Occupy America: Black teen initially denied heart transplant

[PainRack]

http://occupyamerica.crooksandliars.com ... qus_thread

Fifteen-year-old Anthony Stokes has been denied the heart transplant that would save his life.

UPDATE: The hospital has changed their mind and he's on the transplant list.

The family of 15-year-old Anthony Stokes are pleading with Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta to add his name to the transplant list for a new heart because he has less than six months to live.

Stokes' family has been told that Anthony doesn’t qualify for the transplant list because he has a “history of non-compliance," partly due to a history of low grades and having had some trouble with the law.

“They said they don’t have any evidence that he would take his medicine or that he would go to his follow-ups,” Melencia Hamilton, Anthony’s mother, told WSBTV News. Hamilton explained that her son has an enlarged heart, and a transplant is the only thing that will help his condition.

The doctors at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta weren’t very specific about just what specifically contributed to their decision to label Anthony as “non-compliant.” But family friends say that they were told it’s partly because of Anthony’s performance in school and run-ins with law enforcement.

His family and friends don’t accept that as a reason to deny the teen life-saving treatment, and civil rights organizations are beginning to take up Anthony’s cause, saying a child’s past shouldn’t have anything to do with the medical care they receive. “He’s been given a death sentence because of a broad and vague excuse of non-compliance,” a representative from the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), Christine Young Brown, said. “There was nothing specific in that decision. Just non-compliance.”

The hospital released a statement saying that it was continuing to work with the family to explore its options.

The thing is, there's way too much misinformation out there and in the comments about that page. Its ludricious to think that his low grades had any effect on his transplant list and it smells to me that this emerges from the stage of denial for grieving relatives rather than an actual hospital decision.

Similarly, run in with the law would only have factored in if it was for drug abuse and the like, and then, there should also be legal issues with opening up a juvenile record.

Anyone here willing to comment?

[Dominus Atheos]

Is there a reason you chose to go with that source and felt the need to put it in the thread title? There are several links in the article to other sources you might find less suspicious. Here's the story from ABC that your source links to at the beginning of the article:

The family of Anthony Stokes, the 15-year-old boy who was denied a place on the heart transplant waiting list because of "non-compliance," now say doctors at a George hospital have changed their minds.

Anthony has an enlarged heart and has been given six months to live, but Anthony's family said doctors told them that they wouldn't put him on the transplant list because of his history of "non-compliance." This typically means a patient hasn't shown that he can follow medical directions, such as taking his medicine or showing up to follow-up appointments.

"I know he will comply with all the rules," a crying Melencia Hamilton, Anthony's mother, told ABC News earlier today, before she said she learned that doctors had reversed their decision would put Anthony on the transplant list. "He will take his medicine because he knows that is how he has to live."

Hamilton said she thought doctors made their decision to deny Anthony because he had low grade and trouble with the law.

"He was just fighting," Hamilton said. "Trying to take up, just trying to take up for his brother because somebody was bullying his brother."

She said she wishes everyone could get to know her son.

A spokeswoman at Children's Healthcare of Atlanta at Egleston, where Stokes is receiving treatment, would not comment today on the specifics of his case, citing patient privacy rules, but said there was some "misinformation" circulating.

The hospital released a statement Monday saying that it was continuing to work with the family to explore its options.

"We follow very specific criteria in determining eligibility for a transplant of any kind," hospital spokeswoman Patty Gregory said in the statement to ABCNews.com.

Likewise, here's what 5 seconds of googleing leads to:

DECATUR, Ga. (WXIA) - According to his family, 15-year-old Anthony Stokes, who was previously denied access to the heart transplant list at Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, has now been placed on that list.

The family's contact, Mark Bell, told 11Alive's Rebecca Lindstrom Tuesday afternoon that the hospital had put Stokes had been placed on the transplant list. He said the family had been receiving calls from as far away as Panama asking if there was any way they could help.

Stokes has been hospitalized, with his family being told that the only way he can survive is through a heart transplant.

