Crime legislation is easier to pass with a victim’s name attached. Maybe that’s what the health care crisis needs. If so, Nataline Sarkisyan (in photo) may provide the name. She was the 17-year-old who died Thursday at UCLA Medical Center just hours after her insurer, Cigna HealthCare, did an about-face and decided to fund her liver transplant after all. Litigation will follow. So should legislation tackling the entire problem of the uninsured and underinsured.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
165 Comments
Look at that face.
That is the face of a young woman who is dead because a greedy bean counting corporation deemed her unworthy of saving.
I remember all the chest thumping arm failing that Jeb Bush, Tom Delay other right wingers did over pulling the plug on the terry Schiavo case. Yet Jeb’s brother while Gov of Texas signed a law that had Schiavo lived in Texas would have given the hospitals the ability to pull the plug even over the objections of the family
Cigna needs their corporate heads examined… hey waited to approve funding of this young woman’s transplant, until it was no longer relevant, and they were certain there would be no opportunity to do the surgery!! Shame on insurance companies for this kind of lack of understanding, and just plain old human compassion!!
Maybe instead of suing the Dr the girls dad should Kill the Dr/DRs. Now that would certainly make a lot bigger statement than suing. In all seriousness I think the next wave of shooting sprees is gonna be people pissed off at health care.
See http://www.wen2k.com/tell.php?Id=808 . Our former Insurance Commisioner became her own Governor. Governor Sebelius. The current Commissioner is also a Persoanl Agenda Politician. Jenkins, the State Treasurer is a thief. Boyda also steals and launders our taxes. The article I opend with shows what and where our healthcare doallsr are gomg for. The Sprint Center and Village West!! The Casinos, which are Unconstitutional. They are Killing the sick and stealing the resources to Personal Agenda our taxes for themselves. Too put a name on the bills to stop this, no!! Why?? We dont need a list of bills that are “name” attached and as large as all the phone books in Kansas. Pick up a big city phone book and immagine all those names as bills because we are too weak and stupid to demand our healthcare rights. We treat our lives and those around us a lottery tickets. Dont you remember Boyda is a Pharmacutical Chemist. Sebelius aworked with First Lady Clinton, Jenkins steal us blind, Prager is and was the assistant ot them all!!! Demand better, LIVE, impeach Sebelius and restore healthcare. Senator Lott from Tennessee owns HCA and launders the stolen taxes in Tennessee. The corporate offices for all nursing homes and hospitals in the U.S.. Reappropriated into congress “PORK” after being stolen from us and the Federal Budget. Herbert West III, Publisher/Journalist, Disability Retired Paramedic, I still dont have a proper Disability Check after 17 years!!!!! 17 years I have been screwed over!! 17 years I have lived too watch yous “DIE”. Save you and yours, Impeach!!! http://www.wen2k.com west.herb@yahoo.com
Well, it appears that the bottom line is the bottom line. Nothing, not even a human life, matters when profits will be affected.
Unfortunately, organ transplants are extremely expensive, and frequently fail. There is not an unlimited pot of money, either from the private insurers or the government, and rationing of some type has to take place. How much prenatal care could the insurer provide with the money that would go towards one organ transplant, and all the expensive drugs and doctors visits that follow? How many children could be vaccinated with money that goes to providing futile ICU care at the end of life?
If you think that a totally government run medical system is going to give out money for transplants to every comer, you are sadly mistaken.
What Mainstream Media hype. Check these statements from the article provided.
“Nataline was diagnosed with leukemia at 14 and received a bone marrow transplant from her brother the day before Thanksgiving. She later developed a complication that caused her liver to fail. She was in a vegetative state for some time, her mother Hilda said.
Nataline was taken off life support at the University of California, Los Angeles Medical Center on Thursday, her mother said. Nataline died within the hour.”
The girl was in vegetative state and taken off life support by her mother.
Let me repeat that very important statement for all you soft candy hearts.
The girl was in vegetative state and taken off life support by her mother.
Equipped with printed protest posters, the father Krikor Sarkisyan prepped the future lawsuit with news conferences.
Krikor is going to get the best Ambulance Chasers money can buy, so he can wipe his tears on a stack of money.
Any bets on how many attorney business cards are in Krikor’s wallet right now?
I be Krikor is so heartbroken, he’s already made a down payment on a world wide cruise.
It appears that the mother and father may have been separated as it was the mother who made the decision to pull the girl from the life support.
What was that statement?
The girl was in vegetative state and taken off life support by her mother.
Unfortunately it’s true that it’s not reasonable to give everyone a transplant who needs one. Organs are in limited supply, so they have to go to those who have the most chance to survive.
On another note, I got a flyer in the mail yesterday about how Todd Tihart opposes SCHIP because he cares SO much about poor children’s healthcare. It was so full of twisted logic and facts my head was spinning…why doesn’t he just get honest and admit that he doesn’t want to see cigarettes taxed more because he’s in the pockets of the major tobacco companies? I guess he’s just doing what politicians do best…spewing forth the spin and putting up that fake facade of care and concern to protect the special interest groups who fund them.
Tom P,”Maybe instead of suing the Dr the girls dad should Kill the Dr/DRs”
The doctors aren’t the ones at fault here, it’s the HMO. Of course it wouldn’t make much of a statement to shoot them; nobody would miss an insurance executive or two.
I think you’ll have to look further than second hand smoke for the causes of lung cancer. i.e., the nun in the eagle story yesterday.
Dear Rhonda,
I read the story about Nataline at your link and for me it asks more questions than it answers. Unlike some of the libs here it doesn’t make me want to stampede over the cliff to socialized medicine or long for a law to make everything OK.
Before we write a law, what is the problem? Not nearly enough facts in you little propaganda piece to come close to defining the problem.
Questions that need to be answered:
What was the relationship between Nataline’s parents? How much does their estrangement have to do with her father’s desire to sue?
Why did her mother pull the plug on Nataline? Why doesn’t she seem to be part of the suit?
Nataline was in a teaching hospital. The doctors were proposing an experimental procedure that has never been successful in the past. Why didn’t the University work with the mother to defray costs?
What factors contributed to Nataline’s mother’s decision to ‘pull the plug’? Papers had to be signed, what did they say?
I have a few more questions that are not answered by the MSM coverage of this story. But just one more for Rhonda,
What possible law can you write that would have saved this vegetable?
Another person dead because some CEO wanted a big Christmas bonus this year. This is exactly the sort of thing Michael Moore was referring to in Sicko. However the neo-cons here insist she received her medical treatment because nobody is denied health care, insured or uninsured.
The doctors in this case wanted to treat her but the capitalist insurance system said no. With universal health care the doctors would have been free to do their jobs and Nataline Sarkisyan would be alive today.
Medicare does NOT pay for treatment of Hepatitis C.However, the American Liver Foundation does have some funding options, and will help with fundraising in many cases. Most private insurance will not pay ALL of the costs.
Also, NO type of insurance can guarantee a matching donor!
http://www.liverfoundation.org/patients/transplantfund/about
There are about 6,500 liver transplants per year, in the United States.
There are about 17,000 people on the liver transplant waiting list.
Apparently, what the liberals want is for the medical community to allocate scarce resources (organs) to whatever patient has the best attorney.
http://www.liverfoundation.org/education/info/transplant/
These operations cost $314,000.00 or more, with after care expenses.
Should we spend that kind of money on a person who has other complications, other health problems, or is in a comma?
Someone who has life threatening cancer, in other organs, has poor life style choices, like drug or alcohol use, or is in a comma would not be at the top of any list to receive a donor liver.
Another issue involved: Often a LIVING donor can donate a piece of a liver, and it will be enough to save the sick patient. The living donor must be screened for “lifestyle” issues as well.
Were family members asked if they would donate a “piece” of their own livers?
Were family members declined as potential donors due to lifestyle issues?
Did family members refuse to donate?
Don’t be so quick to judge.
It has already been pointed out that this woman was not a good candidate for a transplant.
Government will have to make these decisions, if you do not allow the medical community to make these decisions for us.
But, that way, I guess all of Hillaries campaign contributors will be first in line for a liver transplant, huh?
DangI just used a plural possesive for Hillary.Hope there isn’t more than one.
