RayR
4 years ago

Actually the article is accurate. As his father said, "His body his choice". Given the CHOICE of vaccination or death he chose death. In the article the reason for the necessity of vaccination is clearly stated. Survival Benefit is one of the 6 considerations of the medical ethics for a transplant. Various vaccinations are needed before transplant. While outrageous at first glance, they made an acceptable decision.

Speyside2 wrote:



What does taking the experimental JAB have to do with a heart transplant? How does that benefit his survival when the jab has been linked to many people having heart problems and even weakened immune systems? Is there some long-term data that shows the JAB improves the survival rate of transplant patients? Medical ethics my azz. Take the JAB or we'll let you DIE?

rfenst
4 years ago

What does taking the experimental JAB have to do with a heart transplant? How does that benefit his survival when the jab has been linked to many people having heart problems and even weakened immune systems? Is there some long-term data that shows the JAB improves the survival rate of transplant patients? Medical ethics my azz. Take the JAB or we'll let you DIE?

RayR wrote:



Why wouldn't you want the heart going to a person who has the best chance of success?
Stogie1020
4 years ago

Why wouldn't you want the heart going to a person who has the best chance of success?

rfenst wrote:


Because using an experimental vaccine as the sole or guiding (assumption herebased on the story) determination is not medically accurate, but is politically "tasty". If the vaccinated recipient goes to restaurants and eats indoors all the time, goes to concerts, etc and fails to wear a mask, while the unvaccinated one lives in a rural area and takes extreme precautions against infection, why does the check box for "vaccinated" have any bearing?
HockeyDad
4 years ago
Covid-19 vaccination is not a requirement for organ transplant. The patient needs to transfer out of the Mass General Brigham system who has this vaccine mandate and then sue them.

…and then blame the Jews. (Just bringing the thread back to topic)
RayR
4 years ago
Agreed, I don't see the validity to the argument that the unvaxxed person has a lower chance of transplant success.
rfenst
4 years ago
I am looking for people's answers from their own minds, NOT articles, links or internet research.)

Assume the following:

1. Covid is truly as bad as the U.S. government says it is;
2. The jab is safe; and
3. The jab is 100% effective

Everything being equal, do you believe it is morally or medically ethically wrong to reassign the heart transplant to someone else who has taken the jab even though doing so is purely voluntary and why?
RayR
4 years ago
I can't assume 1, 2 or 3 are true because we know the regime and its cronies fudged the numbers and lied about the safety and efficacy of the experimental vaccines for political purposes.
It is therefore morally and medically ethically wrong to deny a patient critical lifesaving treatment based on those false assumptions.

Speyside2
4 years ago
Factors in organ allocation
Waiting time.
Donor/recipient immune system compatibility.
Prior living donor.
Distance from donor hospital.
Survival benefit.
Pediatric status.

Sourced from UNOS
Sunoverbeach
4 years ago
Why did dad take so long to decide on a haircut?
Because he had to mullet over
Speyside2
4 years ago
Robert, as to your points.

The Trump government and the Biden government have nothing lied. The Trump government lied at a hugely greater scale. The shot is safe. Anyone willing to interpret the raw data on shot relates deaths will see this. The full shot regimen reduces death by 91%. Give the guy credit. His moral beliefs are strong enough that he is willing to die for them when he has a choice. 100 times out of 100 the organ should go to whoever comes out highest on Factors in organ allocation. Even if unvaccinated for SARS-COVID2 it is illogical to assume he was only rejected due to lack of vaccination. If you fully read what doctors have said you will know that vaccination is only one element considered along with others.
Speyside2
4 years ago
My bad, Omicron is 91% less deadly than Delta.
rfenst
4 years ago
Attacks like one in Colleyville about more than antisemitism

The Colleyville synagogue hostage-taking was a nightmare, a vicious, antisemitic attack on a vulnerable Jewish community. It is tempting to obsess on the antisemitism, to see it as the great, sole evil. But if we want change, we must recognize that Colleyville was about more.