His mother, Melencia Hamilton says the letter she received from the hospital denying placement of Stokes on the list says he was not a candidate "due to having a history of non-compliance."

Hamilton says she feels he is being denied in part because he's been too healthy. He does not have a track record to prove he would take medication or follow doctor's orders.

Adult transplant surgeon Dr. David Dean from Piedmont Healthcare said non compliance could mean a patient has a history of drugs or alcohol, or that the patient has not shown up for their doctor's appointment.

Hamilton says her son's only sin is anger management. He has been in some fights -- enough that a judge sentenced him to house arrest. He was wearing an ankle monitor when he initially went to the emergency room.

Officials at Children's Healthcare of Atlanta released a statement to 11Alive News late Tuesday afternoon: "As we stated previously, a heart transplant evaluation is an ongoing process based on the patient and his or her family's ability to meet specific transplant criteria. While there has been misinformation circulating, Children's cannot discuss the specifics of this case or any other case due to privacy rules. Our physician experts are continuing to work with this family to establish a care plan and determine the best next steps for the patient. At Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, patient care is always our top priority."

Bell says Stokes will remain in the hospital for the foreseeable future.

If you don't think "Occupy America" is a reliable source, don't post from it.

[Formless]

Please link to your goddamn sources, Dominus. Or at least label where they came from, which even Painrack managed to do and you didn't. Hypocrite. No two people get the same results back from google anymore thanks to their "search customization" algorithms (AKA tracking you without your permission). Also, it makes anyone who invokes "five seconds of googling" sound hilariously uninformed about how the internet works nowadays.

[PainRack]

Why did I link to occupy America Dominus?

Because my gripe was with

The thing is, there's way too much misinformation out there and in the comments about that page

You know. The comments. Not the article itself.

[Broomstick]

The thing is, there's way too much misinformation out there and in the comments about that page. Its ludricious to think that his low grades had any effect on his transplant list and it smells to me that this emerges from the stage of denial for grieving relatives rather than an actual hospital decision.

That was my first thought as well.

Similarly, run in with the law would only have factored in if it was for drug abuse and the like, and then, there should also be legal issues with opening up a juvenile record.

IF he actually did get wheeled into the ER at some point with an ankle monitor it could have biased someone. That's not supposed to happen but it does. On the other hand, given the very limited supply of donor organs and the much greater demand for them whether or not the recipient is able or willing to comply with the post-transplant requirements is a huge deal. They don't give you an anklet for "low grades" and it's certainly possible he was involved in something quite serious. While juvenile court records are usually sealed medical issues are an area where a judge could be persuaded to release the information.

Anyone here willing to comment?

Thought I already was.

The story shows a clash between various issues in the US.

There is, of course, the question of bias. Racism and classism isn't supposed to occur in medicine but as medicine is supplied by fallible humans it's a possibility. That doesn't mean it's occurring in this particular case but the question will be raised. The black community is keenly aware that black people are less likely to get organs than white people, but what isn't always understood is that this is an area of medicine where race - or, if you prefer, ethnicity - really does count. Proper organ matching means matching certain compatibility factors and people of the same general descent are more likely to have similar markers. It's not impossible for people of disparate background to be matches but it is much less likely than people of similar background. There are times when a white donor can supply a viable organ for a black (or Asian) recipient but it's much less common than matching with someone of the same race. There are a numerous groups in the US, from major celebrities to individual families, trying to increase organ donation from minorities but the brutal fact remains that simply being a numerical minority reduces your chances of getting a transplant simply because the potential pool of donors is smaller.

There is the issue of "non-compliance", which is a slippery one. It may have nothing to with his life outside the hospital - we are talking about a seriously ill 15 year old young man who might well be angry and who might have acted out while in the hospital. I have NO way of knowing what is behavior has been this is PURE speculation but a patient who, say, heaps verbal abuse on the staff, throws things or otherwise displays signs of anger or rebellion is NOT going to help his bid for a transplant. Because the supply of organs is so small compared to demand the transplant teams are only going to pick the most compliant patients and that pretty much means following doctors' orders will little to no backtalk or questioning. Other typical teen misbehavior that could get him bumped is ANY alcohol, drug, or tobacco use (aside from any drugs ordered by the doctors, or course), staying out past curfew. Any sign of rebellion risks bumping you off the recipient list.

Which brings us to medical shortages and rationing. Americans don't like the notion of rationing in any form (never mind that de facto we ration medical care based on personal financial resources), even less in medical matters. However, the brutal fact is there aren't enough organs to go around. That means someone has to decide who gets one and who doesn't. That is supposed to be decided on purely medical criteria, however, given that there is a shortage transplant centers feel that not only must they find a good match but they must choose recipients based on who will be able to get the most use out of it. Fact is, if you don't comply with the post-transplant medical requirements that organ is going to shrivel up and die. The basis of using compliance as a criteria is that organs should go to those most likely to take their pills and otherwise follow doctors' orders because they'll get the most out of the new organ. To some extent, people on the transplant list are in competition with each other to demonstrate how good a patient they are. The general public does NOT like this fact and will happily try to find blame or unrelated bias, scream bloody murder, make demands, and take hospitals to court in attempt to actual this horrible little fact of life and death: there are not enough organs to meet demand.

Which leads us to the media. If all else fails families attempt a saving throw by going to the media. Of course the sick person is an angel, or at least not as bad as some make him appear, and will be a good boy and do whatever is required - that's necessary to sell the public on this person. It becomes eligibility by charisma, not medical criteria. While that can help if money is an issue, sometimes raising the needed funds for otherwise eligible patients, it won't actually make some other people more suitable as candidates. The family went to the media because they're desperate.

The transplant center may have caved because bad publicity can interfere with their mission. Getting hauled into court over this can certainly impair their mission. The over-riding motive of a transplant center is to save lives and it would not surprise me if they make a compromise to keep the program going as smoothly as possible. I don't know that that happened here but it's possible.

Additionally, there are reasons the wealthy - of any ethnicity - are more likely to get a transplant in the US than poor people. For one thing, when it comes to transplants money counts. If you can't pay for a transplant in the US - if your insurance won't cover it, if you don't have insurance, and you don't have the money to pay out of pocket from your personal finances for the treatment you will NOT get it. The rich can pay, it's that simple. Another reason is that those of modest means only register at one transplant center. The US (actually, all of North America) is divided into regions for transplant purposes. This has to do with geography and transport time. Organs are first offered within the region they are harvested, only if there are no matching donors within that region are they offered outside it... if there is sufficient time to transport the organ. Which there may not be. The very wealthy - like Dick Cheney - can get on the list within multiple regions because, in addition to simply being able to afford (through either good insurance or personal wealth) a transplant they can also afford to charter a personal air ambulance to meet a new organ halfway. The more regions you can register in the better you odds of getting a new organ.

Finally, let's not discount political realities. Darth Cheney may be hated and despised by many, but he is still a man of influence. While I have absolutely no proof such a thing it is conceivable that he pulled strings to get his new heart and/or made promises along the lines of continued or additional funding to such programs. It's not medical criteria, but it's conceivable that someone thought the good of a continued or expanded transplant program outweighed the bad of tweaking the list to favor a sick old man of great political influence.

Yes, a lot of the above is speculation but it's all stuff that crosses my mind every time I hear a story like this young man's. It would be nice if there were ample new organs for all who needed them and money was never a consideration but that's not reality.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm suddenly remembering Larry Niven's "Known Space" stories, where there's an extended period when "organ banks" make transplants very easy by allowing longer-term storage of organs... but the organ banks are filled in large part with organs taken from condemned criminals.

People whose lives depend on a steady stream of spare body parts will always vote to keep the stream flowing. Result? The death penalty becomes much, much more popular.

It's kind of ridiculous if we look at it as a serious idea about how the future will evolve (or was going to evolve, given that he wrote this stuff in the '70s). But still... food for thought; that's the kind of society we'd need if we wanted to really make sure organ transplants were available for all.