No doctor would have approved a Kidney transplant for a girl who was in a vegetative state unless there was good hope for recovery. Therefore, there would have been no denial for the insurance company to claim. My guess is that she slipped into her coma after they denied her.
Liver/kidney failure is often caused by another condition being treated. The medications to treat are terribly hard on your body. A Pre-existing item such as leukemia should NOT have been a factor in denying her transplant. So Cigna is still the bad guy. As well as the doctors who wouldn’t do it just because they couldn’t pay.
So according to Paul if a medical bill gets to high then the person’s life becomes worthless. Here’s another example of a compassionate conservative. It must be a part of that superior Christian morality. I wish the Christians would worship and follow a god that actually went out healing the sick. That might give them a different attitude about our health care system. Alas, I’m just an immoral heathen so what do I know.
DougThe government makes these decisions all of the time.Why do you think “health care rationing” is evil, if done by doctors and insurance companies, but, somehow, “blessed by God” if rationed by government?
I already told you that Medicare, a GOVERNMENT program, will not pay much towards the treatment of Hepatitis C, at all!
My primary complaint with you socialized medicine types is that you bring up “problems” and then you waive your “national health care” wand and claim “problem solved”.
I beg to differ.
Nationalized healthcare will NOT guarantee that everyone with liver disease will get a transplant.
Nationalized healthcare won’t even address the problem!
What does hepatitis have to do with this? Nothing. As usual you have to change the subject. We are talking about a leukemia patient which was refused treatment because the insurance company said the treatment was “experimental”. However they later reversed their position approving it but it was too late.
The insurance company has a long history of doing this but you turn a blind eye to the facts. I know you place a value on human life and it isn’t much. But you’re a conservative Christian so the only life you hold in value is a fetus.
The survival rates for adult-onset leukemia are not good.
http://www.leukemia-lymphoma.org/all_page?item_id=9346#_survival
The “co-morbid” presentation of leukemia with liver failure has to be pretty bad, as survival rates go.
The presentation of coma, with leukemia, with liver failure?
The liver that you want to put in this girl could have saved another person’s life!
(It probably did!)
DougThe subject is rationing.The subject is waiting lists.We are talking about SOP, or standard procedures.Government run health insurance and private run health insurance have, basically, the same standards.Some people will not benefit from a transplant.Some people might benefit from a transplant.Somebody has to make those decisions, since we do not have enough liver donors, to go around.
By the way: Did YOU sign the back of your drivers license?
Good ol Paul wants to pick and choose who is worthy of a liver. I guess whoever has the most money. The doctors said she needed a transplant but Paul knows more than they do.
Kinda like in Michael Moore’s Awful Truth where he had to fight to get an insurance company to approve a person’s pancreas transplant. The company gave in and the man got the transplant and lived. Paul would have preferred this person to die. Good Christian values at work.
Deny any claims yourself there pauliecon?
Or do you just peddle and let someone else tend to the bean counting?
Slime.
Paul, they already had the liver ready for her. There was nothing to ration out. Who was this other person that was going to be denied the liver? The company waited and she died. As usual you are ignoring the facts to justify your immorality.
BTW Paul, you don’t need to sign the back of your license if you are an organ donor since it says “organ donor” on the front of the license. Clearly you aren’t one. I’ll give all my organs when I die, clearly you are so greedy you have to take them to the grave with you.
DougThe REASON a Hepatitis C patient won’t get much coverate, out of Medicare, is that “treatment” often won’t provide much, in the way of a cure.Treatment prognosis is important.We should not just “transplant” to make us feel better.We must have some standards to judge cost and benefit.If for no other reason than this: every surgery is dangerous. People die “on the table” or “under the knife” all the time.If you can not show, with statistics, that a leukemia patient, in a comma, can expect a longer life with a liver transplant — why do it?—-And, Doug, if given a matching liver, and 3 choices for who would get the liver (There are at least 3 times more people on the waiting list than donors).Who would you pick to get the liver:
1.) A leukemia patient in a comma, on life support.2.) An “reformed” alcoholic, who has gone to AA for 3 years. 60 years old, smoker, had 2 heart attacks already.3.) A 9 year old girl who got into the medicine cabinet and swallowed a botttle of Tylenol.
Ok, quick Doug.
Who gets the liver?
Why do you keep on bringing up hepatitis as if it has anything to do with the issue? Okay, whatever, they don’t treat hepatitis but the person in question had leukemia, hence the reason she had the bone marrow transplant.
If you are not quite aware yet (and judging by your lack of ability to grasp the issue) I favor the doctor’s decision. They decided that the patient needed the transplant. The insurance company, under public pressure, eventually agreed as well.
However Paul disagrees and thinks nobody should get transplants because it’s just too expensive. However, if Paul ever needs one then no price is too high and nobody better pick off his organs when he is dead because he wants to rot in one piece.
Also,
The insurance company does not, EVER have the power to deny treatment.Claims and treatment are two different things.If this truly was “experimental” then Medicare and Medicaid would, also, deny the claim in most cases.This should have been funded with research funds.—-The doctors taking care of the individual patient do not get to decide, on their own, who gets a liver or any other organ.
No doctor can “Play God” and make these decisions, alone.
There are boards and professional bodies that, at an “arms length” can make these decisions, without being personally attached.—-You hate private insurance.People get sick with private insurance.People die with private insurance.
Guess what?People get sick with government insurance.People die with government insurance.
If you get what you want, nationalized, socialized healthcare, what happens next?
If someone does not get a transplant, can we “fire” the government?
Paul, since you don’t know what you are talking about let me enlighten you a bit. The reason she was in a coma is because the doctors intentionally put her in one to stabilize her. They needed the time because the parents had to fight it out with the insurance company for the transplant. If it had been initially approved she wouldn’t have been put into the coma.
Try actually paying attention to what the facts are before making yourself look more heartless and foolish.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/CancerPreventionAndTreatment/story?id=4038257
There aint no useable organs riding around in pauliecon there Doug.
He got like chips or gears or whatever other innards you’d find inside a cash register.
The liver was secured. The insurance company dragged its feet.
THEN when it is too late they TRY and save public face. So they can put THAT in their pocket along with the money they saved by denying the claim until it was too late.
Yes, I hate private health care. I don’t think profit should be a consideration when a person’s health and life is at stake. You are a sick person to think that you should profit off a person’s death. But I guess that’s all part of being a Christian.
Mary was right on with what she wrote. The decisions to approve a procedure don’t come from the insurance executives. They come from the panel of doctors who review these requests and determine on their merits which cases have even a small chance at success.
While it is always painful to see someone like this young lady dying at such a young age it is illogical to blame everything on the insurance companies.
This was a teaching hospital and as such could have used this surgery as a training tool. They chose not to.
This article was incomplete and intended to bring the types of responses it did. Shame on you Rhonda.
“PRINCETON, NJ — This time of year provides an opportunity to answer frequently asked questions about exactly where America stands today in regard to religion, based on Gallup’s extensive archives.
Christmas is obviously a Christian holiday. But what percentage of Americans today identify with a Christian religion?
About 82% of Americans in 2007 told Gallup interviewers that they identified with a Christian religion.”
Doug you must be a lonely man today. Over eighty percent of your fellow Americians are Christian by their own stated facts. You allow your hatred of Christians to fog good sense and it doesn’t make you a very happy person.
Since what Paul advertises as a Christian means ignoring the pleas of help of others, caring only about material wealth and greed, then I have no problem not being a Christian. As an immoral Atheist I find it tragic that a young woman was allowed to die so some company could profit. I’m sure someone’s family will have a few unwrapped gifts under the tree this year because of some Christian attitude towards health care.
DougHEPATITIS C IS AN ISSUE WITH EVERY LIVER TRANSPLANT, PERIOD!
“Hepatitis C almost always infects the newly transplanted liver. Recurring liver disease after a transplant can be a serious problem and may cause the new organ to fail. However, most patients do very well after a liver transplant and are able to live normal lives.”
http://www.revolutionhealth.com/articles/?affiliate_code=sac2&id=hw144584§ion=section_12&msc=A63805
Also, it appears to me that this poor girl’s liver failure might have been the result of an “auto-immune” problem from a previous transplant (bone marrow). Rejection of the first transplant might have CAUSED the liver failure, to begin with!
http://www.revolutionhealth.com/conditions/digestive/hepatitis-c/liver-transplant?affiliate_code=sac2§ion=section_01&msc=A63804
In short, if she had trouble with the FIRST transplant (bone marrow from a relative) —
The chance that her body would NOT reject a liver from an unrelated corpse is, well, problematic at best.
She was not a good transplant candidate, even if someone was able to pull some strings, in the process.
What we are dealing with here is politicized medicine.
We are going to start rationing resources based on litigation and political pull.
BTW, ksgrm, about 14% of the population is non-religious. 12% of the population is Black. So you might as well be saying that I’ll have a lonely Christmas if I’m Black because they are a smaller minority.
Also smaller, Mormons, Jews, Muslims, $cientologists, Wiccans and Christian Scientists combined.
I’m sure you’ll enjoy the holiday unless your Christian desire for greed isn’t satisfied.
Paul, show me one story where this patient had hepatitis C. I have yet to read that in any story so clearly you are making sh1t up as usual. It’s so pathetic you have to lie the way you do but you are a Christian so it must be in your nature to lie to get your way.
DougIf given the transplant, she would contract Hepatitis C.
I was making the point that the government plan, Medicare, does ration care to a Hepatitis C patient.
Government plans ration care.
My facts clearly support my argument argument: Government plans ALSO deny claims!
And, libs who think “no one should profit” from illness or death:Will you tell the attorney, bringing the lawsuit, to contribute his fee to the American Liver Foundation?
Paul, you have been arguing that she already had hepatitis, now you are predicting that she would have contracted it therefore she was properly denied despite the fact Cigna admitted it approves 90% of transplants and eventually approved this one.
You are talking out of your ass. Cigna isn’t a government plan but Medicare does approve liver transplants. In fact there is a huge list of approved areas:www.cms.hhs.gov/ApprovedTransplantCenters/downloads/liver_list.pdf
Can you go one post without lying or looking stupid?
DougCan you possibly learn to debate, rationally, without calling everyone a liar or insulting those who do not agree with you?
I NEVER claimed that this woman HAD Hepatitis C.
I HAVE documented the fact that Hepatitis C is a complication of nearly ALL liver transplants.
I HAVE made the very clear argument that ALL insurance plans, government and private, alike, DENY some claims. (Especially “experimental procedures like this one might have been).
Again, her liver failure appears to have been an “auto immune” liver failure. This would mean that her body does not take kindly to transplants.
This would mean that she might need heavier than normal “anti rejection” medication.
This would mean that her bodies immune system would be virtually destroyed.
This would mean, perhaps, that other illnesses and diseases, LIKE HEPATITIS C, would ravage her new liver, and the rest of her organs.
And, we KNOW she WILL get Hapatitis C, going into this, because ALL transplant patients WILL get Hepatitis C.
You brought up hepatitis as if it had something to do with the issue. Do you know what the issue is? You harken about how Medicare (not the issue) won’t treat people with hepatitis C (not the issue) implying that the person in question has such an ailment therefore even if we did have universal healthcare she wouldn’t be treated.
You are simply dishonest and clearly a waste of time. How does hepatitis C even come into the issue Paul? You have never addressed that. Are you in some twisted way thinking that a favor was done for her by denying the transplant so she wouldn’t get hepatitis? What deranged planet are you living on?
Forget it, you aren’t stupid, you are just mentally ill because I cannot fathom how you drag this crap out of your ass.
Ksgrm is correct. HMOs employ physicians to help them reach decisions on what care to authorize. However much crap one has to endure with HMOs, I am always releived that I have never had to do the job of an HMO-employed Judas.
By the way, Leukemia is a disease that impacts your immune system, already:
“Acute leukemia is a rapidly progressing disease that results in the accumulation of immature, functionless cells in the marrow and blood. The marrow often can no longer produce enough normal red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets. Anemia, a deficiency of red cells, develops in virtually all leukemia patients. The lack of normal white cells impairs the body’s ability to fight infections. A shortage of platelets results in bruising and easy bleeding.
Chronic leukemia progresses more slowly and allows greater numbers of more mature, functional cells to be made.”
http://www.leukemia-lymphoma.org/all_page?item_id=9346#_survival
So, you have a patient who’s own body will REJECT the cadaver liver. This is common. All transplant patient take “anti-rejection” medication, to suppress the immune system. However, THIS patient has even less tolerance of transplants, as indicated by the adverse reaction to a bone marrow transplant from a close relative.
Therefore, this patient will need even HIGHER doses of anti-rejection drugs.
Those anti-rejection drugs will suppress the ability of the body to fight Hepatitis C, a near-certain complication of liver transplantation. Those drugs will also stop the body from fighting any other infection.
In other words, the “co-morbid” presentation of leukemia with liver failure would, in non-political, non-litigated “fair” analysis, lean towards “rejection” of the candidate for a liver.
This would, perhaps, be the reason why this might have been done on an “experimental” basis.
This young lady was a POOR candidate for a transplant.
Look at it this way: Her immune system, after the affects of leukemia and the anti-rejection drugs, would be WORSE than the average, medicated HIV-AIDS patient!
Hey Paulicon, does your driver’s license have you listed as an organ donor?
The doctor’s already said she had a 65% chance of survival. That was in the article. So what? Will Paulicon only approve those transplants that have a 100% success and cost less than $5,000? Forget it Paul, you’d deny every claim that came across your desk if you had the opportunity.
Paul, can you point me to any information that the person in question had hepatitis C or was denied the transplant because of the obscure possibility that she would? I’d also like your source that she was going to get hepatitis C. I’m sure that involves you looking in your crystal ball.
Why bother making claims that even you know you can’t support?
Yes, I am a donor, and I have also made that clear to my family.This is important.Your drivers license might not be with you, if you get hit running or drown in a pool.
Doug,
Asked and answered, on a previous post, upthread:
DougHEPATITIS C IS AN ISSUE WITH EVERY LIVER TRANSPLANT, PERIOD!
“Hepatitis C almost always infects the newly transplanted liver. Recurring liver disease after a transplant can be a serious problem and may cause the new organ to fail.”
Sorry Paul, you haven’t demonstrated that in this case. Which doctor treating her said she should be denied a transplant because of hepatitis C?
Oh, and Paul, could you inform me on how a patient that doesn’t have the hepatitis virus, or a liver without the virus, can somehow contract the virus? That’s always been a mystery to me but I’m sure you can explain it being the medical expert you are.
AFTERCARE Doug, that is WHY Hepatitis is an issue.
She WOULD get Hepatitis, after the transplant, which WOULD require HEAVY medication, in an otherwise healthy patient.
However, as a leukemia patient, with a suppressed white count and suppressed immunity, and as a transplant patient, taking anti-rejection drugs, she would not be able to fight off Hepatitis C, a disease she is nearly certain to get, if she receives a liver transplant.
The combination of anti-rejection drugs plus the leukemia caused white blood cell problems, make her more likely to get sick than the average, treated, AIDS patient.
Oh yes, spontaneous generation. Very scientific Paul. I suppose you’ll be telling me she can get it by sitting on a toilet seat in a public restroom. But that tin foil hat back on Paul.
DougI have posted the American Liver Foundation website several times, already.This is from another site:
http://www.revolutionhealth.com/conditions/digestive/hepatitis-c/liver-transplant?affiliate_code=sac2§ion=section_01&msc=A63804
“After the surgeryKey to understanding post-transplant treatment is the concept that a transplanted organ is foreign tissue to your body. Your immune system will attack a new liver just as it would a viral infection.
Your new drug regimen after the transplant will include immunosuppressants – medications that suppress the activity of your immune system – so that your immune system won’t attack your transplanted liver. Because your immune system will most likely never get completely used to the new organ, you will take some of these medications for the rest of your life.
Because immunosuppressants make your body more vulnerable to infection, your doctor may also prescribe antibacterial, antiviral and antifungal medications. Some immunosuppressants can also raise your risk of developing certain conditions or complicating others you may already have, such as high blood pressure, diabetes, high cholesterol and cancer.
Your post-transplant treatment, therefore, will be a delicate balancing act focusing on preventing rejection, managing unwanted side effects and maintaining enough disease-fighting power to ward off infection. Your doctor will monitor your treatment closely and adjust it as necessary. Along with taking medication, you’ll be expected to follow a diet and exercise routine designed to keep you and your new liver healthy.”
She already HAD leukemia, or “blood cancer” — in addition, we can be CERTAIN that she would develop Hepatitis C. Nearly ALL liver transplant patients do. I have given you that fact, on a previous post, as well.
Your hatred does not allow rational debate.
This woman was a HORRIBLE transplant candidate.
I challenge you to find a non-interested medical doctor, someone who has NOT developed a personal bond with the family or patient, that would say otherwise.
Nope Paul, you argument was stated that getting a transplant will cause her to be infected. You guaranteed that she will get infected, not be at an increased risk. Try to keep your BS straight. You have already been refuted multiple times today so my work is done and I have better things to do with the rest of my day that counter your lies and BS.
“* Liver transplant may not be a good option if you have other serious medical conditions (such as heart or lung conditions) that reduce your chance of surviving surgery or that would reduce your life expectancy even if you received a new liver.”
http://www.revolutionhealth.com/forums/other/122144
Pall,We had been sold a Cigna HMO package and my wife needed some fairly routine surgery. The HMO quack who operated on her enlisted in the military (thus making himself immune to lawsuit) the moment he figured out how badly he botched her surgery. Then she was discharged from the hospital while still critical by a Cigna offical (not a doctor!). She died at home two weeks later. Believe me, if there had been a way to sue an HMO, Cigna would be out of business!What I’d like to know is how many phoney HMO policies have you peddled, and does it bother your stunted conscience even a little? I didn’t think so.
DougYOU LOST:
“Hepatitis C almost always infects the newly transplanted liver. Recurring liver disease after a transplant can be a serious problem and may cause the new organ to fail.”
http://www.revolutionhealth.com/articles/?affiliate_code=sac2&id=hw144584§ion=section_12&msc=A63805
This woman HAS leukemia. The anti-rejection drugs, needed for a transplant patient, will probably make her leukemia worse.This woman WILL get Hepatitis C, as a result of the transplant.The Leukemia will make it difficult for her body to fight that disease.She was a bad candidate.Tragic case, but there was never much hope for her.
JedI, personally, do not like HMO systems and have never represented or sold one.Having said that, “socialized medicine” as originally proposed, under “Hillary care” was nothing but a bunch of HMO type organizations.
Again, liberals, “do something, even if it is wrong” seems to be your mantra.
Show me how your magic wand solves any problems, would you please?
Decisions still have to be made.
How will the government inject more “compassion” and “wisdom” into this process?
Merry Christmas One and ALL!(Yes, even you)Duty calls.I will be back tonight, maybe.
Econ — if you READ the proposed Hillary medical issues, you would clearly see that there is very little comparison to what she has proposed to HMO’s — What she has proposed more closely look like PPO programs… She has stated repeatedly that people would be free to choose their own health care providers; their own pharmacies; their own everything!
HMO’s tend to dictate WHO you can see; and WHERE you can be treated. PPO’s typically dont!
I have one of the PPO style plans. It does not dictate to me who I can see, or WHERE I can be treated!
Please stop lying about Hillary’s health care proposals… If you dont like her as a candidate thats one thing… But keep it within the realm of truth! I am not even sure I want her to be the nominee — But I do like her health proposal!!
“”"Unfortunately, organ transplants are extremely expensive, and frequently fail. There is not an unlimited pot of money, either from the private insurers or the government, and rationing of some type has to take place.”"”
I agree with you but even in a rationing situation she would be a good candidate because of her age and generally good health otherwise. Young people generally do better with transplants. I went to school with a girl that needed and got one back when they really were “experimental” and she is married, has 3 kids and is living a good productive life now.
We need to go to a National Health Service such as the UK has. The FACT is that rationing is done here too but it is not medical rationing as it is in the UK, Canada, Austrailia, New Zealand- shall I go on? It is financial rationing- the rich get treated, everybody else can go to hell. It does not matter if the rich are 70 years old, 100 pounds overweight and smoke 2 packs a day- if they need a heart, liver and 2 kidneys by golly they will get them while a teenager of child that is in good health otherwise will be told to go to hell. That is why, when I renewed my driver’s license last year I opted out of the organ donor program. I would only go into it again if I could send my organ to Canada.
“”"I remember all the chest thumping arm failing that Jeb Bush, Tom Delay other right wingers did over pulling the plug on the terry Schiavo case. Yet Jeb’s brother while Gov of Texas signed a law that had Schiavo lived in Texas would have given the hospitals the ability to pull the plug even over the objections of the family”"”
It is really funny to me but you do not hear a PEEP out of the so-called right to lifers. They think the right to life only extends to the brain dead or a fetus. They sure as hell ain’t gonna be out in front of Cigna with their facist selves are they??
“”"Maybe instead of suing the Dr the girls dad should Kill the Dr/DRs. Now that would certainly make a lot bigger statement than suing. In all seriousness I think the next wave of shooting sprees is gonna be people pissed off at health care.”"”
If they did that to my little girl, I can say with no hesitation that my next purchase would be a fully auto assault rifle and I would go to the insurance company and clean house! And that is not a threat but a promise.
A teenager or a child should at the top of the list for any transplant. Not some rich old geezer.
Buy V$agra ch33p!
Want to bet THIS will make it past the comment spam filter?You WERE doing good, Typepad. Work on it.
Kev, your comments about healthcare in Canada and the UK being financially-based don’t match what I’ve heard, including from friends who live in both locations (or used to). In fact, it’s downright absurd.
Source?
“On another note, I got a flyer in the mail yesterday about how Todd Tihart opposes SCHIP because…”
Gee, Mary, is that what that flyer was about? I saw Toddy’s photo and dumped it in the trash without another glance. I’m a registered Democrat. Does he really think he can bulldoze me, using MY tax money? Fool.
My one and only face-to-face encounter with the Toddster was hilarious but, 13 years later, it’s not so funny now. . .
Never mind, Kev–read that wrong. . .
Must have caffeine!!!
“What possible law can you write that would have saved this vegetable?”
And that sentiment expressed by a Christian on Christmas day.
Nice.
JR,
Can you answer the question?
It was not meant to be mean at all.
In any other western industrailized nation- and in some 3rd world nations, this girl would be alive and opening her gifts today.
Kev,
How is that Kev?
She was in a vegetative state.
I was gonna take another shot at Christians. But that would not be fair.
Not ALL of them are poor representatives of their faith. And on Christmas day no less!
It seems being a heartless goon is an inherited thing.
I read the other day that scientists have found a certain chemical in the human brain that triggers compassion. We may hold hope that someday soon, conservatives or some of them may be cured.
JR,
Once again you have nothing to say on the subject.
Neither my father nor I have said one bad thing about this girl or her situation.
All we are doing is asking very honest questions which you seem to be incapable of even trying to answer.
I said what I had to say in the very first post there Nathan.
Except for pauliecon, I’ve named no names here. It is not my fault if you find yourself or someone else in my words.
Right wing radio liar Sean Hannity camped out at the Terri Shiavo thing. The President cut short a vacation and there was a special session of Congress over that.
I wonder if there will be similar attention here.
Yeah right.
JR,
I know you probably really think I am stupid, but please don’t treat me like I am a complete retard.
It is obvious who you are talking about with your comments. You even quoted my fathers question when you made a reply earlier.
So, you didn’t technically name anyone, but you very clearly were speaking to us.
So stop treating me like I am some retard and didn’t know who you were talking to.
JR there is no comparison with Terry Schaivo here. She had a family that wanted to take over her care. She had a husband who had moved on with his life my living with a new woman and fathering two children with her. He insisted on pulling the plug on her because there was money involved that he wouldn’t get if she didn’t die. He starved her to death. It wasn’t quick, it wasn’t painless. Her lips cracked and bled as the moisture in her body dried up. It took days for her life to end. All the family wanted to do was make it less painful. He even refused to allow her family to put a moistened washcloth on her lips. No comparison here.
Big bad insurance didn’t do it. Her husband did. Where was your compassion when this was happening. I know because I read the blogs the libs posted here.
It smacks of hipocricy.
Maybe I missed it but I don’t see this question asked anywhere: How long after the liver transplant request was it “before” the girl went into a coma? Are we talking weeks, months, just days?
