Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 38
  1. #1

    Join Date
    May 2002
    Age
    51
    Posts
    7,516
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    59298

    Cheney has had a Heart Transplant

    Apparently recovering at Inova Fairfax Hospital in Falls Church, VA. Even though I despise his term as VP, I wish him well.

    Cheney's Heart Transplant
    Last edited by skipaway; 03-25-2012 at 05:35 PM.

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,763
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I honestly find it hard to do, but I wish no one ill will

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    11,012
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I read a similar article and it made me wonder (as I often do when prominent people have transplants) if he received favor because of who he was. It said he was on the transplant list for 20 months. Is that an average amount of time?

    He is also a very old man, at his age death of natural causes is not unheard of (though without the heart problems he could live another 20 years too...) It was my understanding transplants are prioritized to younger recipients. Am I wrong about that? I see from another article that an expected number of years to live after a heart transplant is less than 10. Is there great value in extending from 71 to 81? I suppose I'm not the one to make that decision for him, nor question his decision.

    Either way, he has the heart now- and I wish him well in his recovery. I hope he lives a full life with it, to make the most of what is a pretty rare opportunity.

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,507
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    You can't just put a heart in someone who is not a match because they are younger. I'm sure there have been 20 year olds on the wait list while older people have revived hearts much faster because the tissue was a match, that's just he way it is.

    From one Cheney story.

    More than 3,100 Americans currently are on the national waiting list for a heart transplant. Just over 2,300 heart transplants were performed last year, according to the United Network for Organ Sharing. And 330 people died while waiting.

    According to UNOS, 332 people over age 65 received a heart transplant last year. The majority of transplants occur in 50- to 64-year-olds.

    The odds of survival are good. More than 70 percent of heart transplant recipients live at least five years, although survival is a bit lower for people over age 65.

    The former vice president suffered a heart attack in 2010, his fifth since the age of 37.

  5. #5
    engaged to dupa
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Heaven for climate, Hell for company.
    Posts
    18,917
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    1084
    Quote Originally Posted by Skittl1321 View Post
    He is also a very old man, at his age death of natural causes is not unheard of (though without the heart problems he could live another 20 years too...) It was my understanding transplants are prioritized to younger recipients. Am I wrong about that? I see from another article that an expected number of years to live after a heart transplant is less than 10. Is there great value in extending from 71 to 81? I suppose I'm not the one to make that decision for him, nor question his decision.
    You consider 71 to be very old? Really?
    3539 and counting.

    Slightly Wounding Banana list cont: MacMadame.

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    11,012
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by milanessa View Post
    You consider 71 to be very old? Really?
    Maybe my family doesn't live long. But yes. Many people die of natural causes within the next five years. Not everyone lives to 90, most of my relatives have died by 80, if not sooner. Heart failure is common among seventy- year olds.

    You can't just put a heart in someone who is not a match because they are younger.
    Yes, I'm aware you have to match. But if there is a younger match- is there any priority given to age? I know there is priority given to severity of condition, and other than that, is it just first come first served?
    Last edited by Skittl1321; 03-25-2012 at 04:56 PM.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    My old Kentucky home, far away
    Age
    37
    Posts
    4,429
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    5515
    Quote Originally Posted by Skittl1321 View Post
    Is there great value in extending from 71 to 81? I suppose I'm not the one to make that decision for him, nor question his decision.

    For his family, I'd say the answer is yes.
    'Life's hard. It's even harder when you're stupid.'--John Wayne

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,507
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Skittl1321 View Post
    match- is there any priority given to age? I know there is priority given to severity of condition, and other than that, is it just first come first served?
    It's based solely on tissue match not age.

  9. #9
    Bountifully Enmeshed
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    At the Christmas Bizarre
    Posts
    38,154
    vCash
    250
    Rep Power
    46687
    So very many tasteless jokes are coming to mind here.....
    "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."-- Albert Einstein.

  10. #10
    Wandering Goy
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Age
    58
    Posts
    4,970
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    5836
    Quote Originally Posted by Prancer View Post
    So very many tasteless jokes are coming to mind here.....
    So very true (and, like Forrest Gump, that's all I have to say about that).
    "Skating fans are not a patient bunch." Dragonlady

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    24,950
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    91872
    I wish him well, as a human being, and for the sake of his family.

  12. #12
    Tranquillo
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    behind the gruppetto
    Posts
    24,963
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    37484
    There is some priority given based on a variety of factors, but the "match" is key. Some useful info regarding the system is located here.

    The organ system is divided into regions and patients in specific regions can get priority for donations in that region. As I understand it, a very wealthy patient may be able to speed up the process by going to hospitals in regions with a shorter wait list for a particular organ. That issue came up with Steve Jobs who went to Tennessee for his liver transplant.

    Good luck to Cheney. Even with significant medical advantages, this is a major surgery. I hope the coverage of this surgery will encourage more people to sign up as organ donors. So many lives waiting to be saved.
    "The Devil is joining in, and that's never a good sign." Phil Liggett

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    23,859
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by julieann View Post
    It's based solely on tissue match not age.
    As Garden Kitty noted, it's not just based on tissue. Age is a factor (for pediatric recipients) as is geography, length of time on the list, severity of condition, etc.

    Back in the day, being over a certain age was a disqualifying factor (being over 50 made one ineligible to receive an organ). That age limit was removed. But there have been proposals over the years to limit organ recipients based on age, generally with 65 talked about as the upper limit. Here were the policy suggestions coming out of the President's Council on Bioethics in 2007 on this topic:
    Policy Options for Council Consideration and Possible Action: Should age-particularly older age-be an explicit criterion in organ allocation and, if so, how would age as a criterion work in practice?