Especially since the 2018 shooting that killed 11 people and injured more at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life, synagogues and other Jewish institutions have been ratcheting up their security. Guards, often armed, are commonplace, as are bulletproof glass, “buzz-in” entry systems and strategically placed panic buttons.

This is a consequence of a rise in antisemitism. We’re scared. A 2020 Pew Study found that most American Jews think there is more antisemitism today than there was five years ago. More than half of those surveyed say that, as a Jew, they personally feel less safe than they did five years ago.

Rabbi Noah Farkas, president and chief executive of the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles, spoke for many Jewish leaders when he said, “In face of a new wave of antisemitism, where Jews are threatened online, forced to prove themselves on campus and fear eating in restaurants, we must not let the fear our enemies want to instill in us define us.”
Farkas’ “new wave of antisemitism” is real, but its complexity must also be acknowledged.

Antisemitism can take many forms, including religious (Christ killers), economic (Jews control the banks), ethnic (smart Jews), racial (replacement theory) and national (Israel first). These types and others can occur in isolation or in combination. Battling antisemitism effectively requires serious research and analysis, as well as developing objective, useful tools that can help us approach a highly sensitive subject with a minimum of emotion.

And we must recognize that attacks like the one in Colleyville are not only about antisemitism. They are also about the laws and systems (or lack thereof) surrounding gun control and mental health.

Robert Bowers, the alleged shooter in the Tree of Life mass murders, brought an AR-15 assault rifle and three Glock .357 handguns to the synagogue that morning. An investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives determined that Bowers owned 10 guns, all legally purchased.

“When you combine heated, divisive political rhetoric with easy access to lethal weaponry, the possibility of these kinds of incidents happening is even more troubling,” Adam Skaggs, chief counsel and policy director of the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said at the time.

David Anderson, one of the shooters who murdered four people in 2019 at a Jersey City, New Jersey, kosher supermarket, was a convicted felon. Arrests for possession of an illegal weapon led to years in and out of New Jersey and Ohio jails. His record included multiple firearm convictions, and at the time of the shooting, he had numerous guns, plus a bomb the FBI said could kill or injure people up to 500 yards away.

Bowers and Anderson were antisemites intent on slaughter, but our lax gun laws aided and abetted the carnage they created.

Bowers’ neighbors saw nothing unusual about him; they saw him as an average guy. Online, however, he let loose his antisemitic rage. Shortly before entering the synagogue, he posted a message that read, “I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I’m going in.”

“I wish I had known what was going on in his head,” a neighbor said. “I wish there was some sort of warning sign.”
Anderson’s antisemitism was equally intense. His army service was tumultuous, he was arrested numerous times for domestic violence, and his antisemitism was connected to his interest in the Black Hebrew Israelites, a sect that considers Jews to be “imposters.”

“I do this because my creator makes me do this and I hate who he hates,” read a note found in Anderson’s van after the shooting.

It is hard to imagine either Bowers or Anderson being of sound mind. But even if found legally responsible for their actions, their massacres were likely facilitated by a society reluctant to confront the realities of mental illness.

The best definition of antisemitism I’ve ever heard is “opposition to Jews, as Jews,” which makes Malik Faisal Akram, the Colleyville hostage-taker, an antisemite who perpetrated a heinous antisemitic act. His rants on the synagogue audio can also cause one to question his mental state. His own brother said he had been suffering from “mental health issues.” And, while this has not been confirmed, officials believe Akram likely obtained the gun by purchasing it “on the street.”

Like Bowers and Anderson, Akram was responsible for his actions. And, like the others, he had a helping hand from weaknesses in the system.

Colleyville was about antisemitism, but it was equally about a country whose gun laws and mental health awareness are nowhere near what they should be. Confronting antisemitism is a sacred task, but to do so effectively, efforts must be made to change the systems that enable antisemites to perpetuate attacks like the one in Texas. We must fight to counter antisemitism, and we must fight for a safe, secure society for all.
___
(Clifford M. Kulwin is rabbi emeritus of Temple B’nai Abraham in Livingston, New Jersey.)
DrMaddVibe
4 years ago
Wait....you believe your 3 points are true???
rfenst
4 years ago

Wait....you believe your 3 points are true???

