19 Year Old Dies After Denial From Transplant List For Trace THC

[Orangedogsrule]

You can't separate the two. Marijuana isn't legal. People and society have more problems than are necessary... including denied transplants due to THC being in the patient's system. Why should a transplant be denied because of a positive check for THC?

Assume you're the chairman of a group who has control over viable sets of transplantable lungs and this group must decide who gets them.

There are many more candidates than available lungs....many, many more.

So, to be able to sleep at night the group has set up and continue to refine a scoring system for the transplant applicants that has been proven to result in the highest number of successful outcomes.

At Cleveland Clinic (and probably most US transplant locations, it's this pdf file.

Note this paragraph:
..."The lung allocation system uses medical information about each lung transplant candidate. This information includes lab values, test results, and disease diagnosis. This medical information is used to calculate a lung allocation score from 0 to 100 for each transplant candidate. The lung allocation score estimates the severity of each candidates’ illness and his or her chance of success following a lung transplant. All candidates are placed in order for compatible lung offers according to their score: a candidate with a higher lung allocation score will receive higher priority for a lung offer when a compatible lung becomes available in the same geographic zone."...

Nowhere is THC or marijuana listed. However, the "lab tests" will include a "toxicology screen" to search for anything in the applicants system that may result in rejection of the transplant.

There may be things show up that are not known one way or the other if that chemical will cause rejection.

However, if you are going to choose between four applicants for one set of lungs, and two of those applicants have a completely clean tox report, the two who do not are automatically out of contention until they can have a clean, or at least acceptable, toxicology screen. And THC is in the screen.

Not because it's illegal/illicit, but because it's not known whether or not it is a non factor, a minor detriment or primary cause of tissue rejection.

Remember, we're trying to save the most lives possible here. Actually, there should be and may be "blind evaluation" with no names, no other mitigating statements other than the developed criteria.

Anyone failing the toxicology screen has to try to remediate.

California is reviewing whether THC should be in the transplant screen. Time will tell.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Assume you're the chairman of a group who has control over viable sets of transplantable lungs and this group must decide who gets them.

There are many more candidates than available lungs....many, many more.

So, to be able to sleep at night the group has set up and continue to refine a scoring system for the transplant applicants that has been proven to result in the highest number of successful outcomes.

At Cleveland Clinic (and probably most US transplant locations, it's this pdf file.

Note this paragraph:
..."The lung allocation system uses medical information about each lung transplant candidate. This information includes lab values, test results, and disease diagnosis. This medical information is used to calculate a lung allocation score from 0 to 100 for each transplant candidate. The lung allocation score estimates the severity of each candidates’ illness and his or her chance of success following a lung transplant. All candidates are placed in order for compatible lung offers according to their score: a candidate with a higher lung allocation score will receive higher priority for a lung offer when a compatible lung becomes available in the same geographic zone."...

Nowhere is THC or marijuana listed. However, the "lab tests" will include a "toxicology screen" to search for anything in the applicants system that may result in rejection of the transplant.

There may be things show up that are not known one way or the other if that chemical will cause rejection.

However, if you are going to choose between four applicants for one set of lungs, and two of those applicants have a completely clean tox report, the two who do not are automatically out of contention until they can have a clean, or at least acceptable, toxicology screen. And THC is in the screen.

Not because it's illegal/illicit, but because it's not known whether or not it is a non factor, a minor detriment or primary cause of tissue rejection.

Remember, we're trying to save the most lives possible here. Actually, there should be and may be "blind evaluation" with no names, no other mitigating statements other than the developed criteria.

Anyone failing the toxicology screen has to try to remediate.

California is reviewing whether THC should be in the transplant screen. Time will tell.

I said that THC in a potential organ recipient's system should not disqualify them. Ingesting some prescribed THC instead of other extremely addictive pain meds could actually make them a better candidate.

 

[LouderVol]

Only two of the things listed were legal. The rest were included under all illicit drugs. Don't build your own straw men.

Plenty disagree with medical marijuana. It just got shut down in the Tn senate because Andy Holt said it was "just a bill to allow people to smoke pot".

maybe because they are all bad for you?

 

[Vol8188]

maybe because they are all bad for you?

Lots of things are bad for you, but they didn't all make the list.

 

[LouderVol]

What it has to do with the OP is that an organ transplant was denied due to the presence of THC. Why does it matter? What if somebody needing a liver has legally prescribed THC which is therefore in their system... no liver for you! Why? Morality police? Because it's still illegal and therefore "illicit"? Common sense is that patients on waiting lists for livers, having to suffer through more unnecessary pain, could have their pain alleviated with prescribed marijuana if it was legal and not illicit (which apparently is why it trickles down to a transplant criteria agreement). For what reason, other than it's illegal, are certain people in pain being denied relief? If it's not illegal, it's not illicit, and it should not be in a potential organ recipient's contract with those controlling the distribution of available replacement body parts. HOW DOES THC **** up a transplant? Smoke for a potential lung recipient, sure... makes perfect sense to move them down the list. But the OP indicates the denial was due to a positive test for THC, not smoke. The moralists and prohibition profiteers are causing unnecessary suffering by some patients.

