Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think that someone’s past shouldn’t be taken into account when offering them medical treatment?

50 replies

AlternativePerspective · 16/01/2022 13:38

www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60010155
So it’s emerged that the man who received the pig heart transplant served a 10 year sentence for stabbing someone in 1988. The victim’s family have now been all over the news saying that he shouldn’t have received the treatment, and they are upset that they weren’t consulted about it first.

While I totally understand that they will be upset, it should go without saying that no-one’s treatment should depend on their past, and that surgeons should never be expected to make judgements on moral grounds.

But also, I’m not sure these people should be given a platform to express their outrage.

The treatment this man received is pioneering, and if successful could pave the way to further such treatments in the future. This shouldn’t IMO be overridden by an insistence that it should never have been allowed to happen on the basis that he is who he is.

OP posts:
MayThePawsBeWithYou · 16/01/2022 13:45

Of course they shouldnt be consulted about it first, its pioneering work that could potentially save thousands of lives. I wonder if people would be so outraged and refuse a transplant if the donor was a criminal.

Highwind · 16/01/2022 13:45

Someone needs to be the first to be the human test subject for all risky pioneering surgeries that could then benefit society.

It could have gone wrong, it could have had caused immense suffering and a whole barrage of unintended side-effects. So, personally I think he is a great candidate.

AwaitingSueGraysInvestigation · 16/01/2022 13:46

I agree. Moral judgements about medicines and medical procedures are dangerous and a slippery slope in my opinion. This is why the whole mandated vaccines for covid sits so uneasily with me personally.

This man served his sentence, presumably. That doesn't bring back the person he killed but according to the rules laid down by the society he and his victim live/d in, he paid his debt to that society.

The victim's family have no right to have any view whatsoever on this person's medical needs and treatment. The fact that they have suffered is entirely unrelated to the needs of him as a patient. Neither cancels the other out -- so what he did was still wrong, but his medical requirements are also what they are, and the two have nothing to do with each other.

Eleganz · 16/01/2022 13:46

I'm pretty disappointed that the BBC chose to report the victim's families comments about this man's surgery when it is, as the medical team quite rightly said, of no consequence as to whether he should receive it.

Theunamedcat · 16/01/2022 13:53

Depends do I think alcoholics who constantly relapse should they receive liver transplants over and above people who stay clean? Maybe, do I believe that if they return to drinking and trash a second liver after being given a second chance? no absolutely not save someone else

However he sounds like a good candidate for experimental surgery which sounds callous as hell now I say it out loud but you never know he could go on to do something good with his life

Andtheyalllookjustthesame · 16/01/2022 13:55

"Any other standard of care would set a dangerous precedent and would violate the ethical and moral values that underpin the obligation physicians and caregivers have to all patients in their care."

The last paragraph sums it up nicely as far as I'm concerned. Doesn't matter who you are you get the same standard of care. It absolutely is right that this man be given the same medical care as somebody who was not an ex convict. What he did was awful, of course, but he has served his time.

The family of the victim of a crime should have absolutely no say so over the medical interventions the perpetrator can or cannot receive, because there is no way that they can make an unbiased decision. They apparently would rather he die than have a pioneering surgery in retribution for their dead uncle/brother which shows just exactly why they can't be part of his medical decisions.

Andtheyalllookjustthesame · 16/01/2022 13:58

To add, I understand their anger and why they would feel justified in wanting that retribution. I also understand that this anger means they cannot be unbiased. It's why we don't let anyone relayed to the victim be on the jury at their trial. Because how could they assess the case fairly? They can't. They are too emotional to be impartial

lomoloko · 16/01/2022 14:00

Clearly their (understandable) desire for vengeance should have no place in medical decisions. The consequences are horrifying to contemplate.

HoldingTheDoor · 16/01/2022 14:03

I don't think it should be taken into account, no but it must be very upsetting seeing his face everywhere and seemingly being hailed as a hero. I'd feel it'd been better left in the pig in their situation but that isn't the concern of the transplant team.

Kinneddar · 16/01/2022 14:08

I can understand theyre angry but for them to suggest they should have been consulted is ridiculous. Obviously they'd rather he didn't get it but that's not how it works.

Socialcarenope · 16/01/2022 14:40

@Highwind

Someone needs to be the first to be the human test subject for all risky pioneering surgeries that could then benefit society.

It could have gone wrong, it could have had caused immense suffering and a whole barrage of unintended side-effects. So, personally I think he is a great candidate.

This my thoughts too!
Stompythedinosaur · 16/01/2022 15:05

Medical care is a human right, so imo people shouldn't lose access to it whatever they have done.

CuriousaboutSamphire · 16/01/2022 15:14

Maybe someone who needs a second or third set of kidneys or a liver becasue they didn't change the lifestyle that caused it?

But otherwise, no, not really U at all.

Lifetheuniverseandeverything · 16/01/2022 15:15

Les Miserables enters the chat…

ElEmEnOhPee · 16/01/2022 15:27

YANBU ... however, if I was an organ donor I would not want any of my organs going to a paedophile or rapist etc

SockQueen · 16/01/2022 16:13

@Theunamedcat

Depends do I think alcoholics who constantly relapse should they receive liver transplants over and above people who stay clean? Maybe, do I believe that if they return to drinking and trash a second liver after being given a second chance? no absolutely not save someone else

However he sounds like a good candidate for experimental surgery which sounds callous as hell now I say it out loud but you never know he could go on to do something good with his life

But that's a different scenario - the alcoholic's current behaviour is actively harming the chance of a treatment's success and depriving other potential recipients of an organ they might treat with more respect. In the UK at least, this is fairly unlikely to happen as the criteria for going on the transplant waiting list are pretty strict and if someone has already destroyed one liver by relapsing and drinking, they're not very likely to be put back on the list for another. This guy's actions 30 years ago have no bearing on how successful his treatment now would be, nor would he be depriving anyone else of the pig heart.

I've worked in hospitals near prisons and had to look after various prisoners for surgery or in ICU. Some have done seriously bad things - these were not prisons for tax dodgers or people who took someone's driving licence points. I actually don't want to know what they did to end up in prison (beyond checking that I/my colleagues are safe) because I want to give them treatment without bias, which I worry might creep in if I dig too deep into their past.

readingismycardio · 16/01/2022 16:24

Depends do I think alcoholics who constantly relapse should they receive liver transplants over and above people who stay clean? Maybe, do I believe that if they return to drinking and trash a second liver after being given a second chance? no absolutely not save someone else

Completely different issue here, though

Horst · 16/01/2022 16:31

If it had gone wrong and he had been in the paper after suffering a terrible death from it the victims family would of been over joyed.

As harsh as it sounds trying out such new unknown untested types of surgery on some of the worst types with their consent etc etc because they could benefit is surely better in a way than poor Doreen down the road trying and it not working as a first time attempt.

Focus126 · 16/01/2022 16:35

Depends.
But in this particular case - it's just a pigs heart Grin
You can buy it at the butchers Grin

HoppingPavlova · 16/01/2022 16:46

Nope. The person’s ‘present’ isn’t even taken into account. For example, if you have someone who has tortured kids to death and then shot themselves (not dead), you have to treat them the same way you would treat anyone with a gunshot would. You can’t make moral judgements and you can’t refuse to treat people. You can’t prioritise either, it’s strictly clinical need. If you have an arsehole who stabs his wife and then shoots himself, operating theatres banked up, then whoever has greatest clinical need goes first and may well be the arsehole. You really can’t do it any other way, that’s the rules.

Transplants are different as lifestyle factors are taken into account when looking at chance of success. So, no, you wouldn’t consider a liver transplant for a patient who is an alcoholic or who lives on the streets. You would however, for someone who is a recovered alcoholic.

VelvetChairGirl · 16/01/2022 16:48

What does it matter he is a guinea pig, he could be dead in a month

CornishTiger · 16/01/2022 16:50

He served his sentence.

He has a right to privacy over medical procedures and they don’t need to consult a family of previous crimes he’s committed.

The fact they know is because it’s pioneering and he’s agreed to go public.

sadpapercourtesan · 16/01/2022 16:54

@Highwind, that sounds like you're suggesting that people with a criminal record should be used as test subjects - labrats - for dangerous new medical procedures Shock

Surely you didn't mean that?

To the OP - no, it should make no difference. Everybody should be equal in medicine, as they are under the law.

Kendodd · 16/01/2022 16:57

Completely agree, doctors shouldn't make moral judgments.
Equally, the family of his victim have every right to say whatever they want about it.

Toddlerteaplease · 16/01/2022 17:00

Totally agree. They were angry they hadn't been told. Why should they be? It's his private medical information. It's nothing to do with them.