DrMaddVibe wrote:


No. And, I am not trying to make any point here.

Let's try it another way: Just assume, for the sake of discussion only, that the required vaccine is for hepatitis, pneumonia or tetanus-diphtheria (or any other vaccine you would willingly take), but that the 1st eligible recipient won't take. That's all.

What are your thoughts?
DrMaddVibe
4 years ago

No.

rfenst wrote:



Neither does Ray
BuckyB93
4 years ago

I am looking for people's answers from their own minds, NOT articles, links or internet research.)

Assume the following:

1. Covid is truly as bad as the U.S. government says it is;
2. The jab is safe; and
3. The jab is 100% effective

Everything being equal, do you believe it is morally or medically ethically wrong to reassign the heart transplant to someone else who has taken the jab even though doing so is purely voluntary and why?

rfenst wrote:



Wait....you believe your 3 points are true???

DrMaddVibe wrote:



No. And, I am not trying to make any point here.

Let's try it another way: Just assume, for the sake of discussion only, that the required vaccine is for hepatitis, pneumonia or tetanus-diphtheria (or any other vaccine you would willingly take), but that the 1st eligible recipient won't take. That's all.

What are your thoughts?

rfenst wrote:



So you make 3 points for argument's sake. None of them are true and you (admittedly) don't believe that any of them are true, and you (admittedly) are not trying to make any point. I don't understand.

Your examples of hepatitis, pneumonia or tetanus-diphtheria have a well established history of being effective with minimal side effects to the overall population. Rona vaccine is not effective in what it was meant to do when it was approved.

It loses it's effectivity within months of being administered and needs a boost every 5 months or so (?) to keep it going (WTF?). It has led to the CDC to redefine what a vaccine is so it can include a Rona vaccine that doesn't work. Using your examples, how often to you need a hep booster once the full regiment is complete? Pneumonia?, tetanus-diptheria? polio? flu? They are not needed every 6 months. Maybe yearly (like the flu vax - which is a sham on it's own), maybe every 5-10 yrs (like tetanus), but only for those in very high risk situations but not for the general public and definitely not as a sweeping government mandatory.

The Rona vax is based on technology that has never... NEVER, been approved for use on man or beast even though the mRNA technology has been being played with in labs for decades. There is 0 (zero) history on any long term side effects.

But F it. Government dictates that everyone must get the Rona jab and be fully vaccinated (a definition that has yet to be defined), everyone must carry a passport. If not, you can be denied your ability to work or go about you daily business.

MACS
4 years ago
Pretty sure we've both made these points in the past. I can't understand how people can look at it objectively (the points you made are all facts) and come to the conclusion that everyone should get the shot and it should be mandated by the gov't.

As I have said... you want it for yourself, fine. If you have underlying conditions where it is prudent, fine. Help yourself, do what's best for YOU.

But don't piss on ME and tell me it's raining by mandating the bullsh*t.
HockeyDad
4 years ago

I am looking for people's answers from their own minds, NOT articles, links or internet research.)

Assume the following:

1. Covid is truly as bad as the U.S. government says it is;
2. The jab is safe; and
3. The jab is 100% effective

Everything being equal, do you believe it is morally or medically ethically wrong to reassign the heart transplant to someone else who has taken the jab even though doing so is purely voluntary and why?

rfenst wrote:




Looks like it’s already been covered that your three assumptions are junk.

The issue is the hospital removed him from the transplant list because of the hospital’s policy. He doesn’t even exist to organ allocation. (My daughter does organ allocation.)

Would you believe we now transplant organs from Covid-19 positive donors? Yup, sure do.


DrMaddVibe
4 years ago
Bet they were vaxxed and masked thougho:)
frankj1
4 years ago
Users browsing this topic