Which is probably how they got approval to do a pig heart transplant in the first place since he would never get on the transplant list.
Similarly a friend work for Alabamas football program and he couldn’t travel with the team to games in 2020 because he _hadn’t_ had Covid, while those who had gotten Covid could travel.
Basically… it’s hard to formulate rules for these sort of things and rarely are they “fair” to all involved.
You're now changing your idea to add "over someone who may need it more", which is different, and I'm not disagreeing with that. It's the same as favoring young or healthy people because they're likely to gain more life extension from a transplant when the rest of their body is working OK.
There was and is no condescension present. I don't look down on them just like I wouldn't look down on a 90 year old man whose liver is failing from natural causes. Neither would be my first choice for recipients of my liver.
Also, I have no idea if matters or not but he is wealthy (low eight digits) as well.
The diet stuff... honestly, nutrition "science" is full of contradictions. Sure, too much of anything is probably bad for you, but I don't think diet concerns should be a blocker for receiving a transplant.
At any rate, sorry you and your family has to go through this, and best wishes for your uncle's recovery.
Smoking is the big no-no because it is fairly well proven to impair healing and increases chances of failure.
Evidence against red meat is very weak, and contradictory. Some studies show no harmful effects from non-processed red meat at all. In fact, there is just as much evidence against plant-based diets (they just aren't discussed widely due to the prevailing politics around CO2 etc), basically it's all just noise. Light alcohol use is absolutely fine in almost every case, and John Hopkins routinely does liver transplants for dependent alcoholics with an alcohol-related liver disease.
You should look up some centenarians cases, some lived on a diet of nothing but beer, waffles and blood sausages daily for several decades, and then had a nice healthy liver on autopsy at 100+ y.o., could've been from someone in their 20s.
Such is life.
I'm also in agreement that cessation of alcohol and smoking are much more reasonable requirements for placement on the list than other dietary patterns that are highly individual regarding effects on overall health.
For policies like quarantine following travel does it make any sense to distinguish anyone whether they have had covid, had a vaccine, had both a vaccine and covid, or had neither a vaccine or covid? Aren’t all of the above equally capable of carrying and transmitting the virus?
The best to hope for is not to die, be hospitalized, or suffer various long-term or permanent effects. Vaccination is all we have to prevent those.
That's the point. If you wanted to ensure people to not get COVID, do not give those who have had COVID pleasant exemptions. They failed, they should not be rewarded.
No. If I had Covid a month ago and recovered then baring a compromised immune system or new variant I am not going to get it again this month. So I am not "equally capable of carrying and transmitting the virus" compared to someone who "had neither a vaccine or covid".
I understand that you would have antibodies and it be very unlikely if you carry the virus it would be unlikely to overwhelm your immune system in that time, but you can still carry/spread it right?
More directly related to the policy in question they can test you for antibodies, and maybe it is immaterial, but do they distinguish if you had covid 1 month ago vs 3 months vs 6 months? So does it work on the honor system or are they testing for antibodies, is it simply a matter of if you had covid at any point it doesn’t matter if you still carry antibodies you are not subject to quarantine?
Having anti-bodies reduces the viral load in your body, which also means that there are fewer viral fragments exiting your body
The policies are to reduce spread, not eliminate it
Once you have recovered? I don't think so, at least not if you have a healthy immune system.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/01/13/pig-heart...
What makes him any less deserving? I don’t want to downplay the fact that he stabbed a guy, but the criminal justice system sentenced him and he, by all accounts, appears to have regretted his actions and reformed to be a good person. It seems like the system worked far better than it usually ever does. Once you’ve gone through the system and come out the other side rehabilitated, you’re done: continuing to deny random services, including in this case access to experimental surgery, is just cruel and seems really a desire for continued revenge against this person (which I definitely understand from a human perspective, but definitely does not belong in our social services scheduling).
Why? Normally you do this because you want people that cannot reform to stay away without resorting to murder. This person was gravely ill, which is it's own prison.