It is my understanding that THC can come from either smoke or edibles. you have no argument that it was one over the other. as you state the article is unspecific. If its on the list, don't take it.

as for the argument of it is prescribed to him before a transplant I would have to say that is incredibly dumb as no doctor is going to prescribe anything that would get a patient kicked off the transplant list. once again you are just making up arguments.

and again no one here is denying the uses of MJ or it being any better or worse than anything else. It is on the do not take list. Heck look at the list for stuff not to eat after a transplant that is just as crazy as the list before.

because you can't seem to understand it, THESE ORGANS ARE LIFE SAVING COMMODITIES. THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH OF THEM. IF YOU WANT ONE YOU FOLLOW THE RULES. its not the government, and the guys who actually made the rules our organ people use was adopted from a country where weed is legal. and its on their list too. kinda blows smoke up your arguments rear doesn't it?

 

[LouderVol]

further. the kid eventually got the surgery. and he died from complications of the surgery. since everyone here is a fan of making up arguments I am just going to go ahead and make an assumption that the complications could be due to THC in his system. Since we are all fans of the fake arguments that can't be proven one way or the other put that up your pipe and smoke it.

 

[LouderVol]

No, not a second addiction. Asking if anybody would dare look for a correlation of prescribed, controlled marijuana use and a reduction of opioid addiction in any of the subjects. It'd be one of them thar longitudinal studies. Give em more reefers... see if anyuns not as likely to become addicted to something worse.

how is that not what I said?

 

[LouderVol]

How many other animals consume another animals milk?
Like humans do with cow milk?

I like milk. Especially with pancakes or chocolate cake.

probably the same number that fly in planes, build sky scrapers and perform organ transplants.

 

[LouderVol]

Lots of things are bad for you, but they didn't all make the list.

maybe then the items that made it on to the list have some particular significance than? like they are specifically bad for transplants? I don't know but I will trust to the medical professional opinion here.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

It is my understanding that THC can come from either smoke or edibles. you have no argument that it was one over the other. as you state the article is unspecific. If its on the list, don't take it.

as for the argument of it is prescribed to him before a transplant I would have to say that is incredibly dumb as no doctor is going to prescribe anything that would get a patient kicked off the transplant list. once again you are just making up arguments.

and again no one here is denying the uses of MJ or it being any better or worse than anything else. It is on the do not take list. Heck look at the list for stuff not to eat after a transplant that is just as crazy as the list before.

because you can't seem to understand it, THESE ORGANS ARE LIFE SAVING COMMODITIES. THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH OF THEM. IF YOU WANT ONE YOU FOLLOW THE RULES. its not the government, and the guys who actually made the rules our organ people use was adopted from a country where weed is legal. and its on their list too. kinda blows smoke up your arguments rear doesn't it?

I never argued that it was prescribed before a transplant. Ironic that you're pointing a finger saying it's a made up argument by me... you just made that up.

 

[Vol8188]

maybe then the items that made it on to the list have some particular significance than? like they are specifically bad for transplants? I don't know but I will trust to the medical professional opinion here.

Every single illicit drug would make a transplant more less likely to be successful? Surely you don't believe that.

 

[LouderVol]

I never argued that it was prescribed before a transplant. Ironic that you're pointing a finger saying it's a made up argument by me... you just made that up.

pain alleviated with prescribed marijuana if it was legal and not illicit

.

 

[LouderVol]

Every single illicit drug would make a transplant more less likely to be successful? Surely you don't believe that.

again I don't know. I am not making arguments for things to be on or off the list. I will leave it to the people doing the transplant, sounds like the best idea to me.

If Canadian kale was on the list you should probably stay the frick away from the Maple loving kale.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

I said that THC in a potential organ recipient's system should not disqualify them.

Are you a medical professional?
Are you a microbiologist?

If you are neither, you have no qualifications whatsoever to make that statement.

If you are, you're a quack.

Ingesting some prescribed THC instead of other extremely addictive pain meds could actually make them a better candidate.

See above.
---------------------
Transplant tissue rejection is 'most often' deadly.

If I'm deciding, (names unknown, nothing before me but the transplant candidates scores) and I have toxicology reports in front of me that are only marked positive or negative without differentiating between 10 or 18 or whatever drugs they can screen for, I will not consider for award the available transplant tissue to those who have a positive test. I will return them to their physician to evalute and remediate and reapply.

That said a study was performed on over 2000 liver transplant patients. Those with a positive THC toxicology were sent for remediation.

Those who did not remediate were removed from the test program.

Those who did remediate were given a transplant. These previous THC users, who quit and remained quit long enough to provide acceptable toxicology report and gained a transplanted liver, still had a slightly higher death rate than those who never used THC.