    Option One:
    The Council could respond in the negative to this question and base such a response on the equity-related argument that the only ethically valid criterion in allocation is patient need. Whether a candidate is 35 years of age or 65 years of age is immaterial: if both are equally sick, it would be unfair to allocate an organ to the younger candidate simply because he or she is younger. To do so would constitute unethical, unfair treatment of older individuals.

    Option Two: The Council could respond in the affirmative to this question and endorse the use of older age as an explicit criterion in organ allocation. It could base such a response on the concept of a natural life span, developed and advocated by Daniel Callahan. Although there is considerable variation from individual to individual, human beings have a natural span of life; the use of high-cost, intensive medical interventions-like organ transplantation-to extend that span indefinitely is an exercise in hubris and a foolhardy effort to postpone the fate that awaits us all. And, in a context of scarcity, organ transplantation in the old ultimately deprives the young of a resource that many will need simply to attain and enjoy a natural span of life. Indeed, one could argue that the old have a stake in the flourishing of the young and that youthful preferences in organ allocation are but one of many ways to support such flourishing.

    In effect, an argument such as this asserts that equity requires limits on transplantation in the old. It is encumbered, however, by conceptual and practical problems, the principal one being the problem of establishing the age at which limits on transplantation would be imposed.

    Option Three: The Council could respond in the affirmative and advocate the explicit integration of an age-related factor in organ allocation. Formulated and advocated by Robert Veatch, this proposal is rooted in an "over-a-lifetime" perspective on patient need for organs-a perspective that others have dubbed the "fair innings" argument. One equity-based argument holds that patient need at a given moment-in-time, regardless of patient age, is the only fair criterion for distributing. Another equity-based argument, however, views need in the context of one's whole life. From the moment-in-time perspective, there is little or no difference between the 35-year old and the 65-year old in need of an organ. From the perspective of their whole lives, however, one could argue that the 65-year old is better off than the 35-year old, simply because the former has made it to this point in life, while the latter has not- and may not without a transplant of the needed organ.

    As for the practical application of this "over-a-lifetime" perspective, Veatch argues for a formula that would take age into account without absolutizing its significance (in the way that Callahan's natural span of life concept would, if it were applied in organ allocation). Assuming the now current practice of assigning points for particular criteria in, for example, kidney allocation, such a revised formula would correlate point-values and age such that as one ages, one's age-related points decrease: one's age would be inversely proportional to the value of this particular criterion in the algorithm or formula.

    Option Four: The Council could circumvent a direct response to the question at hand by endorsing the practice of age-matching donor organs and transplant candidates-that is, of allocating organs with a lower expected length of functioning (ELF) to candidates with a lower expected life span (ELS). This practice derives moral support from both equity- and efficiency-based arguments: it does not neglect the need of the old for organ transplantation and, in deference to efficiency, it correlates donor organs and transplant candidates on apparently rational grounds. There are critics of this practice, however, who cite data indicating poor graft functioning results with organs that have a lower expected life of functioning. Many of these organs are procured from expanded criteria donors.
    http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/pcbe...llocation.html

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    17,222
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Skittl1321 View Post
    He is also a very old man,
    Are you serious? Very old?

    at his age death of natural causes is not unheard of
    So,does that mean he should not have the same chance as anyone else with heart disease? Anyone with heart disease has a higher risk of passing from natural causes, regardless of age.

    Is there great value in extending from 71 to 81?
    ChelleC already answered that perfectly - for his family - yes.

    I'm not a Cheney fan, but I wish him a speedy recovery.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    8,514
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    7659
    Wow, this is a very big step. I wish him well.

  16. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    125
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    When my mom went on the kidney transplant list, she was 69. The Dr said that even though she wasn't fully in renal failure, she had to be on the list before she turned 70 or she would be turned down. I am assuming the same for Mr. Cheney. He got on the list before age 70. They will do a transplant if you are older than 70. You just must be on the list before then. My mom got her transplant at age 71 from my brother but that's a whole different story.

  17. #17
    Official FSU Alte Kacher
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Looking through my D7100 viewfinder
    Posts
    12,064
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20374
    Whilst I detest his politics, and what he wrought in eight years in office, I still wish him speedy recovery. And it looks like he’s been waiting for two years all the while hooked up to a portable machine which couldn’t have been much fun.
    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity”– MLK

  18. #18
    Fearless Musher
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Cosmic Ridge
    Age
    49
    Posts
    9,183
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    3916
    Quote Originally Posted by Skittl1321 View Post
    Is there great value in extending from 71 to 81?
    Remember that and ask yourself when you are 71
    "I missed the view and viewed the mist..." ©

  19. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Age
    25
    Posts
    9,106
    vCash
    1529
    Rep Power
    0
    Well, with the male life expectancy in the US being 75.6 years, I wouldn't classify 71 as very old. You'd have to be several years beyond the life expectancy rate before I'd do that.

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Thankfukky watching skating
    Posts
    13,648
    vCash
    317
    Rep Power
    41192
    My dad had a major stroke at age 81. Up to that time he was planting his garden, playing with his grandkids, & arguing with my mother. He was still safely driving his car during the day, going on trips, & attending all the activities that he wanted. He lived another 4 years, & recovered to the point that his personality was intact even though he wasn't able to walk. For a lot of reasons that extra time was very precious to me. We sure weren't ready to lose him without warning at age 81. So yes, at 71 we would have advocated extreme measures to not only keep him alive but to have him alive with quality of life. I can't stand Cheney but I understand the reasons for this transplant.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •