Woman Dies After Receiving Donated Sm...

Woman Dies After Receiving Donated Smoker's Lungs

There are 315 comments on the KTXA-TV Fort Worth story from Jun 15, 2010, titled Woman Dies After Receiving Donated Smoker's Lungs. In it, KTXA-TV Fort Worth reports that:

Share + Comments Jun 15, 2010 11:30 am US/Central Lyndsey Scott, 28, Dies 5 Months After Transplant Of Lungs From 30-Year Smoker By CBSNews.com's Neil Katz NEW YORK Lyndsey Scott, a 28-year-old transplant recipient, thought her life was about to be saved.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KTXA-TV Fort Worth.

First Prev
of 16
Next Last

“Just Say No to Smoking Bans”

Since: Jul 07

Location hidden

#1 Jun 15, 2010
So, the woman would have died shortly without the transplant. She lived five months after it. She died of pneumonia, not of a "smoking-related disease."
What is the success rate of lung transplants?

According to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) the patient survival rates for all patients that had a lung transplant are 85% at one month, 69% at one year, and 51% at three years for patients transplanted.

Because the immune system is suppressed to prevent the patient from rejecting your new lung, the patient are more susceptible to infection. The patients temperature and white blood cell count is mointered closely after the procedure. Infections are generally treated with antibiotics, sometimes only for one to two weeks, but possibly longer. The patient will also be asked to take certain immunosuppressants regularly to prevent further infection.

http://www.lung-transplant.com/pages/faq.html

It is well known that infectious complications are the most common cause of morbidity and mortality at all time-points after lung transplantation. Infection rates among lung transplant recipients appear to be higher than those encountered in other solid organ transplant populations; for example, they may occur twice as frequently as in heart recipients.

The likelihood of developing a pulmonary infection is particularly high in the first half-year after transplantation, due to the augmented immunosuppression.http://www.t ouchrespiratory.com/articles/p ulmonary-infections-lung-trans plant-recipients

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Happy Endings R GOOD

Dublin, OH

#2 Jun 15, 2010
Way to go , now they are killing non smokers by implanting addicted diseased smoking parts. So nasty!

“Just Say No to Smoking Bans”

Since: Jul 07

Location hidden

#3 Jun 15, 2010
Happy Endings R GOOD wrote:
Way to go , now they are killing non smokers by implanting addicted diseased smoking parts. So nasty!
I guess you didn't read the article, jerk. If you faced certain death without the transplant but had a few months or years left with this transplant, what would you do? The woman did not die of a smoking related disease. She died of pneumonia, a common problem for all lung transplant victims. I know one thing: you cannot have my lungs for even a month more of life. The lungs were not diseased, and the woman did not die because of that. What an ignorant post.

“Just Say No to Smoking Bans”

Since: Jul 07

Location hidden

#4 Jun 15, 2010
Note to all smokers: take your name off the donation list. These people do not deserve your perfectly healthy body parts.

Judged:

11

10

8

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Fredneck County Md”

Since: Feb 08

Small Town

#5 Jun 15, 2010
Sheri wrote:
Note to all smokers: take your name off the donation list. These people do not deserve your perfectly healthy body parts.
Sheri, it's common for anti-smokers organs to be disallowed for transplant due to the genetic inferiority of stupid people and the associated inherent risk of phobia transference.
smokers simply suck

Vandergrift, PA

#6 Jun 15, 2010
You are a complete nut-job, Sheri! Perfectly healthy body parts from long time smokers? Well, I guess the long-standing consensus of the overwelhming majority of the medical community isn't enough for the lunatic fringe. And pneumonia is not a desease to which smokers are prone? BULLSH*T - pure and simple.

“Fredneck County Md”

Since: Feb 08

Small Town

#7 Jun 15, 2010
And for a serious note on the subject of genetic inferiority...

'Of course I won't laugh, said the nurse. I'm a professional. In over twenty years
I've never laughed at a patient.'

'Okay then,' said "smokers simply suck", and he proceeded to drop his trousers, revealing the tiniest "man thingy"
the nurse had ever seen. Length and width, it couldn't have been bigger than a AAA battery.

Unable to control herself, the nurse started giggling, then fell to the floor laughing.
Ten minutes later, she was able to struggle to her feet and regained her composure.

"I am so sorry," she said.'I don't know what came over me. On my honor as a nurse and a lady,
I promise it won't happen again. Now, tell me, what seems to be the problem?'

"It's swollen," "smokers simply suck" replied.

She ran out of the room.

“Just Say No to Smoking Bans”

Since: Jul 07

Location hidden

#8 Jun 15, 2010
smokers simply suck wrote:
You are a complete nut-job, Sheri! Perfectly healthy body parts from long time smokers? Well, I guess the long-standing consensus of the overwelhming majority of the medical community isn't enough for the lunatic fringe. And pneumonia is not a desease to which smokers are prone? BULLSH*T - pure and simple.
Pneumonia is one of the most common problems that happen to lung transplant patients. I guess you can't read. No surprise there.
If you are waiting on a transplant, you are on that list only because without the transplant; you will die very soon. Organs are not a commodity that the patient can scroll through a list of matching donors and pick the one he likes best. With those very real facts in mind, should you find yourself in urgent need of a lung transplant and the only available lungs came from a smoker; would you turn it down and choose to die instead? If so, you are an imbecile and deserve to die. Less than 10% of smokers get lung cancer, so you would have a 90% chance or more of getting healthy lungs, but still you would turn it down. LOL As for this patient, she died of a complication common to transplant patients. It was not smoking related since it happened five months after the transplant. The pneumonia was not present when the lungs were transplanted. The pneumonia developed because of the very risky surgical complications.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#9 Jun 16, 2010
Sheri wrote:
So, the woman would have died shortly without the transplant. She lived five months after it.
On just what in the article do you base your prognosis? Best I could find was the statement that few victims live out a normal lifespan.

This is NOT the first time this has come up. There was a soldier, I think, a year or so ago who also died after receiving a "life-saving" lung transplant from a smoking donor.

The cant back then was the sort of "beggars can't be choosers" sort of thing that surfaced in this article. It would seem a lot of money to spend putting highly suspect replacement organs into the bodies of the sick.

“Just Say No to Smoking Bans”

Since: Jul 07

Location hidden

#10 Jun 16, 2010
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
On just what in the article do you base your prognosis? Best I could find was the statement that few victims live out a normal lifespan.
This is NOT the first time this has come up. There was a soldier, I think, a year or so ago who also died after receiving a "life-saving" lung transplant from a smoking donor.
The cant back then was the sort of "beggars can't be choosers" sort of thing that surfaced in this article. It would seem a lot of money to spend putting highly suspect replacement organs into the bodies of the sick.
If you find yourself in the position of needing a lung transplant and the only matching lung is from a smoker, would you turn it down? Your choice would be to die within a few days or weeks or have a good chance for many years of survival. There are no guarantees in transplants. The figures from the lung transplant organization I quoted has the survival rate of all transplant patients at 51% after five years, so the risks are very high. As I said, if you turn it down, you deserve to die.
Praps

Nashville, TN

#11 Jun 16, 2010
Sheri wrote:
If you find yourself in the position of needing a lung transplant and the only matching lung is from a smoker, would you turn it down? Your choice would be to die within a few days or weeks or have a good chance for many years of survival.
Where do you get the right to decree what my "choice would be"? Here you go, once again, creating a context in which you think you might have something to say that will post you a WIN, with blithe disregard for the fact that you MUST create that context and that you pretend that it has something to do with what someone else has posted.
Sheri wrote:
The figures from the lung transplant organization I quoted has the survival rate of all transplant patients at 51% after five years, so the risks are very high. As I said, if you turn it down, you deserve to die.
Perhaps, but if you accept it knowing that the cost will destroy the lives of your family members and that you are likely to be killed by something inherent in the tainted organ and spend the remainder of your life losing your life to another disease, then perhaps you deserve no more.

“Just Say No to Smoking Bans”

Since: Jul 07

Location hidden

#12 Jun 16, 2010
Praps wrote:
<quoted text>
Where do you get the right to decree what my "choice would be"? Here you go, once again, creating a context in which you think you might have something to say that will post you a WIN, with blithe disregard for the fact that you MUST create that context and that you pretend that it has something to do with what someone else has posted.
<quoted text>
Perhaps, but if you accept it knowing that the cost will destroy the lives of your family members and that you are likely to be killed by something inherent in the tainted organ and spend the remainder of your life losing your life to another disease, then perhaps you deserve no more.
You are babbling. If you don't want the lung from the smoker, I'm sure there are a hundred other people who will choose to live even a few more years and jump on the chance. You, meanwhile, will be dead momentarily. Only people who are close to death get transplants, fool.

“Just Say No to Smoking Bans”

Since: Jul 07

Location hidden

#13 Jun 16, 2010
Praps wrote:
<quoted text>

Perhaps, but if you accept it knowing that the cost will destroy the lives of your family members and that you are likely to be killed by something inherent in the tainted organ and spend the remainder of your life losing your life to another disease, then perhaps you deserve no more.
Really, I had to come back to this because it is just so idiotic. A person who needs a transplant has not only a tainted organ but one that will soon cease to function at all. I think I'll change my organ donor card to specifically exclude anti-smokers.

“Just Say No to Smoking Bans”

Since: Jul 07

Location hidden

#14 Jun 16, 2010
smokers simply suck wrote:
You are a complete nut-job, Sheri! Perfectly healthy body parts from long time smokers? Well, I guess the long-standing consensus of the overwelhming majority of the medical community isn't enough for the lunatic fringe. And pneumonia is not a desease to which smokers are prone? BULLSH*T - pure and simple.
If the person had gotten pneumonia immediately after transplant, then perhaps it came from the transplanted organ. That did not happen until five months after the transplant. Pneumonia doesn't lie dormant for five months, IDIOT. It is you that is full of BULLSHIT since one of the most common problems other than rejection of an organ is pneumonia for transplant patients.
just candid

AOL

#15 Jun 16, 2010
Transplant surgeons only accept people with a relative good chance of survival. They must protect their reputations with a "high batting record." I'm sure the Drs involved would have prefered a perfect set of lungs to work with, but all things considered just because the donner smoked would not make their lungs unusable. As Sheri pointed out the patient lived a number of months before they died from Pneumonia. There is no reason to associate their death to the donated lungs having come from a smoker.

“Just Say No to Smoking Bans”

Since: Jul 07

Location hidden

#16 Jun 16, 2010
just candid wrote:
Transplant surgeons only accept people with a relative good chance of survival. They must protect their reputations with a "high batting record." I'm sure the Drs involved would have prefered a perfect set of lungs to work with, but all things considered just because the donner smoked would not make their lungs unusable. As Sheri pointed out the patient lived a number of months before they died from Pneumonia. There is no reason to associate their death to the donated lungs having come from a smoker.
I will keep your name on my donor card as and exception to no anti-smoker recipients should I croak just as you need parts.
smokers simply suck

Vandergrift, PA

#17 Jun 16, 2010
Sheri wrote:
<quoted text>
If the person had gotten pneumonia immediately after transplant, then perhaps it came from the transplanted organ. That did not happen until five months after the transplant. Pneumonia doesn't lie dormant for five months, IDIOT. It is you that is full of BULLSHIT since one of the most common problems other than rejection of an organ is pneumonia for transplant patients.
Good gawd, woman! No one said the organ was infected with pneumonia prior to the transplant; but a set of lungs long abused by smoking are more prone to contracting such opportunistic infections. That was the only possibility the article raised, not the fantasy you've suddenly spewed forth. As many others have noted here, you obviously just make it up as you go along.
But what can one expect from a nicotine addict who can see no truth that the realization of would threaten the continued, blind satisfaction of her addiction. You and your kind are simply repulsive, sickening slugs that are a drain on society as a whole.

“Just Say No to Smoking Bans”

Since: Jul 07

Location hidden

#18 Jun 16, 2010
smokers simply suck wrote:
<quoted text>
Good gawd, woman! No one said the organ was infected with pneumonia prior to the transplant; but a set of lungs long abused by smoking are more prone to contracting such opportunistic infections. That was the only possibility the article raised, not the fantasy you've suddenly spewed forth. As many others have noted here, you obviously just make it up as you go along.
But what can one expect from a nicotine addict who can see no truth that the realization of would threaten the continued, blind satisfaction of her addiction. You and your kind are simply repulsive, sickening slugs that are a drain on society as a whole.
You are not on my list of exemptions. Should you need any parts from me, you are specifically banned from receiving any.
Amused

Nashville, TN

#19 Jun 16, 2010
Sheri wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, I had to come back to this because it is just so idiotic. A person who needs a transplant has not only a tainted organ but one that will soon cease to function at all. I think I'll change my organ donor card to specifically exclude anti-smokers.
An organ transplant is a serious insult to the body, in and of itself. If the organ is as likely to fail as the original, why go through all of that?

What is there in this instance to suggest that the recipient had years of life from it?

“POOR BRAINWASHED ANTISMOKER”

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

#20 Jun 16, 2010
Sheri wrote:
<quoted text>
If the person had gotten pneumonia immediately after transplant, then perhaps it came from the transplanted organ. That did not happen until five months after the transplant. Pneumonia doesn't lie dormant for five months, IDIOT. It is you that is full of BULLSHIT since one of the most common problems other than rejection of an organ is pneumonia for transplant patients.
the anti smokers are pushing anti smoking propaganda, they can't admit that the smokers lungs were healthy. Smokers lungs have saved lives but you won't hear about them on the news because it defies the anti smoking lies and propaganda.

Anyone who takes the time to think beyond the anti smoking bs propaganda knows that anytime one has surgery pneumonia is a huge risk and can be a killer especially if the patients immune system is compromised by a deadly disease which is the case.

Anto smoking propaganda is just marlarkey to keep people from thinking for themselves as rationale intelligent people, it appears that antis bs is too dumb for words

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 16
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Kidney Cancer Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Cystic fibrosis patients surviving longer in Ca... (Mar '17) Mar '17 Evkan 1
News Mall, arenas, hospital projects make for exhila... (Jun '12) Mar '17 Time change Weekend 2
News You'll never guess how much Brits spend a year ... (Sep '16) Sep '16 Keiragambler 3
News This Sick 20-Year-Old Wants Her Parents Prosecuted (Apr '16) Apr '16 Hang um 1
can viagra make you go deaf? (Apr '16) Apr '16 Hewitt 1
can viagra make you go deaf? (Mar '16) Apr '16 Travis 3
natalie gregg: viagra and divorce: is there a l... (Mar '16) Mar '16 Webster 1
More from around the web