Somehow I feel that the transplant request had been requested long before she went into a coma? If it specifically says so somewhere, I missed it.
knowing the length of time it takes for requests to go through, an organ to be matched, I have a feeling we’re talking a good deal length of time.
Anyone know “for sure?”
Look on your own side of the fence for hypocrisy there grm.
SO the right wing standard comes out again.
All the compassion you can afford.
The Schiavo family liked the perks of being the poster family for “pro life”. Terri’s brother is STILL milking it.
But that’s ok. Terri, whose autopsy showed that her brain had liqufied, her care was PAID for.
THIS young woman didn’t meet the cut? To hell with her!
Nathan, I was trying in a gentle way to let that poster know that his cruel remark on Christmas day might have been a step further than he meant to come off.
Call it holiday spirit.
JR did you miss the part about the painful way in which she died. The small amount of compassion her mother wanted to show her was nixed by a husband who stook to gain money when she died. Open thine eyes JR. Don’t you ever get tired of swimming against the flow?
I don’t want to refight that battle.
The man had been trying for years to honor his wife’s wishes.
To be honest? The husband was doing the wife’s family a FAVOR.
In her case, it was no mercy to let Terri go. She was incapable of suffering. But how LONG would you have that family living in denial?
I’ve been involved with hopeless cases. My father died that way. He was lucky. We were lucky. He and our family endured the condition only a few months and knew it was terminal only for a few weeks.
But AGAIN what is the standard of who “gets” to “live” and who must die.
Clearly for some, it is an economic consideration only.
JR,
Nothing you have posted rings of Christmas spirit. It rings of complete and total insincerity.
The fact that you are still sitting here and acting like it was anything else is even worse.
Nathan and Hank,
She was not a “vegetable”. She had been sedated into a coma by the doctors.
Read Doug’s post and link upthread.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/12/how-about-a-law.html#comment-94788754
You get to speculate as to my motives Nathan.
Ya don’t get to define them.
Frankly I was embarrassed for the poster who used the “vegetable” line. I said so.
Then along comes you to DEFEND it. If anybody comes off as looking worse my take is it is you.
JR,
I am not “speculating” on your motives.
I am commenting on your actions here, which ring of utter insincerity.
The “poster” which you have been talking about and continue to do so has a name. Not using the name doesn’t change the fact that you are indeed talking about him.
You have yet to add one substantive thing to this conversation other than trying to demean me or my father.
Shouldn’t you be looking at all your underage teenage girls websites getting your jollies right about now?
Nathan,
Do you consider a person has been sedated into a coma by doctors a “vegetable”?
Cosmos,
Both my father and I were quoting the article in the Paper which did refer to her as being in a vegetative state.
Ya know what Nathan?
You’re right.
I shouldn’t have reposted that cruel line without attribution.
Here let me go back and say what I should have.
Hank? Are you SURE you meant that last little shot at the end of your post? You say you are a Christian and on this of all days your last sentence there comes off as rather classless, mean, and unneccesary.
Your father did a nice job of demeaning himself and you are doing a nice job of keeping the ball rolling and demeaning yourself as well.
AND you want to post your own little bit of nastiness.
FINE.
Gloves off.
This one I walk away from.
I’ll just let you stand in our own excrement.
Throw another shot like that last and we go ten rounds. And I mean here or anywhere you would like.
Merry Christmas.
JR,
You came into this thread with the gloves off and when I called you on it you pretend like you were not even talking about us.
Lets play your little semantics game some more!
I didn’t say anything bad about you JR, I only asked you a question.
Now where have I heard that before?
Shouldn’t you be looking at all your underage teenage girls websites getting your jollies right about now?
Posted by: Nathan
*****
Nathan, that is a serious illegality. An allegation like that sends law enforcement kicking down your door and confiscating your hard drive.
You were way over the line on that one, bub.
“Both my father and I were quoting the article in the Paper which did refer to her as being in a vegetative state.”
Posted by Nathan
You were not “quoting the article”.
I guess that you and your father call anyone who is in a “vegetative” state, regardless of the CAUSE, a “vegetable”.
So much of this is simply speculation by those that have limited access to the actual medical record and are just taking a political position.
“The case raised the question in medical circles of whether a liver transplant is a viable option for a leukemia patient because of the immune-system-suppressing medication such patients must take to prevent organ rejection. Such medication, while preserving the transplanted liver, could make the cancer worse.
Transplantation is not an option for leukemia patients because the immunosuppressant drugs “tend to increase the risk and growth of any tumors,” said Dr. Stuart Knechtle, who heads the liver transplant program at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and was not commenting specifically on Nataline’s case.”
The procedure “would be futile,” he said.
While I feel sympathy for all involved it sounds to me like Cigna had more that reasonable grounds to deny coverage based on the high risk outcome, the potential to actually do harm and that it is considered an “experimental” procedure for the diagnosis. Plus, if the transplant had taken place that removes a liver from being used for a better risk patient.
ChasAgreed, Hillary’s current proposal is not nearly as objectionable as her first health care proposal, back when Bill was still President.Hillary’s FIRST proposal looked like a bunch of HMO plans.Hillary’s CURRENT proposal looks more like mandatory auto insurance, with a subsidy for the working poor.
ChasBy the way, you are absolutely wrong on your understanding of a PPO.
A “PPO” is a “Preferred Provider Organization”
Some PPO plans pay NOTHING if you go outside the preferred group of negotiated providers.
Some PPO plans charge DOUBLE deductables, DOUBLE copays, and DOUBLE “OPM’s” or “Out of Pocket Maximums” if you go outside the group.
Your statement makes no logical sense. How can some providers be “preferred” under the plan, without other providers being “un-preferred”???
AghawkI came to the same conclusions as the MD you referenced, without even asking the question, directly, of any medical professional.How?Because it is PAINFULLY OBVIOUS, to anyone who understands liver disease or leukemia, that this transplant was a dumb idea, to begin with.
Republicans are doing a good job finding a bottom here as to posting.
Wow I bet it helped that Nataline was unconscious.
Probably wouldn’t matter though. Certainly there are posters here who could look her in the face and say, “Sorry but you’re not covered. I’m afraid you have to die.”
As I have posted so many times in the past … the healthcare system in the U.S. needs major government regulaion … decent medical care is a basic human right … I would rather have government regulation of my life than insurance company regulation of my life. If the government regulated the U.S. healthcare system Nataline may have died waiting for the paperwork to get done on her liver transplant, but at least she wouldn’t have been told that she did stand a chance of getting one.
I have a question.
Who here thinks that it was wrong to unhook Terry Schivo? The answers might tell us something.
Of course, not everyone is equipped to coping with what it means to count the beans for insurance companies.
You cons wouldn’t know this since I am sure you did not see the Michael Moore documentary “Sicko”
Being a bean counter and cruelly denying people coverage to protect the company bottom line has its side effects. There was one woman in Moore’s movie who was pretty traumatized by some of the decisions she was forced to hand down. She finds it hard to live with herself.
This is not just a matter of uninsured Americans, who now number some 45 million, forgoing needed treatment because it costs too much. There is some of that in the film, notably a vignette in which an uninsured man who accidentally lopped off the ends of two fingers on a power saw was told at the hospital that it would cost $12,000 to reattach one and $60,000 to reattach the other. He chose only the $12,000 option. A Canadian man had five fingers reattached without paying a dime.
For the most part, however, the film focuses on what happens to the 250 million Americans who do have health insurance. It delivers powerful anecdotes about middle-class Americans who are denied or can’t afford care even with their insurance and teary-eyed confessions from former insurance industry workers guilt-ridden over their role in consigning policyholders to severe illness or death.
Appears to be pretty easy for some to demonize this young lady’s insurer.
But how does anyone know that, even under government run socialized medicine, this young woman would have qualified for a liver transplant? Do you think a government administered program is going to approve an and all treatments? Get real. There will be restrictions in any medical plan, public or private.
So it seems to me to be a lot of ignorant, unsupported speculation by the usual suspects.
I don’t see anything in the article that a match had even been found for this young lady or any reference to where she was on the donor receiptient list.This is just propaganda meant to divide…and on Christmas.I’d love to see some evidence as well that Cigna has never covered any kind of transplant.
“… said Dr. Stuart Knechtle, who… was not commenting specifically on Nataline’s case.”
Posted by: AgHawk | December 25, 2007 at 07:11 PM
Did Dr. Knechtle have access to her “actual medical records”? Does he fully understand the “experimental” procedure? Or were his comments “simply speculation”?
SperryArent you forgetting something? This liver and leukemia patients FAMILY turned off her life support.—–
The Schivo case bothers me, primarily, due to the suppressed police reports. There was some evidence of domestic violence. I do not want to make it easy for people to kill off witnesses to a crime. The original, “first responder” comments, about Terry, did not match what the husband was saying.
There are many unanswered questions about the night the ambulance was called.
“CONFLICTING TIMES
Schiavo has given conflicting reports of what time he allegedly found his wife, of how he reacted, of what time he summoned emergency medical services for her and the length of time involved in summoning help. Instead of calling 911 immediately, it appears that he instead called Terri’s father, Robert Schindler Sr., and then only called 911 after her father told him to do so.
Michael Schiavo clearly had the intent to kill his wife after the million dollar jury award in the medical malpractice suit when he slapped a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order on her and ordered that she not be treated for a urinary tract infection, an order overridden by the nursing home staff because it is illegal to Florida to withhold treatment—the same as it is illegal in Florida to withhold food and water. After the nursing home refused to aid and abet in his intent to cause his wife’s death, Schiavo moved Terri to another nursing home and then began his efforts to kill her by judicial homicide.
The overwhelming question in this entire matter is why?
After his wife became incapacitated, why did Michael Schiavo simply not divorce her and allow her parents to care for her instead of maintaining a dual life, claiming to be the loving husband of Terri while living with his long-time mistress and fathering two illegitimate children”
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/2007/032707MaliceAforethought.html
I have doubts about the “good intentions” of family members, where money is involved. I have seen how inheritence can bring out the worst in people, pushing kids to get terminal patients/clients to change beneficiaries on accounts.
I do think that, in some situations, the courts DO need to get involved in “end of life” cases.
Family members do not always have the best interests of the patient, at heart.
Sometimes, there are criminal issues.
Sometimes, there are financial issues.
In the Schivo case, there were, perhaps, criminal AND financial reasons.
Mr. Schivo actually settled a lawsuit OUT OF COURT, after the defendents appealed the original verdict. He settled for less than the original amount, it seems.
In the malpractice case, Mr. Shiavo pumped jury sympathy by stating, clearly, on the record, that he was going to nursing school so he could “take care of his wife”.
Then, as soon as the malpractice check was deposited in a trust fund, for Mrs. Schivo, (with Mr. as the beneficiary?) Mr. Schivo does not allow Mrs. Schivo to be treated for a urinary infection and orders a DNR or “do not resuscitate’ on his wife.Mind, you this is short MONTHT after telling the malpractice court that he wanted to take care of his wife, “tell death do we part”.—-Again, that case has nothing at all to do with this case.
Still, Mr. Shivo might well have been motivated by the desire to cover up criminal activity and the desire to control the malpractice settlement.
The case deserved a better hearing.
The justice system failed.
No judge ever considered the fact that Mr. might have caused the injuries to Mrs.
On this issue, I am a “feminist” — I do not believe that an abusive husband should retain any medical rights over the spouse HE sent to the hospital.
Did Mr. send Mrs. to the hospital, due to his own abuse?
We will never know, for sure, since no judge ever gave a damn.
Kia,
A looks like a match had been found.http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/CancerPreventionAndTreatment/story?id=4038257
A DNR is not an unreasonable decision in a hopeless case.
My Dad was on a DNR. He was not going to get better and heroic effort to resucitate him would only have prolonged his suffering.
As to the loving family that did not want to let Terri Schiavo go, one can speculate.
Were they simply deeply hurting loved ones in denial and hoping against all medical advice for a miracle? How long would they have let Terri lay there? It had been years already.
Or…
Did they see Terri as their gravy train? The “pro life” movement made this family its poster child. That is not without its benefits in money and attention AND playing to their pain.
Likely heavier to the former than the latter I’m sure.
But post mortem bares out the medical analysis that Terri Schiavo was already for all intents and purposes dead for some time.
Mr. told the court he wanted to take care of his wife.Months later, he wants his wife dead.He sucked up to the court, to get the verdict, as it was money he said he needed to care for his wife.Then, he killed her.
perhaps, that is not the point I am making.My major point is that Mr. should have NO right or authority over Mrs, in any case where there might have been domestic violence.
The courts did not care about that point.
It was never, really, investigated.
“Months later, he wants his wife dead.”
Speculative. Biased.
cosmos,Dr. Dr. Stuart Knechtle has enormous experience as transplant program director at University of Wisconsin at Madison and was speaking on policy for their transplant program, as well as all transplant programs.They don’t believe in doing liver transplants on leukemia patients because the immunosuppressant drugs tend to increase the risk and growth of any tumors, or acceleration of the leukemia. Also, the immunosuppressant drugs severely compromise the patients total immune response setting them up for all manor of infection. Even if the transplant were done, the failure of her own liver would place a new liver at high risk of failure as she still had leukemia and would need ongoing treatment for that, stressing an already compromised organ. This whole discussion, while amusing, is centered much more around differences of political opinion as opposed to medical. This girl was a horrible candidate for a liver transplant.
You know Paul, it has been long decided that the husband was right, and the parents were wrong. Only one with extreme views on life/death can say the parents were right in this.
How do you recify your job with your far right stance on life issues? I’m more liberal on life/death than you, and there is NO WAY I could do your job. I’d be ethically distraught.
I have a living will that basically says that I do not want heroic measures if I have no good quality of life. And if there comes a time when physician assisted suicide is an option, I would be ok with that. And it is a LEGAL document, with my husband the first decision maker- with my daughter being the runner up.
Months later, he wanted his wife dead.FACT!
The malpractice trial court has MR. stating that he wants to get a nursing degree to take care of his wife. Jury gives him a million bucks. he then moves to kill his wife.
Paul, my fil has leukemia- adult onset, and he takes Gleevec, he’s stable, he’ll have it for life, but he likely won’t die from it.
So right there, your little stat above was either outdated or wrong. Leukemia nowadays isn’t as bad as it used to be. And it also depends on what type.
Paul-OR Mr. Shiavo learned a lot in Nursing school on this issue and decided to do the right thing for her. Knowledge is power, something the RR seems to want to throw into the trash. FAITH- didn’t cure Terri. Knowledge let her rest.
Ag Hawk, and/or AgHawk,
Thank you for proving my point, by ignoring my questions.
pmomaMy ethics were formed from basic guidlines, principles and experience.I have seen the pitfalls involved with many popular “beliefs”.
In real life, we need a code of conduct, or law, to give us guidance.The family should be supported, but the family should also be guided.”long been decided”?? — it was WRONGLY decided to let the husband have a say in a woman he might well have abused.No court ever truly determined the abuse issue.Mr. did settle, out of court, on appeal, concerning the malpractice settlement.Perhaps — because the abuse issues were beginning to surface?Again, we don’t knowIf the courts had taken this abusive husband issue OUT of the equation, many of us would have had less of a problem with the whole ordeal.And, one more time, the Schivo case has NOTHING to do with this Liver Transplant case.Nothing at all!
pmommaThere is a very large body of opinion, in medicine, which would take issue with any leukemia patient receiving a liver transplant.It is a bad idea.
You must concede, at least, that there is enough of a concern, on this issue, for the insurance company to move slowly on such an experimental procedure.
Also, if you would read the posts and the links, from me and from others, you would see that the medicine taken for a transplant would INCREASE the severity of the leukemia.
Of COURSE the Schiavo case is relevant here.
It proves that the right is compassionate ONLY to those who can afford it.
IF someones care is paid for, keep them alive and paying as long as possible!
If their care is NOT paid for? Or if an insurer as in this case does not want to pay on claim? Pull the plug.
And the right has in other ways this thread exposed themselves for the despicable lot they are.
cosmos,I answered your question, apparently you are unable to understand the answer. Why don’t you try again.The good Dr. understands the situation, its experimental nature, the high risk of failure, and has enough of the information released surrounding this particular case to give an informed opinion. His position as a transplant team program director puts him in a uniquely qualified position to render an expert opinion also.I will take his opinion over a fool’s such as you any day.Thank you.Your interest in this matter has nothing to do with the welfare or concern for this person, your interest is only to make a political point at a deceased young womans cost. Typical of a small mind.
Im pretty sure that in Kansas part of the marriage law gives power of attorney to spouses that would allow one to decide treatment options if one or the other is incapacitated.
PmomaYour fil would also be in bad shape, if his liver failed:—–”Important safety information
The following serious side effects have been reported in patients taking Gleevec:
Severe fluid retention, which can be seen in swelling around the eyes or swelling of the lower legs, lungs and heart
Low levels of certain blood cells
Heart failure
Liver problems
Muscle or bone pain
Abnormal bleeding (including gastrointestinal bleeding)
Skin blistering”http://www.gleevec.com/info/cml/sideandsafety.jsp—-In other words, pmomaGleevec CAUSES liver problems.
Therefore, someone with leukemia, taking Gleevec, is NOT a candidate for a liver transplant!
“The Pill Book” Bantam Books, 12 Edition, 2006:
“GleevecCautions and warnings:—can cause fluid retention and swelling that can be serious and cause unusual and rapid weight gain. This can be a special problem for people with heart failure, pulmonary edema, liver disease, and other conditions.”
Do you just sell policies there pauliecon? Or do you get the thumbs up or down on payment too?
That would seem to be right where you live.
“… said Dr. Stuart Knechtle, who… was NOT commenting specifically on Nataline’s case.”
Posted by: AgHawk | December 25, 2007 at 07:11 PM
“The good Dr. understands the situation, its experimental nature, the high risk of failure, and has enough of the information released surrounding this particular case to give an informed opinion.”
[plus some false ad hominem attacks]
Posted by: Ag Hawk | December 25, 2007 at 10:34 PM
Ag Hawk seems to be claiming that Dr. Knechtle WAS “commenting specifically on Nataline’s case.”
Unlike Ag Hawk, I prefer to wait until more facts are known.
“… said Dr. Stuart Knechtle, who… was NOT commenting specifically on Nataline’s case.”
Posted by: AgHawk | December 25, 2007 at 07:11 PM
“The good Dr. understands the situation, its experimental nature, the high risk of failure, and has enough of the information released surrounding this particular case to give an informed opinion.”
(Plus some false ad hominem attacks.)
Posted by: Ag Hawk | December 25, 2007 at 10:34 PM
Ag Hawk seems to be claiming that Dr. Knechtle WAS “commenting specifically on Nataline’s case.”
Unlike Ag Hawk, I prefer to wait until more facts are known.
somebody will have a “thumb up” or a “thumb down” in every case.
This womans death is nothing to celebrate, just as the death of the original donor was nothing to celebrate.
However, both deaths now MIGHT mean that someone else might live!
Peddling papers aint good enough for ya is it paulie?
Now you wanna peddle flesh too.
Oooh I missed it.
I put a question to pauliecon and he projected.
He’s invited to answer the question.
Are you pauliecon in the place to approve or deny claims?
It would be very valuable to this forum to have access to such a person. Here is your chance to be valuable pauliecon.
Under Socialized Government controlled health care, we will have more Nataline situations, every day.
The only way to attain the cost reductions under Sen Clinton’s plan, is to cut benefits and services.
Those who are the most critically ill, comprise a huge share of total medical expenses.
The seriously ill like Nataline, will have to die under a Government controlled plan.
And Clinton’s plan will be a good thing.
Clinton will help reduce the surplus population.
We cannot afford a health care system, that provides insurance coverage for extreme transplants, such as the Nataline case.
This young woman was dying from leukemia, she was in fact in the final stages.
The immune suppressant drugs required to prevent her body from rejecting a new liver would in fact allow the leukemia to get even worse.
And Nataline was not a good risk to survive liver transplant surgery.
There was virtually zero chance for for Nataline, yet some here would want the “system” to pay millions of dollars for extreme measures when Nataline was going to die anyway.
The Nataline law, if there is one, should make it clear that there are certain situations where people are going to die, no matter how much money is spent treating them.
Need I remind all you RR idiots that the autopsy proved that Terri Schaivo didn’t suffer since there was nobody there to suffer, that she had been for all practical purposes dead for years! You need to stop beating that one.
Cosmos,
Where are you guys getting the information about her being put into the vegetative state by the doctors?
Also, why are you not wondering about why the mother pulled the plug when it was a drug induced vegetative state?
And yes, if you are in a “vegetative state”, that qualifies you for being called a vegetable.
JR,”I read the other day that scientists have found a certain chemical in the human brain that triggers compassion. We may hold hope that someday soon, conservatives or some of them may be cured.”
That won’t happen. Oxytocin, the chemical that induces compassion also stimulates sexual desire. The conservatives would never accept such treatment, and the rest of us would be disgusted at the thought of all those formerly repressed nutcases running around horny!
Thanks Jed.
Imagine that.
The same thing that encourages procreation is linked with compassion.
Evolved of necessity or planned from on high ya can’t discredit that.
Constant blogging is a symptom of having NO SEX LIFE, with other people that is.
JR, you must have zero compassion.
Paul paul paul. Don’t you know that ANY medication has liver problems as a side effect. Do you know how they determine side effects? Every potential side effect that was ever reported in the trials….and you’ll always also see, nausea vomiting and diarrhea. SO common, that on my nursing drug note cards, I wrote NVD (nausea vomiting diarrhea) on the first spot.
My uncle had a kidney transplant from diabetes/massive infection. The diabetes caused the infection that caused the antibiotics to fail his kidneys. Even HE was approved and received a kidney. And he died shortly thereafter. But he had a shot…and many do live.
A pre-existing condition is OFTEN the reason for a transplant in the first place. They know how to determine who is a good candidate, and the doctors already determined that this girl was. Cigna denied her. You can’t dispute this.
As to Mr. Shiavo being abusive, I see no merit to that claim whatsoever- if there were I’d be on your side. But this ‘revelation’ came about after the divide between the parents and Mr. Shiavo. They have been found to be utterly uncredible, and stop at no amount of dirty moves to keep their daughter alive despite the evidence.
Man, this is some long-arse thread, full of people calling each other names, speculating about things they don’t have first hand knowledge of, and generally acting silly. And the length at which some go one at. Do you guys have jobs? Families? Pets?
How about we look at this in the broader sense? Who has the “right” to decide how a patient’s insurance benefits are paid out? Is medicine to be like car insurance? “Sorry, we only pay for after-market parts.”
I’m personally uncomfortable with the concept of for-profit corporate health care to begin with. There’s inherent bias, as the corporation’s directors have a primary fiduciary responsibility to the stockholders, not policy holders. If a policy holder is unhappy with an insurer’s performance, they can either sue or find a different insurer. If their health problem is serious, the potential for an outcome like Ms Sarkisyan’s exists. It’s hard to get better when the payment approval for your treatment has been withheld and you die or deteriorate while waiting.
On the other hand, no matter who allocates scarce resources there will be those unhappy with the results.
One more thing. Nathan, accusing someone of child pornography is potentially slanderous. You might want to consider that in the future.
Have fun, play nice, kids!
Lil ol Me
Man, this is some long-arse thread, full of people calling each other names, speculating about things they don’t have first hand knowledge of, and generally acting silly. And the length at which some go one at. Do you guys have jobs? Families? Pets?
How about we look at this in the broader sense? Who has the “right” to decide how a patient’s insurance benefits are paid out? Is medicine to be like car insurance? “Sorry, we only pay for after-market parts.”
I’m personally uncomfortable with the concept of for-profit corporate health care to begin with. There’s inherent bias, as the corporation’s directors have a primary fiduciary responsibility to the stockholders, not policy holders. If a policy holder is unhappy with an insurer’s performance, they can either sue or find a different insurer. If their health problem is serious, the potential for an outcome like Ms Sarkisyan’s exists. It’s hard to get better when the payment approval for your treatment has been withheld and you die or deteriorate while waiting.
On the other hand, no matter who allocates scarce resources there will be those unhappy with the results.
One more thing. Nathan, accusing someone of child pornography is potentially slanderous. You might want to consider that in the future.
Have fun, play nice, kids!
Lil ol Me
Man, this is some long-arse thread, full of people calling each other names, speculating about things they don’t have first hand knowledge of, and generally acting silly. And the length at which some go one at. Do you guys have jobs? Families? Pets?
How about we look at this in the broader sense? Who has the “right” to decide how a patient’s insurance benefits are paid out? Is medicine to be like car insurance? “Sorry, we only pay for after-market parts.”
I’m personally uncomfortable with the concept of for-profit corporate health care to begin with. There’s inherent bias, as the corporation’s directors have a primary fiduciary responsibility to the stockholders, not policy holders. If a policy holder is unhappy with an insurer’s performance, they can either sue or find a different insurer. If their health problem is serious, the potential for an outcome like Ms Sarkisyan’s exists. It’s hard to get better when the payment approval for your treatment has been withheld and you die or deteriorate while waiting.
On the other hand, no matter who allocates scarce resources there will be those unhappy with the results.
One more thing. Nathan, accusing someone of child pornography is potentially slanderous. You might want to consider that in the future.
Have fun, play nice, kids!
Lil ol Me
cosmos,I most certainly did NOT claim as you are saying that Dr. Knechtle was speaking specifically about Natalines’s case.To quote you; “Ag Hawk seems to be claiming that Dr. Knechtle WAS “commenting specifically on Nataline’s case.”Can you read? I quoted Dr. Knechtle exactly as his statement was printed, specifically saying he was not commenting on her specific case. Again, directly from my first entry, “Transplantation is not an option for leukemia patients because the immunosuppressant drugs “tend to increase the risk and growth of any tumors,” said Dr. Stuart Knechtle, who heads the liver transplant program at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and was not commenting specifically on Nataline’s case.”The procedure “would be futile,” he said.” Go look again at my first post. Again, the good Dr. is immensely qualified to give his opinion about this as it is about his specialty, transplantation and the complications of leukemia and liver failure.The point remains, you are spouting off about something you no little to nothing about and are doing so not out concern for the person and the situation but to make some socialistic political point. And that is why you get my goat. By the way they are not “false ad hominem attacks” when they are not false, as is the case here.
A pre-existing condition is OFTEN the reason for a transplant in the first place. They know how to determine who is a good candidate, and the doctors already determined that this girl was. Cigna denied her. You can’t dispute this.
Posted by: political_mama | December 26, 2007 at 12:33 AM
PMOM has demonstrated no medical expertise whatsoever on this blog.
PMOM was banned, that’s why she’ P Momma now.
Chas banned too? (Lil ol me)
pmamaIt looks to me like the attending physician, in this case, pulled some strings that he should not have pulled.It looks to me like CIGNA recongized the irregularities and questioned such.
It was a very stupid idea to give a liver to a woman with leukemia.
You will find very few MD’s who would think otherwise.
MD’s do make mistakes.
Transplant surgeons often develop a “God Complex” and think they are, somehow, omnipotent.
They can also tend to favor THEIR patients over the next person, on the organ waiting list.
There needs to be oversight and some more checks and balances.
Offering this woman, and her family, a NEW liver, was the first mistake.
ESPECIALLY due to the fact that a living, related, donor might have been a better option, given the rejection issues.
To the poster that said universal health care will pay for transplants, you are very wrong.Google “national health care” plus “organ transplants” and you will find out that quite the opposite is true. In some countries, even kidney transplants are restricted.
Universal health care WILL NOT mean that Americans get non-FDA approved, very expensive treatments, on demand, for free. It means more rationing, longer waits, and fewer options. As well as much higher taxes.
Say PA MD, once Clinton has nationalized healthcare into HillaryCare!, is there any going back to the current system if Clinton’s approach flops?
Max:
You know better than that – the only thing remotely close to immortal on this earth is a government program, once established.
Remember the purpose of any large bureaucracy (and Hillarycare will be massive, even by federal gov’t standards): To sustain itself and grow, first and foremost. Accomplishing it’s mission is entirely secondary.
I agree GMC, there would be no going back.
I’ve not heard any of the National Healthcare proponets, (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) guarantee that Americans will NOT be Forced into Socialized National Healthcare.
And none of them have a contingency plan B, to go back to what we have today, if they screw things up with National Healthcare.
Most who favor HillaryCare! think it will be 1)Premium Health Coverage, and 2)Free or very low cost.
Neither is likely to be true, and neither Senator Clinton nor Obama, nor Edwards have detailed what is covered/not covered, or what their premium rates are for their plan.
Do people understand that if we go with Nationalized Healthcare, there is no going back?
Y’all willing to bet your life that National Healthcare is the best approach?
I’m not.
But Max,
Surely, if a government agency denies your transplant, it will MUCH more kind and gentle and fair, and there will be no delays, and it will be free.Nationalized health care will also cure obesity, the common cold, mental illness, drug addiction and the aging process.Heck, nationalized health care might even put the funeral homes out of business.Oh Happy Day!We can vote to END death!
Hey Econ, you read Clinton’s plan!
One of her steps to her plan, is to get America back in shape to 1980 obesity levels.
Now HOW Clinton will accomplish remains to be seen.
Perhaps she will limit our food intake somehow and/or require mandatory exercises.
We might need to run a mile on a treadmill before we are given a peanut.
Max and GM don’t forget that our Northern Neighbor poster who resembles Chas say that when you need a knee replacement you will be counseled to make lifestyle changes instead of having surgery.
Walking around on a destroyed knee isn’t an option so we will need many more wheelchair ramps, etc.. catering to the handicapped.
And of course the handicapped will no longer be able to work so the worker bees will have to pay even higher premiums. Sounds like a great plan to me.
Bring it on!!
So will the top campaign issue in 2012 be:
1)Ending the Iraq war.
2)No response to the 9/11/2011 terrorist attacks on San Francisco and New York City.
3)Improving HillaryCare! to deal with the rapidly increasing death rate.
4)Cancelling HillaryCare! and going back to what we had.
5)Monkia Lewinsky II
6)Janet Reno II
Oh, and don’t forget,
7)Reversing President Clinton’s Gun Ban of 2009.
Why dont we treat health insurance like we do every other type of insurance where your rates are based on your behavior? If your obese, smoker, have drug and alcohol probelms you pay a higher premium. you get a gym membership, or join some other exercice program, you get a discount. If you refuse to take preventative measures like immunization, you also pay a higher rate.
Whoever Big O is, is clueless. I was never banned. I’ll prove it.
feel stupid yet?
All these names I have used on the blog. Just so happens to be Political_mama is my favorite of the bunch. At least I don’t make 100 DIFFERENT names, ya’ll always know who I am.
Nimrod.
“”"Do people understand that if we go with Nationalized Healthcare, there is no going back?
Y’all willing to bet your life that National Healthcare is the best approach?
I’m not.”"”
I am
“”"Why dont we treat health insurance like we do every other type of insurance where your rates are based on your behavior? If your obese, smoker, have drug and alcohol probelms you pay a higher premium. you get a gym membership, or join some other exercice program, you get a discount. If you refuse to take preventative measures like immunization, you also pay a higher rate.”"”
I agree but I think a National Health program should be partially funded by BIG taxes on food that is high in fat, cholesterol and sugar and little or no tax on foods and drinks that are not. For example, if you go to a vending machine and regular coke is $3 and Coke Zero is $1 you will be encouraged to by the no sugar Coke. Cigarettes should be taxed at $4 a pack at least.
“”"About 82% of Americans in 2007 told Gallup interviewers that they identified with a Christian religion.”
Doug you must be a lonely man today. Over eighty percent of your fellow Americians are Christian by their own stated facts. You allow your hatred of Christians to fog good sense and it doesn’t make you a very happy person.”"”
That is only a sign of my belief and worship in the Lord Jesus Christ. I just don’t like his fan club too much. Jesus saved people you know. You know he made blind people see, you know he fed poor people, you know he spent time with the sinners and you know he saved the soul of a thief on the cross next to him. But yet his fan club thinks it is OK to kill anybody that is poor or non Chirstian UNLESS they are already brain dead vegtables or a fetus. They have no problem with insurance companies killing the ill. Let them eat cake or die!
KevLighten up man.Your characterizations of those who disagree with you are way off the mark.
Given the comments of SOME of the faithful here, I’d say kev was spot on.