Refusing A Heart Transplant

[Deeds]

There has been a story in the news today in the UK about a 13 year old girl with a hole in her heart who is refusing a potentially life-saving heart transplant, because she wants to "die with dignity".

[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/7721231.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/herefor...rcs/7721231.stm[/url]

Now, the main thrust of the story is that hospital officials were trying to force her to have the transplant against her wishes, but they've now dropped the case. What interests me more is the question of whether it's moral or not: would a heart transplant in this case be considered an ordinary or an extraordinary means of treatment? When I first heard about it, I thought it would be totally moral to refuse, since there is a high chance that the operation would kill her. However, assuming the operation was successful, she would have to take medication for the rest of her life, but it seems that she could lead a fairly normal life afterwards (I'm not sure about the average lifespan of heart transplant patients, but I guess it's reasonable).

What an awful dilemma for the girl and how tragic for her parents.

[Slappo]

Heart transplant would definitely be extraordinary means.

Even kemotherapy or radiation treatment for cancer is considered extraordinary means.

[T-Bone _]

The very painful operation could very well end her life.

The drugs she would have to take for the rest of her life have numerous and severe side effects, and dramatically increase the chances of catching infections.

IMO, there is no reason why morals would compel a transplant.

[Archaeology cat]

I agree that I see no reason that would compel someone to have a transplant. I've actually been thinking about transplants lately, with news that some doctors don't wait for true death before harvesting the organs. But I guess that's another debate.

[CatherineM]

I think she has the moral right to refuse. The question is more if she is old enough to make that decision on her own. A 13 year old can have an abortion without consent, but most of the time doctors won't take a child's decision on something like this.

[Jesus_lol]

it is her right to choose not to have the transplant. besides its not like th organ will go to waste, some one always needs a new heart.

i am pretty sure that when they were writing the laws against suicide(or in the bible, wherever) they weren't thinking that taking someone elses heart could be a viable way to sustain life.

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='Deeds' post='1699579' date='Nov 11 2008, 08:35 PM']would a heart transplant in this case be considered an ordinary or an extraordinary means of treatment?[/quote]

There is nothing ordinary about cutting open someone's chest and swapping hearts.

Edited November 11, 2008 by RandomProddy

[Apotheoun]

The "die with dignity" line is garbage, but there is nothing immoral about refusing a heart transplant.

[Paddington]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1699703' date='Nov 11 2008, 09:47 PM']besides its not like th organ will go to waste, some one always needs a new heart.[/quote]

Good point. She could be saving sb else's life in the process - somebody who would've died if she would've lived. That's the one (very big) thing I hate about the movie, [i]John Q[/i].
Otherwise, that movie was the stuff.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1699716' date='Nov 11 2008, 05:55 PM']The "die with dignity" line is garbage.[/quote]
In whose opinion? Yours?

[picchick]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1701829' date='Nov 15 2008, 01:16 AM']In whose opinion? Yours?[/quote]

Thank you...I agree.


A heart transplant will require not one but several surgries. Furthermore, having a transplant may continue her life however, she will have to be immunosupressed her whole life. She will be prone to more infections which could potentially be deadly.

If it is a hole in her heart, I am skeptical of the whole need for a heart transplant. Could they not put a patch? I will have to read the article.

Meg

[Justin86]

I honestly don't see why anyone should be forcing this girl to undergo a heart transplant if she does not wish to do so, and her parents have agreed to the decision so I don't see what the problem is.

You know, organs are only capable of being transplanted up to a few hours after being removed from the donor. It's a very rushed procedure. I'm curious as to how much time these doctors wasted in 2007 on trying to convince this girl to get a transplant instead of moving on to the next person who may have actually wanted it.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1701829' date='Nov 14 2008, 11:16 PM']In whose opinion? Yours?[/quote]
Have you ever been around anyone who has died? I have.

[picchick]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1702366' date='Nov 15 2008, 11:31 PM']I honestly don't see why anyone should be forcing this girl to undergo a heart transplant if she does not wish to do so, and her parents have agreed to the decision so I don't see what the problem is.

You know, organs are only capable of being transplanted up to a few hours after being removed from the donor. It's a very rushed procedure. I'm curious as to how much time these doctors wasted in 2007 on trying to convince this girl to get a transplant instead of moving on to the next person who may have actually wanted it.[/quote]

I think they would start by putting her on a list. I am quite sure that they would not have "saved" a heart for her. That would be very unethical and the heart wouldn't have lasted. The fight would probably be to get her on the list.

[quote]Have you ever been around anyone who has died? I have.[/quote]
Apotheoun, I believe, is talking about the motto of hospice which is to allow patients to die in dignity. I must say I do not think that it really does not pertain to this case. The child is asking to die in dignity in relation to the medication she will be on for life. Not the same as what hospice says. I think that everyone is entitled to die in dignity. I think that hospice ruined that phrase. However, again, I do not think that it has anything to do with this case. Therefore, the way the girl used it is not a load of garbage...the way hospice uses it, it is a load of garbage.

Edited November 16, 2008 by picchick

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='picchick' post='1702375' date='Nov 15 2008, 09:45 PM']Apotheoun, I believe, is talking about the motto of hospice which is to allow patients to die in dignity. I must say I do not think that it really does not pertain to this case. The child is asking to die in dignity in relation to the medication she will be on for life. Not the same as what hospice says. I think that everyone is entitled to die in dignity. I think that hospice ruined that phrase. However, again, I do not think that it has anything to do with this case. Therefore, the way the girl used it is not a load of garbage...the way hospice uses it, it is a load of garbage.[/quote]
Death is not dignified in whatever way you go. My father went from 170 pounds to 87 pounds in three months. He was dignified, but his death was not; instead, it was quite simply death.

I do not buy into the garbage promoted by liberal groups that say that suicide / euthanasia gives one a "dignified" death. Moreover, in the case of euthanasia it turns the one who does the killing into anything but dignified.

Edited November 16, 2008 by Apotheoun