[Ralin]

Or we could just make organ donation mandatory for everyone.

[PainRack]

That or wait till science gives us viable organs for transplant

[Simon_Jester]

Or we could just make organ donation mandatory for everyone.

That might not entirely fix things. Part of the problem is that desirable organs for transplants usually only come from a tiny minority of people: mostly people who die relatively young and healthy.

At the moment, the supply of replacement organs is so low that it artificially depresses demand, because almost any other treatment is more cost-effective and viable than an organ transplant. We would never consider a heart transplant for a patient who could plausibly be helped by surgical repair of the heart, for example.

In Niven's future, part of the point is that transplants have become a routine medical procedure, far more so than in real life. There's sort of a feedback loop here: in real life, if you have cancer in a vital organ, they will usually try to treat the cancer rather than remove the organ and put in another one. In Niven's stories, they probably would replace the whole organ, assuming the cancer was caught early enough that it hadn't metastasized.

So it's at least worth asking: if the supply of donor organs increased sharply, but not to an unlimited degree, would demand tend to increase to match supply?

[PainRack]

There is, of course, the question of bias. Racism and classism isn't supposed to occur in medicine but as medicine is supplied by fallible humans it's a possibility. That doesn't mean it's occurring in this particular case but the question will be raised. The black community is keenly aware that black people are less likely to get organs than white people, but what isn't always understood is that this is an area of medicine where race - or, if you prefer, ethnicity - really does count. Proper organ matching means matching certain compatibility factors and people of the same general descent are more likely to have similar markers. It's not impossible for people of disparate background to be matches but it is much less likely than people of similar background. There are times when a white donor can supply a viable organ for a black (or Asian) recipient but it's much less common than matching with someone of the same race. There are a numerous groups in the US, from major celebrities to individual families, trying to increase organ donation from minorities but the brutal fact remains that simply being a numerical minority reduces your chances of getting a transplant simply because the potential pool of donors is smaller.

I'm waiting for Lady Tevar to comment since she and hubby has first hand experience on this, but isn't compatibility for a transplant separate from matching for a transplant? Race isn't a factor for whether one is eligible for an organ, albeit, I don't know nuts about heart transplant.

I have NO way of knowing what is behavior has been this is PURE speculation but a patient who, say, heaps verbal abuse on the staff, throws things or otherwise displays signs of anger or rebellion is NOT going to help his bid for a transplant. Because the supply of organs is so small compared to demand the transplant teams are only going to pick the most compliant patients and that pretty much means following doctors' orders will little to no backtalk or questioning. Other typical teen misbehavior that could get him bumped is ANY alcohol, drug, or tobacco use (aside from any drugs ordered by the doctors, or course), staying out past curfew. Any sign of rebellion risks bumping you off the recipient list.

Eligibility includes stuff like did he follow up on hospital visits or did he decline meds. Unfortunately, it will violate patient confidentality for the hospital to clear its name here and I'm quite sure they can't release the criteria as well.

The transplant center may have caved because bad publicity can interfere with their mission. Getting hauled into court over this can certainly impair their mission. The over-riding motive of a transplant center is to save lives and it would not surprise me if they make a compromise to keep the program going as smoothly as possible. I don't know that that happened here but it's possible.

I can imagine the transplant centre placing him on the list, but putting him as a low pirority, a lower number down the list so as to speak. And though this may sound vindicative, it IS how transplant medicine works. Trust me, you don't know how..... heart aching this is until you see someone come in repeatedly and wait for a transplant organ. Had this story related to me once about how someone came in for a kidney twice and just didn't get it..... Hell, we had this happen to our own board member.

The very wealthy - like Dick Cheney - can get on the list within multiple regions because, in addition to simply being able to afford (through either good insurance or personal wealth) a transplant they can also afford to charter a personal air ambulance to meet a new organ halfway. The more regions you can register in the better you odds of getting a new organ.

Steve Jobs in particular gamed the system by choosing WHICH region had a higher transplant rate and then registering in each one. He has a personal aeroplane of course, all he needs is proof that he can get there within a few hours of being called.

So it's at least worth asking: if the supply of donor organs increased sharply, but not to an unlimited degree, would demand tend to increase to match supply?

That's an interesting question... I wonder if there any specialist data on China and their prison transplant rates here.

Alternatively, we can simply mine India..... the sale of organs there was extremely popular in the past.

There is a difference of course. India sale of organs are for kidneys, so, the problems come from the supply of eglibile donors. The lousy success rate of Indian transplant is due partially to the poor condition of donated kidneys.

[PainRack]

Or we could just make organ donation mandatory for everyone.

There's also something funny. In the years since Singapore made organ donation opt out, we actually had LESS cadaveric kidney transplant but more living donor transplant(well, until 2011 anyway. Too lazy to google last year results).

We had the head of the transplant unit speculating that this is due to increased publicity about organ donation. Kinda explains why SGH is going to hold transplant week next week.....

[Crossroads Inc.]

Or we could just make organ donation mandatory for everyone.

Well, mandatory for everyone who passes a medical evaluation obviously.
And really you shouldn't have to make it mandatory, but it should be something that is far more advertised and encouraged.
Like joining the armed forces, or going to college, it should be something portrayed as "Something every Patriotic American should do!"

[Ralin]

I wonder how much it would help to just make selling one's organs legal? There are tons of poor young people in America, and letting them sell their kidneys seems way more likely to succeed than student loan forgiveness or whatever.

And really you shouldn't have to make it mandatory, but it should be something that is far more advertised and encouraged.
Like joining the armed forces, or going to college, it should be something portrayed as "Something every Patriotic American should do!"

There's apparently a non-negligible part of of the population (in the US, at least) that believes that doctors will let them die if they know they've agreed to be organ donors.

[Patroklos]

Or we could just make organ donation mandatory for everyone.

Bodily autonomy is a tricky issue as another hot button topic clearly shows. I personally am an organ donor, its not the same choice everyone makes.

[Ralin]

Bodily autonomy is a tricky issue as another hot button topic clearly shows. I personally am an organ donor, its not the same choice everyone makes.

I don't see how it's significantly different from when my dentist told me I wasn't allowed to keep my wisdom teeth. People stop being people when they die, and it's not like it would be depriving anyone of their freedom to decide the really important things, like who gets their money.

[ThatOneCatC]

I don't see how it's significantly different from when my dentist told me I wasn't allowed to keep my wisdom teeth. People stop being people when they die, and it's not like it would be depriving anyone of their freedom to decide the really important things, like who gets their money.

My dentist let me keep my wisdom teeth.

I think that ones autonomy is more important than the forced obligation of donating ones organs.

If in a society where organ donation was mandatory, I would be afraid that perhaps more unscrupulous doctors would let "undesirables" die in order to harvest organs for those deemed worthier or for their own monetary benefit. At that point it would essentially be the word of the physician vs. the word of the family or legal custodian as to the actual cause of death.

[Simon_Jester]

I wonder how much it would help to just make selling one's organs legal? There are tons of poor young people in America, and letting them sell their kidneys seems way more likely to succeed than student loan forgiveness or whatever.

This presents a huge ethical issue about physicians' commitment to treating poor patients along with rich ones. It's also very bad in the long haul because the people selling the kidneys can easily live long, full, healthy lives with them, while the people buying will typically be older and worse off. Overall medical quality of life goes down when you let a 60 year old man buy a 20 year old man's kidney, especially if the 20-year-old needs his later due to his own future kidney problems.

Also, it totally would NOT help for the organs you can't live without, which are the main ones where we have a transplant issue. You can live without much if any kidney function; it just sucks. You can't live without a heart, so no one is going to volunteer to sell theirs, or if they do then it's functionally equivalent to agreeing to commit suicide for money.

I would NOT want to trust a medical profession willing to assist in that process.[/quote]

Bodily autonomy is a tricky issue as another hot button topic clearly shows. I personally am an organ donor, its not the same choice everyone makes.

I don't see how it's significantly different from when my dentist told me I wasn't allowed to keep my wisdom teeth.

Exactly what were they told?

People stop being people when they die, and it's not like it would be depriving anyone of their freedom to decide the really important things, like who gets their money.

Some people think that the disposition of their bodily remains is really important. You don't. Why does your opinion override theirs in the eyes of an outside party?

[Knife]

Being eligible for a transplant is a tricky thing, you have to be 'sick' enough to need a transplant, but healthy enough to survive the operation and healthy enough to keep the transplant going. There is usually a huge screening process, with everything combed through with a fine tooth comb. Risk factors, past and present, factor into it as well. To say, a history of IV drugs would be a huge flag, even if the patient hasn't used in years, such as a 60 year old who did IV drugs when they were 20, and not since could have difficulty in the process. Other medical conditions that the patient isn't managing could be viewed as non compliance, even as something as simple as an ADD patient not taking their meds regularly, all the way up to a diabetic with poor management.

With the information provided, it is impossible to say...

[Patroklos]

Bodily autonomy is a tricky issue as another hot button topic clearly shows. I personally am an organ donor, its not the same choice everyone makes.

I don't see how it's significantly different from when my dentist told me I wasn't allowed to keep my wisdom teeth. People stop being people when they die, and it's not like it would be depriving anyone of their freedom to decide the really important things, like who gets their money.

Who gets the money might be really important to you, but not really important to someone else. The point you mention, the deceased having control over their lives even after death regarding wills and such, means people do not stop being people once they die. Especially when they have taken the time to make their wishes known via legal means.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

If in a society where organ donation was mandatory, I would be afraid that perhaps more unscrupulous doctors would let "undesirables" die in order to harvest organs for those deemed worthier or for their own monetary benefit. At that point it would essentially be the word of the physician vs. the word of the family or legal custodian as to the actual cause of death.

I've seen this meme before, and it never makes more sense than last time. The word "unscrupulous" covers professional integrity and ethics I guess, but none of the people spouting this take litigation into account. Doctors are already afraid of lawsuits, and grieving families are already sue-happy. I don't see how increasing the danger of litigation tenfold will increase criminal negligence.

I don't see how it's significantly different from when my dentist told me I wasn't allowed to keep my wisdom teeth. People stop being people when they die, and it's not like it would be depriving anyone of their freedom to decide the really important things, like who gets their money.

Wait until a quarter of Americans oppose it because they want their body to be ready for the Rapture.

Fundie jokes aside, how feasible would it be to just clone individual organs?

[energiewende]

hThe thing is, there's way too much misinformation out there and in the comments about that page. Its ludricious to think that his low grades had any effect on his transplant list and it smells to me that this emerges from the stage of denial for grieving relatives rather than an actual hospital decision.

Similarly, run in with the law would only have factored in if it was for drug abuse and the like, and then, there should also be legal issues with opening up a juvenile record.

Well that is depending - did the hospital (or some other) conduct a statistical study showing people with low grades and criminal records are much more likely not to comply? If so, this isn't any different than not giving a non-recovered alcoholic a liver transplant. It is not an unreasonable supposition that someone unable to obey rules in other areas of life to his personal detriment would also not obey rules in this area of life, even to his personal detriment. It is quite possible such a study does exist and does show that.

On the other hand, if the hospital just assumed that connection without any study, then this is less reasonable. If the alternative recipient had similar triage status and evidence of good compliance, it may still be justifiable, but it would depend if this is a very marginal distinguishing factor, or one given great weight.

Specifying race implies this is a race-related story but I don't see the connection. Is it usual to specify race in US reporting even if it is not related to the story?

Bodily autonomy is a tricky issue as another hot button topic clearly shows. I personally am an organ donor, its not the same choice everyone makes.

I don't see how it's significantly different from when my dentist told me I wasn't allowed to keep my wisdom teeth. People stop being people when they die, and it's not like it would be depriving anyone of their freedom to decide the really important things, like who gets their money.

