some people off the donor list.
 
Last edited:
I think it highly unlikely that any favoritism has gone on. Transplant services tend to be heavily scrutinised for fairness.

Doctors say it is unlikely that former Vice President Dick Cheney got special treatment when he was given a new heart that thousands of younger people also were in line to receive.

After spending nearly two years on a waiting list, Cheney received a transplant Saturday. The 71-year-old underwent surgery at the same Virginia hospital where doctors implanted a small heart pump that has kept him alive the past few years.
...
Dr. Allen Taylor, cardiology chief at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, said Sunday that the heart transplant waitlist is “a very regimented and fair process, and heavily policed.”
Click to expand...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...nt-at-age-71/2012/03/25/gIQAz62xZS_story.html


Personally, though I don't mind the light hearted jokes, I think seriously suggesting that he shouldn't have received the heart because they dislike his politics/actions etc is reprehensible. Healthcare should be blind to character.
 
Last edited:
Cleon said:
Even if he was tried and convicted, prisoners are (rightfully) entitled to health care.
Click to expand...
Yes, technically. But how many prisoners do you believe got heart transplants last year? There were a couple and while technically they are supposed to be given equal access, it is not in practice occurring.

And I'm not saying it should. I'm questioning the claims that patients needing major organ transplants are truly all on equal ground when it comes down to the decision makers. The system of organ allocation is pretty good and mostly corruption free, but it is not perfectly corruption free. A 65 yr old getting a new heart is one thing, we have better medicine today than in the past. But I would be willing to bet that the majority of 71 yr olds who are not also rich never make it to the waiting list.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
The problem with that analysis is not considering what it takes to get on the waiting list at that age in the first place.
Click to expand...

And I think a consultant cardiologist might have a better idea of that than you. Seriously, unless you have something better than vague I don't think it would happen without favoritism, like links to what factors are included and what priorities each are given, you just come across as mean spirited and I would expect better from a health professional.

ETA, my grandfather had a liver transplant in his mid 60s. He wasn't the highest priority on the list, but he did get one because other than his liver failure (caused by hep C) he was in excellent physical health at the time. Someone of the same age who was more frail or had other serious health problems would probably not have been as lucky as him.
 
Last edited:
Professor Yaffle said:
I think it highly unlikely that any favoritism has gone on. Transplant services tend to be heavily scrutinised for fairness.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...nt-at-age-71/2012/03/25/gIQAz62xZS_story.html


Personally, though I don't mind the light hearted jokes, I think seriously suggesting that he shouldn't have received the heart because they dislike his politics/actions etc is reprehensible. Healthcare should be blind to character.
Click to expand...


I support Universal Healthcare precisely because of that point: healthcare should be blind to character. Thanks for saying that.



And thanks for the article, but you know it still only proves the Washington Post is part of the Conspiracy.:rolleyes: /sarcasm
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Ever the apologist for the 1%.
Click to expand...
:confused:

I have a long history here of criticizing the way organ transplants are done here, and how it favors the rich because they can register in multiple places while everyone else gets to just register in one place. See the Steve Jobs organ transplant thread for example.

You're way off base here SG.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Yes, technically. But how many prisoners do you believe got heart transplants last year? There were a couple and while technically they are supposed to be given equal access, it is not in practice occurring.

And I'm not saying it should. I'm questioning the claims that patients needing major organ transplants are truly all on equal ground when it comes down to the decision makers. The system of organ allocation is pretty good and mostly corruption free, but it is not perfectly corruption free. A 65 yr old getting a new heart is one thing, we have better medicine today than in the past. But I would be willing to bet that the majority of 71 yr olds who are not also rich never make it to the waiting list.
Click to expand...

Interesting speculation. Still need data to take it seriously.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Yes, technically.
Click to expand...
As well as legally, ethically, morally, etc.

But how many prisoners do you believe got heart transplants last year? There were a couple and while technically they are supposed to be given equal access, it is not in practice occurring.
Click to expand...
Based on a cursory google search, there seem to be enough outrage articles about it to indicate it happens with some regularity. This article indicates that it's legally required (at least in New York). However, I don't have the statistics.

It seems that someone with access to the raw data would be able to find out pretty quickly if prisoners are denied transplants. Given how heavily that process is policed, though, I imagine if it were happening it would've been news years ago.
 
Last edited:
All things considered, while I don't like the man, (I don't think he did the nation any favors as Vice President, and yes, I'm tempering this considerably), nor do I trust him, I'm also of the opinion that as long as things were done properly and fairly, I've little to say on it.

Except that I would agree a younger person should have gotten the donation. Politics aside, he's still 71.

I'll discuss his politics elsewhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom