The hospital promised something with the second transplant attempt that does not exist. You do not get to jump over people in the UNOS lists for reasons of compassion, money, power, or anything else; it is based solely on medical need. UNOS is set up that way very deliberately due to the inability of humans to be able to prioritize a list like that without any sort of bias, and the accusations that inevitably arise whenever someone with any celebrity status gets a donated organ.

A hospital saying that they can override the UNOS list is like a colonel saying he can override orders from the President. In both cases they get smashed down like the wrath of God. That hospital had better bend over backwards settling out of court when the lawsuits hit.

PatoDeAgua: Well, I am a doctor, and its called a complication. Its not like a surgeon ever intentionally kills someone. Christ, these guys value their "winning percentage" more than anyone else in the world... Not to mention, they don't go around severing aortas for fun.

Yes, but this is sort of an impressive fark-up...

/How the hell did they get there? Is there a prize for that sort of thing?

Mini Ditka: That sucks bad that he's not getting a kidney, especially under the circumstances. But the real story here is, that hospital is about to write a check that will make Rodney King say "GODDAMN, HOW MUCH??!!!"

That he can enjoy while on dialysis, I assume.

ph0rk: studebaker hoch: I Like Bread

Remind me again why we are only allowed to give away our organs to complete strangers...?

If selling them were allowed, only the super-rich would ever get transplants. Plus everybody would have like three extra kids so they could "accidentally" be killed in accidents, their organs sold, and the family gets a new ski boat.

Spare part babies. Don't people already do this for sick children?

Savior Siblings. For some reason this horrifies me.

namegoeshere: ph0rk: studebaker hoch: I Like Bread

Remind me again why we are only allowed to give away our organs to complete strangers...?

If selling them were allowed, only the super-rich would ever get transplants. Plus everybody would have like three extra kids so they could "accidentally" be killed in accidents, their organs sold, and the family gets a new ski boat.

Spare part babies. Don't people already do this for sick children?

Savior Siblings. For some reason this horrifies me.

Yes, of course - I like the term spare part babies better, though.

Somehow this is semi-legal, but not so for the parents? I wonder why that is.

No Such Agency: Freud's Cigar:

Calm down there Mr. Cigar. There is the added awfulness that their prize pig of a medical fark-up killed not only someone's sister, but some poor kids' mom. I'd say it's salient due to the sheer amount of trauma caused.

Sorry. I still don't get it. Donor Wife Dies, Donor Daughter Dies, Donor Sister Dies, Donor Taxpayer Dies, Donor Coworker Dies, Donor Best Friend Dies, you get the picture. I'm not saying her kids won't be devastated, I just don't get why popping out kids is the benchmark in this story and so many others.

Or is it just that "mom" has three letters and fits in better--takes up less space.

Frankly, if I had ever had kids, I'd hate to see my definition summed up simply in my reproductive history.

Montefiore killed my father-in-law, so I'm getting a kick etc... But at least they didn't forget to bill for the "treatment".

Mini Ditka: ph0rk: Mini Ditka: That sucks bad that he's not getting a kidney, especially under the circumstances. But the real story here is, that hospital is about to write a check that will make Rodney King say "GODDAMN, HOW MUCH??!!!"

That he can enjoy while on dialysis, I assume.


As well as her 3 motherless kids.....

He's still going to die. Somehow I figure that's probably foremost in his mind.

Freud's Cigar:
Or is it just that "mom" has three letters and fits in better--takes up less space.

It has a lot of impact to parents, who make up a significant % of the newspaper's readers and are inevitably wracked with worries about what would happen to their kids if...

Also it is short.

Death_Poot: About time to call a lawyer, I'm not normally for playing the "litto lotto", but this guy got screwed 7 ways to Sunday

Not that he wasn't screwed over, but I'm not sure what he could sue them for.

I don't think he could sue over his sister's death. He hasn't per se lost anything because of her death, unless she was financially supporting him. I can't imagine a 'you killed my family member, pay me for my sad feelings' suit going far.

Can he sue over the fact he was told he was bumped up the list and then turned out he couldn't be? I dunno, that's a pretty low threshold for suing.

Maybe he could sue over the fact that killing his sister deprived him of his kidney, and therefore may have killed him if he can't get back up the list in time.

No Such Agency: Freud's Cigar:
Or is it just that "mom" has three letters and fits in better--takes up less space.

It has a lot of impact to parents, who make up a significant % of the newspaper's readers and are inevitably wracked with worries about what would happen to their kids if...

Also it is short.

So... Think of the children?

Evenbiggerknickers: Nabb1: FloydA: Wait a sec...a woman went to donate a kidney, and they accidentally severed her aorta?

{cough}{cough}teaching hospital{cough}

Hey, we have to train doctors somehow. And you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs...

Was it this guy?

[legacy-cdn.smosh.com image 448x335]

Word has it he is a bad doctor.

i was really hoping for a Kids in the Hall reference. you have satisfied me, good sir/madam.

Freud's Cigar: Saw an article on this story with headline something like "Donor Mom Dies on Operating Table". Can someone explain to me why they kept referring to her throughout the story as "mom" this and "mom" that. She wasn't trying to donate to her kid, she was trying to donate to her sibling. What the fark does her uterine status have to do with it? Does brother have kids? Why aren't we hearing about him as "Dad Still Needs Kidney" or whatever.

I don't really understand why news articles always hype the mom status. The only other time you see that kind of thing is "mental patient runs amok" or "mental patient wins prize despite drool" or whatever.

DrPainMD: FTA: "The hospital told the family that it had not yet gotten the necessary federal approval for Medina to leapfrog over others on the list."

Fark the feds. It's none of their business who gives a kidney to whom. If the purpose of the military is to defend this country, why isn't it attacking Washington?

The reason for the federal organ donor register is the avoid the slippery slope that is an open market for organs. People will pay huge amounts of money for an organ and people might kill you for it. Its an intrastate transaction generally as well.

Abox: PatoDeAgua: Well, I am a doctor, and its called a complication. Its not like a surgeon ever intentionally kills someone.


Regardless if the donor's death were an accident, "complication," or malpractice, the doctors and hospital need to pay up.

\consequences...how do they work?

FloydA: Wait a sec...a woman went to donate a kidney, and they accidentally severed her aorta?

The guy's probably safer not getting a kidney than getting one from them!

Came here to ask this. How does one sever an aorta while harvesting a kidney?

FizixJunkee: Abox: PatoDeAgua: Well, I am a doctor, and its called a complication. Its not like a surgeon ever intentionally kills someone.


Regardless if the donor's death were an accident, "complication," or malpractice, the doctors and hospital need to pay up.

\consequences...how do they work?

No consequences if you are too big to malpractice. Let the stonewalling begin!

My dad used to tell people to go pound sand [up their asses] all the time. I thought he made that up! Never heard it used elsewhere before.

RoyBatty: It's not just they cut the aorta, but that they damaged the kidney as well.

So I have questions:

1. What would a doctor do after severing the descending aorta that would screw up the kidney? Bad cut? Medication?

2. There are two kidneys in most people, can a left be swapped for a right? Or does it have to be left to left, right to right when they are rotated?

3. How did they screw up both kidneys?

When her aorta started gushing the surgery went from kidney removal to trying to save her life. The kidneys are vacuum packed in fat and connective tissue to the back so they're not easily yoinked. By the time they gave up on her, the kidneys were probably shot from lack of blood flow.

They prefer to take the left kidney for donations because it has a longer artery and vein. When they put it in the recipient, they usually leave the shot kidneys and put the new one in the pelvis.

So, everyone has 2 kidneys, but we only need 1 to live.

/A plan forms.

catonacid: I don't even know what to say. That is one of the most brutal ways I've ever seen somebody getting their life completely and utterly unnecessarily ruined.
Personally, that is a cheap shot I don't think I could overcome.