On what grounds? Did you sign them over when you agreed to the treatment, or does your country assign ownership of teeth to dentists after they are removed, or what? If I ask my hairdresser to put my shorn hair in a doggybag the most I would expect is them to charge me for the bag. Similarly it is my business to whom I bequest my corpse. One reform I do support is allowing doctors to ask the inheritor of the corpse to be allowed to remove the organs, provided no specific disposal method was requested by the deceased.

[ThatOneCatC]

If in a society where organ donation was mandatory, I would be afraid that perhaps more unscrupulous doctors would let "undesirables" die in order to harvest organs for those deemed worthier or for their own monetary benefit. At that point it would essentially be the word of the physician vs. the word of the family or legal custodian as to the actual cause of death.

I've seen this meme before, and it never makes more sense than last time. The word "unscrupulous" covers professional integrity and ethics I guess, but none of the people spouting this take litigation into account. Doctors are already afraid of lawsuits, and grieving families are already sue-happy. I don't see how increasing the danger of litigation tenfold will increase criminal negligence.

Fair enough. I retract the assertation.

[PainRack]

Well that is depending - did the hospital (or some other) conduct a statistical study showing people with low grades and criminal records are much more likely not to comply? If so, this isn't any different than not giving a non-recovered alcoholic a liver transplant. It is not an unreasonable supposition that someone unable to obey rules in other areas of life to his personal detriment would also not obey rules in this area of life, even to his personal detriment. It is quite possible such a study does exist and does show that.

Stop. The hospital WOULDN"T have known shit about his low grades at all. I would have suspected health insurance to play a much bigger role than low grades.

I seen a scenario like this play out through the blogosphere here in Singapore before. A simple remark or inference takes on an entirely new sinister perception based on the family bias.

My personal favourite was a blogger claiming that chemotherapy medication is so expensive, the nurse wouldn't open the wrapper for fear of it dropping on the floor. (P.S, we don't open the wrapper because its chemo.)
It doesn't help of course, that glivec is astoundingly expensive...

Similarly, isn't it standard for US hospitals not to reveal the specific incidents that disqualify a patient for transplant? They would have cited reasons like non compliance, which indeed, was what was reported in the article as well as ABC news. They wouldn't have said anything else.

Specifying race implies this is a race-related story but I don't see the connection. Is it usual to specify race in US reporting even if it is not related to the story?

Its an attempt by Occupy America to claim racial as well as class warfare. The thing is, while race is a consideration for organ compatibility, I'm going to demand firm evidence that the hospital is considering race as a factor for whether one should be placed on the list.

[Melchior]

On what grounds? Did you sign them over when you agreed to the treatment, or does your country assign ownership of teeth to dentists after they are removed, or what? If I ask my hairdresser to put my shorn hair in a doggybag the most I would expect is them to charge me for the bag. Similarly it is my business to whom I bequest my corpse. One reform I do support is allowing doctors to ask the inheritor of the corpse to be allowed to remove the organs, provided no specific disposal method was requested by the deceased.

I don't know where he lives, but here they would be classified as medical waste, which must be treated in a specific and rather strict way (there are good reasons for this: consider that they're going to be bloody, the blood might be infected, etc. - there are public health concerns).

[Ralin]

On what grounds? Did you sign them over when you agreed to the treatment, or does your country assign ownership of teeth to dentists after they are removed, or what? If I ask my hairdresser to put my shorn hair in a doggybag the most I would expect is them to charge me for the bag. Similarly it is my business to whom I bequest my corpse. One reform I do support is allowing doctors to ask the inheritor of the corpse to be allowed to remove the organs, provided no specific disposal method was requested by the deceased.

I don't know where he lives, but here they would be classified as medical waste, which must be treated in a specific and rather strict way (there are good reasons for this: consider that they're going to be bloody, the blood might be infected, etc. - there are public health concerns).

Yeah, that would be it. They gave me the impression that state law or health regulations or something required that they be the ones to dispose of it.

This was ten years ago and my memory might be hazy. Especially since I had the brilliant idea to walk a mile home in the middle of summer afterwards. That didn't turn out so well.