Jennifer Wederell, who was 27 years old,
died of cancer 16 months after she was given the donor lungs of a smoker. Her
father said that she would never have agreed the transplant, if she was aware
of the condition of the lungs. The hospital has apologised for not giving her
the choice of refusing the lungs. However, when there would be a policy of
refusing lungs from a smoker, there would be 40% less available lungs for
transportation. Jennifer’s father said: “She was dying a death that was meant
for someone else.”
I believe that the hospital should have
told Jennifer Wederell that the lungs came from a smoker. If she refuses the
lungs, she just has to wait longer for new lungs. In this way people know what
kind of extra risks there are, and they can decide on their own if they want
those extra risks. Obviously, there is no guarantee that there will be better
lungs available on time if they refuse the lungs. When somebody refuses the
lungs, the next in line will have the same opportunity. In this case, I think
that the hospital can be sued for dead by negligence because of not giving all
the information.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-20762437
Oh wow, this is horrible! I can't imagine being relieved you or your loved one is saved from death only to have them (or yourself) taken away again because the donor basically contaminated the lungs. The hospital should have said something and taken better care after.
BeantwoordenVerwijderen