Although, the data did show very slightly higher survival rate for a short time after surgery for remediated THC users, this cannot be attributed to patients who returned to THC use as these were also removed from the study. It's not known or addressed why, among those who only lived a few months after surgury, the remediated marijuana users lived a little longer (a week? a month?). But their curve soon dropped slightly below the non users.

So, use of THC before transplant, even if you quit long enough to pass a THC test, means you're slightly less likely to have positive survival duration after transplant.

The goal, with limited transplant tissue available, is to find how to get the most folk to survive the longest time.

Why waste tissue when you KNOW that by excluding those with THC in their system you have slightly higher survival rates.

In 2015, more than 30,000 transplants were performed for the first time. Do the math. Is slightly higher 25, 50 150, ...300?

How do you tell the family of a patient with a clean tox screen that died, you gave the available tissue to a candidate with a questionable tox report?

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

.

Try to follow along here. If it was legal and prescribed then it wouldn't be an illicit substance that gets potential recipients knocked off of the list. It should be legal so it could be subscribed for some patients. Is it better for somebody needing to take Aleve and prescription only pain meds that tear up their liver? Are liver patients being knocked off of lists for having prescribed opioids in their system (not likely)? Seems like some would be at high risk of becoming addicted to pain pills which could destroy their replacement liver.

Are you a moralist or do you work in one of the industries that profit from marijuana prohibition?

 

[LouderVol]

Try to follow along here. If it was legal and prescribed then it wouldn't be an illicit substance that gets potential recipients knocked off of the list. It should be legal so it could be subscribed for some patients. Is it better for somebody needing to take Aleve and prescription only pain meds that tear up their liver? Are liver patients being knocked off of lists for having prescribed opioids in their system (not likely)? Seems like some would be at high risk of becoming addicted to pain pills which could destroy their replacement liver.

Are you a moralist or do you work in one of the industries that profit from marijuana prohibition?

legality wouldn't change the issue. The rules were written in countries where it is legal.

I just apply common sense, if it is on the list its on the list. it could become legal everywhere and not change my life one bit. If I need a transplant and the doctor tells me to not eat meat, guess what I am becoming a vegetarian. I am not going to argue with him what should or should not be on the list because its not as bad as other stuff on the list.

are you a pot head or do you just work in an industry that would profit from legality?

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

legality wouldn't change the issue. The rules were written in countries where it is legal.

I just apply common sense, if it is on the list its on the list. it could become legal everywhere and not change my life one bit. If I need a transplant and the doctor tells me to not eat meat, guess what I am becoming a vegetarian. I am not going to argue with him what should or should not be on the list because its not as bad as other stuff on the list.

are you a pot head or do you just work in an industry that would profit from legality?

Key word in the criteria... "Illicit".

Neither. People should be allowed to decide what intoxicant they might want to use instead of having the government dictate their decision. Either legalize it everywhere or make tobacco, alcohol, red meat, fatty foods, artificial sweeteners, high fructose corn syrup, football, car racing, and all other things that can be bad for the participants to partake in illegal as well.

Obviously you are a self righteous moralist.

 

[LouderVol]

Key word in the criteria... "Illicit".

Neither. People should be allowed to decide what intoxicant they might want to use instead of having the government dictate their decision. Either legalize it everywhere or make tobacco, alcohol, red meat, fatty foods, artificial sweeteners, high fructose corn syrup, football, car racing, and all other things that can be bad for the participants to partake in illegal as well.

Obviously you are a self righteous moralist.

it wasn't the government my paranoid friend. It was a bunch of people who know what the frick they are talking about.

 

[Vol8188]

If brievtiy is a sign of intelligence, what does that say about Orange Dogs?

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

it wasn't the government my paranoid friend. It was a bunch of people who know what the frick they are talking about.

I'm sorry that you can't see the difference between advocating for civil liberties and paranoia. Or see when a bunch of people are pushing their moral agendas. How is THC worse than highly addictive pain meds?

 

[LouderVol]

and again no one here is denying the uses of MJ or it being any better or worse than anything else. It is on the do not take list. Heck look at the list for stuff not to eat after a transplant that is just as crazy as the list before.

I'm sorry that you can't see the difference between advocating for civil liberties and paranoia. Or see when a bunch of people are pushing their moral agendas. How is THC worse than highly addictive pain meds?

fricking weed smoking europe has the same rules.

 

[Vol8188]

fricking weed smoking europe has the same rules.

Weed smoking Europe? You'll have to explain this.

 

[LouderVol]

Weed smoking Europe? You'll have to explain this.

western europe at least.

good ole soviet block holding down the fort.

 

[bigdaddy]

further. the kid eventually got the surgery. and he died from complications of the surgery. since everyone here is a fan of making up arguments I am just going to go ahead and make an assumption that the complications could be due to THC in his system. Since we are all fans of the fake arguments that can't be proven one way or the other put that up your pipe and smoke it.

Bingo, non story here. He didn't die from being denied a transplant. He died from post up complications

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

fricking weed smoking europe has the same rules.

Yet a fricking Utah hospital and one in Pennsylvania don't. I wonder which one is being run by the moralists?