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.
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.
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.
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.
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.