Wait until he finds out about the hepatitis he got from the tattoo.

FloydA: Nabb1: namatad: Paris1127: FloydA: Wait a sec...a woman went to donate a kidney, and they accidentally severed her aorta?

The guy's probably safer not getting a kidney than getting one from them!

[www.genesis-ultrasound.com image 400x320]
I'm not a doctor, but the descending aorta appears to be somewhat close to both kidneys... That being said, that's quite the slip up...

on the other hand, from that picture, the descending aorta is GIGANTIC.

I'll have to ask my wife about this when she gets home in while. This is her bailiwick, not mine.


How close is that to the kidney? I'd hate to have my bailiwick accidentally severed!

Nearly as bad as getting stabbed in the rotunda?! Poor, poor Caesar...

*yawn*...

Subby, take your trendy manfactured liberal outrage and sell it at the co-op.

Peace, man.

PatoDeAgua: Well, I am a doctor, and its called a complication. Its not like a surgeon ever intentionally kills someone. Christ, these guys value their "winning percentage" more than anyone else in the world... Not to mention, they don't go around severing aortas for fun.

How badly does a doctor have to screw up to sever a major artery while taking out a kidney?

Keizer_Ghidorah

How badly does a doctor have to screw up to sever a major artery while taking out a kidney?



There are clowns in every profession. Doc might have been doing great until that guy he went to med school with decides payback actually IS a biatch.

can we make cadaver organ donations opt OUT instead of opt IN?

I mean if everyone was automatically a donor unless they filled out whatever forms to be a non donor all the people who wouldn't mind being donors and are just too busy to fill out the forms to be a donor would be in.

LiberalEastCoastElitist: When her aorta started gushing the surgery went from kidney removal to trying to save her life. The kidneys are vacuum packed in fat and connective tissue to the back so they're not easily yoinked. By the time they gave up on her, the kidneys were probably shot from lack of blood flow.They prefer to take the left kidney for donations because it has a longer artery and vein. When they put it in the recipient, they usually leave the shot kidneys and put the new one in the pelvis.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

Oldiron_79: n we make cadaver organ donations opt OUT instead of opt IN?

I mean if everyone was automatically a donor unless they filled out whatever forms to be a non donor all the people who wouldn't mind being donors and are just too busy to fill out the forms to be a donor would be in.

Please! Donate your organs so we can charge hundreds of thousands of dollars for installing them in somebody else! We can't get rich for being heroes if you don't do your part for free!

Screw that. You want me to fill out forms to prevent doctors and hospitals from benefiting handsomely, using raw materials they didn't pay a thin dime for, bring them on.

I'm not understanding why they couldn't still take a kidney out of his dead sister, especially right when it happened. Then it'd be like, you guys messed up and killed the sister, but at least the guy still got his kidney. Now he has no sister AND no kidney. How did this go wrong? It's not like she needed to be cleared for organ donation or something...

My next question is... how many of her organs did they harvest after they killed her?

accidentally severing her aorta while transplanting her kidney
means somebody else paid good money for that kidney
so they killed her off to get it

and his sister's sacrifice was for nothing.


now THAT is farking sad.

wildcardjack: FloydA: I've been watching too much Metalocalypse

No such thing.

RoyBatty: It's not just they cut the aorta, but that they damaged the kidney as well.

So I have questions:

1. What would a doctor do after severing the descending aorta that would screw up the kidney? Bad cut? Medication?

2. There are two kidneys in most people, can a left be swapped for a right? Or does it have to be left to left, right to right when they are rotated?

3. How did they screw up both kidneys?

4. Who else in the hospital got a needed transplant that day?

Excellent question. What happened to her other kidney?

foo monkey: RoyBatty: It's not just they cut the aorta, but that they damaged the kidney as well.

So I have questions:

1. What would a doctor do after severing the descending aorta that would screw up the kidney? Bad cut? Medication?

2. There are two kidneys in most people, can a left be swapped for a right? Or does it have to be left to left, right to right when they are rotated?

3. How did they screw up both kidneys?

4. Who else in the hospital got a needed transplant that day?

Excellent question. What happened to her other kidney?

Organs likely rendered untransplantable by all the medical measures they had to take to try and save her life.

The other kidney is not an issue.

What''s important is, and what really must be discussed, is the central theme of conern of most hospitals that see these kinds of issue, in that, in and of themselves, doctors and patients have a unique relationship, one of a caregiver and one of a kind of a kind of advoctate for their own health care in a hospital or outpaitient setting wherein the patient themselves is more often than not the subject of a kind of intensive scrutiny of sorts by not only that person's health care provider but moreover one of the medical community at large, which in these cases is often decided at a time when the patient may or may not be ready to actually discuss issues central to their care with the doctor or caregiver of their choice, depending on insurance coverage or lack thereof, meaning that in the majority of these cases, people can and do find themselves short an organ or two. It happens.

namatad: Oldiron_79: automatically

fark opt out
your dead, we people get your organs. period

your religion requires you to have all your parts? fine.
but you are permanently banned from every receiving organs

Hmmm ... maybe if there were something like organ banks ... perhaps criminals sentenced to the death penalty would have their organs harvested .... perhaps organlegging might be a problem.

Corporate Self: Why do we pay the most for less than average health care?

The rest of the world mocks us for good reason.

That's OK, we've got our fine farkups up here as well, though at least we pay less for ours, and we can try to sink governments if they really mess the system up and actually have a non-trivial chance of success. The Ontario health ministry is squirming over the public insurance plan's refusal to cover a 3-year-old's sight-saving surgery in the US (they do cover surgeries not easily available in Canada if a US hospital and doctor is closer - I had eye muscle surgery in Detroit instead of London, Ontario under this very policy almost 30 years ago). The ministry can't actually order the nominally independent agency to reverse a decision, as a legal defence against undue political interference in public matters requiring absolute impartiality, but they're rightfully taking flak over it, and I hope OHIP comes to its senses and pays for the damn surgery. I think even the Canadian doctors referred them to the US doctors best able to do the surgery, and another kid in a similar situation is getting his US procedures paid for, so cut the crap, raise my taxes if it's really that much of a burden on the province's effing credit rating, and give this kid a chance at having some eyesight. I say that as someone whose eyesight blows, but appreciates even the poor sight I do have even as I gripe about it.

The other thing making them squirm is a scandal involving a contracted-out provincial air ambulance service that may have made several communication or decision-making errors leading to patient deaths, poor vehicle purchases that made certain paramedical procedures impossible due to a lack of space, and cutting corners in the officially non-profit but well-funded service while possibly devoting resources to for-profit side businesses, paying execs millions, and giving plum jobs to friends and lovers of the CEO. It's pretty ugly, and the health ministry has had a few stunning farkups over multiple governments in the past 15-20 years of all ideologies, but for the most part the actual care providers and doctors have been very good to me. Any problems we do have are a matter of better resource allocation, incentives to work in smaller communities (I think this is done to a rough extent), and access to better technology. We still don't have a province-wide electronic medical records exchange system yet, which is probably the longest-running, most frustrating farkup as billions have been tossed toward consultants producing nothing, across PC and Liberal governments and health ministers. That money could have gone toward a lot of useful upgrades and more doctors.

In any event, the current gang of professional politicians in charge is short of a majority government, so if things get worse before that changes and a ruling party MPP votes against the government they could theoretically be booted out and forced into another election, though I doubt the PCs would actually do anything useful or helpful and the NDP still doesn't stand a chance provincially. They still have a poor reputation from the recession-hobbled early-90s NDP government, led by the current federal Liberal Party leader.

We can, and do, get heads and results when it looks like the politicians find a way to fark up a working healthcare system, or an individual or organization makes a serious error. We paid for it, we can at least try to demand accountability and necessary changes from the people ostensibly in charge (I have a much more radical opinion on this, but I'm not going into it right now; this is already in tl;dr territory).