Botched transplant girl's family refuses to donate organs

Then they are in better shape than if they were forced to remain in the US. They should be compensated, but how is the question.

Maybe they can be paid in Pesos.

 

This may be a little insensitive towards the girl, but it's not meant to have anything to do with her.

I don't even know why she needed a transplant in the first place, but if she was in bad enough shape to need one, she probably would have died soon without one.

Even if the doctor doesn't have a major screw up and put the wrong type of organ in, transplants are still very risky and the patient (and family) is made well aware of this.

Basically, organ transplant is an imperfect science and it's one last desperate attemt to extend life. But... I don't think that it's anyone's right to that extension. If it works out for transplant recipients, they are extremely fortunate, but if it doesn't work out, even at the doctor's mistake, I don't think that the recipient or family has the right to demand anything.

It's tough on that doctor that such a mistake can be so costly to everyone, when the moments leading up to a transplant are so hectic.

My father recently received a liver transplant and we were made very aware of the risks that he would die there in the hospital. We signed on for those risks and thanks to some charitable organizations, the funding was made possible for that to happen. We are thankful everyday that he is still alive, but I won't ever think that it was his right to be alive.

 

Thanks firecat, that is a good point. Though there is a difference between the doctor doing a good job and failing and the doctor doing a bad job. Man, I feel so sorry for that doctor. I can't imagine the remorse I'd feel.

 

They're not suing necessarily because she died, but that the doctor's error hurt her chances to survive and maybe even directly caused her death. From what I understand she suffered brain damage because of the first transplant. If she'd survived the second transplant they'd still be suing.

 

That would be a criminal case though. The original question is an interesting one.

 

edit: it may not be interesting and there may be a definitive and obvious answer, but I don't know the law so it was interesting to me, for the time being at least.

 

Law always chooses sides on the basis of enforcement power. Morality and legal niceties have little to do with it when the real question is: Who has the clout?
--Bene Gesserit Proceedings Archives #X0X232

 

I don't have legal training, but this is an excellent question.

If I illegally break into your place of business, and shelving that you improperly put in place falls on my head, should I be able to sue you? You were negligent by creating a hazard for you customers, and any lawful customer would win money in court. Is this a similar scenario?

 

So, if something happens to someone on accident, say a car accident, an illegal immigrant should have no legal recourse?

 

EDIT: I'm not directing that at you TheFreak, just to the hypo in general.

Johnheath, I don't know how your scenario would play out, but I can't see any jury finding for the plaintiff. Stuff like that rarely happens, and most of the time, they occur in right-wing fantasy land.

However, what if an illegal immigrant was in that store shopping and the poorly built shelves fell on them?

 

Let's see...for a car accident-- I imagine they would get free medical care, and the person who hit them may or may not be prosecuted, depending upon whether they were at fault, correct?

Same thing with the store-- free medical care, store may get punished. What else were you thinking would happen?

I'm sure the law says whether they're entitled to pain and suffering and whatnot, doesn't it? You probably already know the answer.

I guess you could also say that since the gvt. decided to let them enter the country, they should get whatever a legal would get. I can see that.

 

That is a better analogy than mine.

If the illegal immigrant had obeyed our laws in the first place, no injury would have occurred. Should this fact be considered by a jury? I don't know- I can't make up my mind on this one.

 

I doubt a judge would even allow the jury to know the person was in the country illegally.

 

quick... someone died. Everyone run to their spots on the political spectrum. The debate is on.

 

Saying that if the illegal immigrant had obeyed our laws (thus not being in the country at all) and therefore he would not have been a victim seems quite ludicrous in my opinion. Either the person was victimized by someone else or he wasn't The status of the victim should have no bearing.

Think about this. Suppose someone murdered an illegal immigrant and then said "Well if he obeyed our laws he wouldn't have been in the country so wouldn't have been a victim". Do you see how ludicruous that would be?

 

Yes, I agree, but that is a criminal matter. I am talking about limiting a potential judgement in a civil trial.

However, I think Juan Valdez also corrected me by saying that a judge would not allow the immigration status to be part of the court record.

So, I am wrong on all counts. It was interesting to think about for awhile.

 

They had this topic on Sam Donaldson's show this morning, and the experts he talked to (as well as the non experts) seemed to be in agreement.

The fact she was here illegally is irrelavant to the mistake. It IS another area of debate, but is irrelavant to the care she had. The transplant requirement on medical facilities is that they can not have more than 5% of their transplants on non-US citizens. It does not differentiate between legal residents, visitors, or illegal aliens. Many medical facilities have a policy that they will not place an "undocumented immigrant" on the transplant list.* However, Duke apparently doesn't differentiate, and put her on the list.

Once they put her on the list, she has to be treated like every other patient. There is no differentiation on the transplant list. She is entitled, by law and custom, to the same standard of care as every other patient. She's also entitled to the same recourse as any other patient.

*FYI -- The concern is that an undocumented immigrant will not have the financial resources to purchase the anti-rejection medications when they return home. This medication can cost $500-2000 and more a month, and must be taken for life. If someone can't afford or won't take the medicine, the organs will reject, the transplant will have been a waste, and the organs will have been lost.

 

I'm referring to the tort reform e-mails that misinform people with fake cases of criminals who win huge judgments due to their criminality. If this ever does happen, it's surely on an extremely minimal level.

 

Yeah, I have to say that I break with the President about tort reform. The Jury is the only thing standing between big business and the common man.

 

If a resturant . . .gave you Food poisoning. . but had given you the food ON THE HOUSe. . . could u sue?

Yes.
Even a 'HOOK UP' has to be good
at the very least it should DO NO DAMAGE



Rocket River