Soldier given cancerous lungs in swop op.

#2
I'm too saddened to be outraged.

Mistakes like this shouldn't happen and they most definitely shouldn't ever happen again.
 
#3
What kind of third world health system cannot reliably screen donor blood and organs for major diseases? Or keep its hospitals clean?

And the lefties wonder why those who can go private?
 
#5
Sad yes, however nothing to say they were cancerous lungs that he recieved - just that it was a smoker. He would've died anyway without the transplant. And his body rejected the lungs.
A bit of a non-story. However he was a young man in his prime, which is a shame.
 
#6
llech said:
Sad yes, however nothing to say they were cancerous lungs that he recieved - just that it was a smoker.
Lung cancer is fairly rare outside of asbestos workers and people who smoke fifty roll-ups a day. Bit of a coincidence really, and as MiT says the lungs would have been in rag order anyway after that much abuse.
 
#7
From the article

Following the death, an investigation at Papworth Hospital, in Cambridge, pinpointed a string of problems, including issues with communication, record-keeping and patient handover. It found that a radiographer had failed to highlight the growth of a cancerous tumour.

They failed to spot a cancerous tumour.Hardly a non story.
 
#9
The realities are, there is a lack of donors in the system, more people are surviving major trauma and head injury than ever before. Lung transplantation has to take place within a six hour time limit from stopping the donor circulation to start blood flow through the recipients new lungs. It is not a long time, remembering you may have to travel some distance back to the Transplant unit. Donor teams do closely look at chest x rays and do a bronchoscopy ( put a instrument down into the lungs to have a look round ) on site at the donating hospital. Emphysema COPD/COAD can usually be seen on a chest x ray. To do CT scans on site is difficult and can destabilise the donor during transport, and time is of the essence, from the declaration of Brain Stem death ( Royal College of Surgeons guidelines), as the loss of brain stem function can cause donor deterioration which is difficult to control, to organ retrieval and then transplantation. In Heart Transplantation, we still cannot assess the donors Coronary Arteries except by external visual inspection.

Anti rejection therapy can and does increase the risk of malignancy, which recipients are fully informed about when they are assessed for transplant surgery, the majority are treatable, but the risk is there.

This the first one I have heard about in the UK, one recipient did die many years ago of HIV/AIDS from a donor but that is now remote in the extreme due to fast HIV testing, but recipients are still screened for HIV at 3 and 6 months.
 
#10
classic said:
This is so sad ,Their should be more tests on transplanted organ's when they are donated to recipients
Can you read? :roll:

Tests were carried out, the suspected tumour was seen.

The failure was NOT reporting what was found.
 
#11
diverman said:
...In Heart Transplantation, we still cannot assess the donors Coronary Arteries except by external visual inspection.
But you can make a fair guess as to the odds of the donor suffering from acute atherosclerotic heart disease from their lifestyle. Shortage of donors or not, we should not be transplanting organs which have a higher chance of being knackered before they start, otherwise we might as well not bother.

The organ donor scheme being opt-out rather than opt-in is one of Labour's ideas I'm more inclined to agree with.
 
#12
archer said:
classic said:
This is so sad ,Their should be more tests on transplanted organ's when they are donated to recipients
Can you read? :roll:

Tests were carried out, the suspected tumour was seen.

The failure was NOT reporting what was found.
Its Chubb, it has no idea of what its on about mate.
 
#13
vvaaamaamaan.

That Papworth report was earlier this year and related to other failings within that system, more operative and selection, a fascinating read but did relate to their Heart transplant programme, and issues were addressed following the reports publication. Harefield has also just been investigated for it mortality rate. the rate of mortality 'allowed' is very small before a unit is suspended and investigate, in fact Harefield called in the inspectors themselves. Dealing with very ill patients is of 'High Risk' and the other option is a deteriorating quality of life, struggling to breathe or even go to the toilet, in fact dying slowly and painfully. Patients are fully informed of the facts and they make the choice of accepting Transplantation, when they are OFFERED a place on the list.

Thirty 30% of Transplant patients DIE whilst waiting for organs.
 
#14
A terrible situation. Without trying to sound cold hearted, WTF has this got to do with him being a soldier.
 
#16
Bravo Zulu,

What about a 23 year old female donor who died from a brain haemorrhage, that I saw many years ago who had a right coronary artery obstructed from Coronary disease, and I have had die on me a 26 year old male from Coronary disease and a 24 year old woman have Cardiac by pass grafting due to Coronary disease, so lifestyle is not the be all end all predictor of physiological states. Neither of the two who died where overweight, smokes and were fit individuals. The last one went from where I worked at the time to Harefield. There are many factors and a balance of risk that has to be taken into account when selecting and determining if someone is a suitable donor.
 
#17
thegimp said:
A terrible situation. Without trying to sound cold hearted, WTF has this got to do with him being a soldier.
I have found that a lot of people who use this site are interested in what happens to those who are serving and those no longer serving.
Someone may come along who knew the guy.
 
#18
probably highlighting that service personnel are treated medically the same as everyone else.

Rest well 'Mary', you'll be with your stable mates
 
#19
thegimp said:
A terrible situation. Without trying to sound cold hearted, WTF has this got to do with him being a soldier.
The whole story is tragic enough in itself, but you can be sure some slimy creep of a brief is trying to get the family to sue the War Ministry for damages on the grounds that your man's original (unstated) complaint was induced by his service in the British Army.

MsG
 
#20
I'm not having a pop VM.

I'm directing the thought towards the media. Its a grim/sad enough story but the media can double their bangs for bucks by adding the extraneous fact that he was a soldier. Soldiers being flavour of the month.....

Just been cynical
 

Latest Threads

Top