Curing the Unbelievers
Forgive me if you heard this one before. Sorry if you think this sounds repetitious.
But here once more is a story that shows the COVID issue for what it is, no longer a science-based dilemma for humanity to overcome, but a catch-all rationalization for a massive, never-ending assault on the individual in which you and I, fellow physicians, have been established as the camp guards, and played for suckers.
A woman in Colorado with end-stage renal disease needs a transplant, has a friend who is a donor match, and both are anxious to proceed. And the surgery is being blocked because neither recipient nor donor are willing to be COVID vaccinated: “The transplant team at University of Colorado Hospital has determined that it is necessary to place you inactive on the waiting list. You will be inactivated on the list for non-compliance by not receiving the COVID vaccine. You will have 30 days to begin the vaccination series. If your decision is to refuse COVID vaccination you will be removed from the kidney transplant list.” Uh-huh.
UCHealth, the Agency of Denial, gave a statement: “An organ transplant is a unique surgery that leads to a lifetime of specialized management to ensure an organ is not rejected, which can lead to serious complications, the need for a subsequent transplant surgery, or even death. Physicians must consider the short- and long-term health risks for patients as they consider whether to recommend an organ transplant.” Obvious boilerplate, and useless in explaining why this particular case is being stymied. And if PHYSICIANS are considering the risk, then why is the hospital giving the statement?
“Transplant centers across the nation, including the UCHealth Transplant Center, have specific requirements in place to protect patients both during and after surgery. For example, patients may be required to receive vaccinations including hepatitis B, MMR and others. Patients may also be required to avoid alcohol, stop smoking, or prove they will be able to continue taking their anti-rejection medications long after their transplant surgery. These requirements increase the likelihood that a transplant will be successful and the patient will avoid rejection.” Distraction, misdirection, and spread the blame. Time-tested tactics for thugs and corrupt corporations.
“In almost all situations, transplant recipients and living donors at UCHealth are now required to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in addition to meeting other health requirements and receiving additional vaccinations. Some U.S. transplant centers already have this requirement in place, and others are making this change in policy now.”
“Patients who have received a transplanted organ are at significant risk from COVID-19. Should they become infected, they are at particularly high risk of severe illness, hospitalization and death. Studies have found transplant patients who contract COVID-19 may have a mortality rate of 20% or higher.” So, it’s not up to a patient with an otherwise terminal condition to decide her acceptable level of risk?
“A living donor could pass COVID-19 infection on to an organ recipient even if they initially test negative for the disease, putting the patient’s life at risk.” Maybe, perhaps, possibly… and they could both be killed in separate auto accidents driving to the hospital the day of the surgery, so perhaps it’s safer to just set her up for in-home hospice. And don’t try the “scarce resources” garbage argument here – how much resources are consumed on dialysis?
Does it matter whether the patient previously had COVID, as has been reported? We have a willing donor and recipient, neither of whom want the vaccine for reasons with which we do not have to agree, and neither of whom would pose any infectious risk whatsoever to a hospital staff we may safely presume has been forcibly vaxxed. Is it unethical to provide surgical intervention for a patient with an increased chance of death? Do we categorically deny surgery to those refusing transfusions? Do we refuse scheduled CABG’s for those who refused a yearly flu shot, or an updated Pneumovax?
Bottom line, this is all crap. It’s not about science or good medical care, and it’s not about the religious objections of the patient and donor to this vaccine. It’s about the dogma of a corporation, and a brutalizing worldwide secular faith whose demands for total obedience would make jihadists proud. Physicians should stand against this accelerating abuse of patient autonomy, whatever there is left of it.
I am as libertarian as they come, but I believe that there are certain guidelines in medicine that should be met. Plastic surgeons will refuse to do elective surgery on a patient who continues to smoke. An alcoholic not in recovery cannot get a liver transplant. These “ rules” are there to minimize the risk of a poor outcome. Sure, we do some procedures with higher risk, but the risk benefit ratio must be considered. The risk of COVID infection in an unvaccinated transplant patient is too high to take. We should do no harm. A surgeon who does a transplant on an unvaccinated patient is increasing their risk of death from the disease. A post CABG patient will probably have less risk from the disease than they did prior to the surgery, so by doing the CABG we have helped the patient and done no harm. Lastly, an end stage renal disease patient who refuses the COVID vaccine must also have major cognitive deficits.
Do you have any science to back up your covid, specifically, ideology.