You can't become an opiate addict without first using opiates, so it's important to ask why he was using opiates in the first place. If he was prescribed painkillers and his addiction was an adverse reaction to their use then that would make it less of a deal breaker, but the hospital might still be right to give the lung to somebody else.
Call me cynical if you want, but I'm against giving people that fucked their liver before being 40 abusing substances a new liver unless we have those in the plenty, which isn't the case.
The example under discussion is a lung transplant patient. Besides, chronic opiate use is not damaging to the liver as long as the opiates are pharmaceutical grade and, if injected, sterile technique is used..
The example under discussion is a lung transplant patient
That's great and all but how is it linked to the common case example I spoke about earlier?
Besides, chronic opiate use is not damaging to the liver as long as the opiates are pharmaceutical grade and, if injected, sterile technique is used..
I will ask for your source on this, I've seen the ravages of Tramadol, Fentanyl, etc first hand, granted this was in ER so most of those that ended up there were the one that mixed substances (please don't do that kids) or that ended up doing something stupid, usually because of the opioids abuses.
Because it makes no sense to give a lung transplant to someone actively destroying their body. It's not like there's an excess of spare lungs, so they might as well be thrown away to opiate addicts. Same with smokers, who should join them at the very back of the line.
Daily use of opiates is not harmful to the general health. The horror stories most people are familiar with involve unsterile injection of street concoctions, anything from bathtub fentanyl to baby powder.
Lifelong oral users (and even users who inject using sterile technique) of pharmaceutical grade opiates can and do live long productive lives.
I've read a lot of stories by long term opiate users, and the things they've said about it have made me pretty biased. I've had opiates a few times, and nothing about being opiated seems very attractive.
Most people feel the same, which is why the idea that everyone--or even a significantly large number--would become addicts if opiates were available OTC is nonsense.
This is a surprisingly good question. But the answer is by being an addict he’s already killing the rest of his body too, so new lungs are just going to prolong the eventual outcome while someone more deserving does not get them.
Daily use of opiates is not harmful to the general health. The horror stories most people are familiar with involve unsterile injection of street concoctions, anything from bathtub fentanyl to baby powder.
Lifelong oral users (and even users who inject using sterile technique) of pharmaceutical grade opiates can and do live long productive lives.
The decision to deny an addict a transplant is a moral judgement, not a medical one.
Most people's rational judgment on this issue is clouded by the highly offensive public abuse of these drugs by exhibitionists, narcissists, people generally so fucked up that their use of junk in public is to them a sort of obscene performance intended to broadcast their own personal degradation. Such people belong in jail as public nuisances and not offered the conditional "rehab or jail" option, which just wastes everybody's time and taxpayer $ in an absurd revolving-door setup that coddles the worst sort of grifters, liars, and leeches, addicts and "counselors" alike
Legalized OTC sales of narcotics to 21+ would at least allow us to isolate and punish the above-mentioned criminally antisocial assholes.
I’m an organ transplant coordinator on the donor side, but transplant centers require a lot from their potential recipients, and it’s not super easy to get listed at most centers. Plus, even if you do, your surgeon probably wouldn’t accept any good organ for you, and leave you with the dogshit we peddle to check the box.
This is malpractice. Why does a croaker base his practice of medicine on a moral judgment? And we're not talking a moral judgment like the abortion question, either.
Why deny someone a lung transplant merely because he's an addict?
There aren't enough organs to go around, so you're denying someone a lung transplant no matter who you choose. I don't actually know if opiate addiction would negatively effect his post-transplant recovery, but since I assume a lot of painkillers are involved it would be a credible argument for a non-addict having better outcomes.
Denying medical care,especially a lung transplant, to an opiate addict is both cruelly unethical and idiotic. What's the problem? "He will, more than non-users, enjoy the pain medication we give routinely after surgery and other painful procedures"? "We will need to give him stronger than normal doses of opiates because he's an addict"?
Go to law to enforce the proper ethical medical treatment of addicts, sure, but don't continue the charade that opiate addiction is a "disability." It's the same authoritarian horseshit that leads to denying junkies proper medical treatment in the first place.
An addict becomes an addict voluntarily. Only someone laid up in the hospital for months being administered opiates for pain qualifies as an unwilling addict, and such habits can be kicked in a week with comparatively little discomfort.
Blame the absolutely moronic idea foisted on us by the usual suspects that somehow the junkie is an unwitting victim.
If you are about to get dinged for showing up to work drunk, just get a doctor to diagnose you with alcoholism. Now you can’t be fired and your employer has to pay for treatment.
Sounds like a reason to get rid of that organ donor card. It'd just go to some druggie who has to be prioritized so the hospital doesn't get sued.
we let women vote and civilization cant survive that
You can't become an opiate addict without first using opiates, so it's important to ask why he was using opiates in the first place. If he was prescribed painkillers and his addiction was an adverse reaction to their use then that would make it less of a deal breaker, but the hospital might still be right to give the lung to somebody else.
He was the virtuous example to disprove the rule. Addicts are not disabled.
Why deny someone a lung transplant merely because he's an addict? It is an idiotic moral judgment that is totally irrelevant.
If someone damaged an organ by shooting up contaminated street drugs, that's one thing.
But merely being an opiate addict is NOT an ethical reason to deny treatment.
Call me cynical if you want, but I'm against giving people that fucked their liver before being 40 abusing substances a new liver unless we have those in the plenty, which isn't the case.
The example under discussion is a lung transplant patient. Besides, chronic opiate use is not damaging to the liver as long as the opiates are pharmaceutical grade and, if injected, sterile technique is used..
That's great and all but how is it linked to the common case example I spoke about earlier?
I will ask for your source on this, I've seen the ravages of Tramadol, Fentanyl, etc first hand, granted this was in ER so most of those that ended up there were the one that mixed substances (please don't do that kids) or that ended up doing something stupid, usually because of the opioids abuses.
Because it makes no sense to give a lung transplant to someone actively destroying their body. It's not like there's an excess of spare lungs, so they might as well be thrown away to opiate addicts. Same with smokers, who should join them at the very back of the line.
Daily use of opiates is not harmful to the general health. The horror stories most people are familiar with involve unsterile injection of street concoctions, anything from bathtub fentanyl to baby powder.
Lifelong oral users (and even users who inject using sterile technique) of pharmaceutical grade opiates can and do live long productive lives.
I've read a lot of stories by long term opiate users, and the things they've said about it have made me pretty biased. I've had opiates a few times, and nothing about being opiated seems very attractive.
Most people feel the same, which is why the idea that everyone--or even a significantly large number--would become addicts if opiates were available OTC is nonsense.
This is a surprisingly good question. But the answer is by being an addict he’s already killing the rest of his body too, so new lungs are just going to prolong the eventual outcome while someone more deserving does not get them.
Daily use of opiates is not harmful to the general health. The horror stories most people are familiar with involve unsterile injection of street concoctions, anything from bathtub fentanyl to baby powder.
Lifelong oral users (and even users who inject using sterile technique) of pharmaceutical grade opiates can and do live long productive lives.
The decision to deny an addict a transplant is a moral judgement, not a medical one.
Most people's rational judgment on this issue is clouded by the highly offensive public abuse of these drugs by exhibitionists, narcissists, people generally so fucked up that their use of junk in public is to them a sort of obscene performance intended to broadcast their own personal degradation. Such people belong in jail as public nuisances and not offered the conditional "rehab or jail" option, which just wastes everybody's time and taxpayer $ in an absurd revolving-door setup that coddles the worst sort of grifters, liars, and leeches, addicts and "counselors" alike
Legalized OTC sales of narcotics to 21+ would at least allow us to isolate and punish the above-mentioned criminally antisocial assholes.
I’m an organ transplant coordinator on the donor side, but transplant centers require a lot from their potential recipients, and it’s not super easy to get listed at most centers. Plus, even if you do, your surgeon probably wouldn’t accept any good organ for you, and leave you with the dogshit we peddle to check the box.
This is malpractice. Why does a croaker base his practice of medicine on a moral judgment? And we're not talking a moral judgment like the abortion question, either.
There aren't enough organs to go around, so you're denying someone a lung transplant no matter who you choose. I don't actually know if opiate addiction would negatively effect his post-transplant recovery, but since I assume a lot of painkillers are involved it would be a credible argument for a non-addict having better outcomes.
Ergo - the ADA should protect you against red flag laws...
no law protects you if you are a white man
There was a King of the Hill episode about this way back in the nineties.
Yep, that's because this addition to the law was passed back then. It's just rarely ever enforced until now.
Simple.
We are ruled by our enemies.
we lost ww2
It won’t be long until 50% of our pilots are high on heroin/cocaine for diversity quotas
Why not. They're hiring.
Unlike truckers who are getting their licenses revoked for caffeine pills in their system.
Denying medical care,especially a lung transplant, to an opiate addict is both cruelly unethical and idiotic. What's the problem? "He will, more than non-users, enjoy the pain medication we give routinely after surgery and other painful procedures"? "We will need to give him stronger than normal doses of opiates because he's an addict"?
Go to law to enforce the proper ethical medical treatment of addicts, sure, but don't continue the charade that opiate addiction is a "disability." It's the same authoritarian horseshit that leads to denying junkies proper medical treatment in the first place.
An addict becomes an addict voluntarily. Only someone laid up in the hospital for months being administered opiates for pain qualifies as an unwilling addict, and such habits can be kicked in a week with comparatively little discomfort.
Blame the absolutely moronic idea foisted on us by the usual suspects that somehow the junkie is an unwitting victim.
Thomas Szasz is right!
If you are about to get dinged for showing up to work drunk, just get a doctor to diagnose you with alcoholism. Now you can’t be fired and your employer has to pay for treatment.
It says if you are actively using, you can't be protected....unless you claim you are trying to quit.