Smokers should get a new set of lungs because it'd give them a new lease on life. And, with new lungs, it would take many years to convert their new lungs into smoker's lungs again, years they probably wouldn't have anyway. If they'd smoke after getting new lungs, they are too addicted to quit so, at least with new lungs, they can enjoy themselves more than they did before the operation. It would take awhile for them to seriously damage their new lungs and, in the meantime, at least they can enjoy what makes them feel good.
Over 25% of lung transplants in the UK come from heavy smokers and about 15% in the USA do to. The latest studies have shown that their relatively little difference in function and just the same occurrence of disease. So, if a smokers set of lungs is good for a healthy person why can't healthy people give back. Sounds like a bunch of indian givers to me.
Most people are saying that people should basically die if the smoke and had lung cancer, but if it was any of your family would you be saying that they should die just because they smoke? That's where people change there statement. Some of you say they chose to smoke but maybe, if someone had on little cigarette and they got addicted to it it wasn't there fault because they only smoked one and that made them want to smoke more. I think that people should be allowed to have one because we are all human! And most people smoke because there stressed.
The government supports the selling of tobacco products. Cigarettes are legal drugs. You are legally allowed to take them (given that you are over the age limit), so why should a smoker be penalized for something the government permits? I understand that the government makes a lot of money off of tobacco products. However, smokers have not actually broken any laws and deserve to be treated equally and fairly within in the health care system. For all those people who are against this - what if it was one of your family members? Would you still be against it?
On the surface, this appears to be a very easy call, i.e.; smokers should not get lung transplants. BUT- even though lung cancer is a main contributer to lung cancer and lung disease, it can not identified as solely responsible, therefore in situations where an individual has lung disease and also smokes (smoked), it can not be ruled out that the disease has other contributors. I would say it should be investigated on a case by case basis and the Lung Allocation Score should (and does) take into account the individuals past behavior. This way these individuals can still be eligible for a transplant, but not at the expense of those who are very young, or have a congenital or genetic cause for disease.
Taxpayers and insurance companies cannot afford to fix every problem. If a smoker wants a lung transplant they should have to pay for it. The act of smoking was a choice they paid for, and so the act of cleaning up the mess should be paid for by them also. This is like a slippery slope question, because if we give smokers lung transplants then we have to give obese people free liposuction. If this is a question not about who should pay for it, then yes, let the smoker get a lung transplant and if he continues to smoke then it is on him. Many people with lung cancer continue to smoke.
If they've stopped smoking, then yes, they should be put on the transplant list just like anyone else. However, if they are still smoking, than they should not be given a new set of lungs to poison. If you make a choice to continue to kill yourself, you should not get to take away someone else's shot at life.
Yes smoking is a bad habit, but everyone has a bad habit in one form or another and we all pay for it through the high health insurance premium. Instead of "black balling" smokers, why not look at it as more of an inherit condition. We learn from our peers. Health insurance doesn't take into consideration if one drinks alcohol too much, over eats all the time, or is addicted to heroin, why should they single out smokers? Is pot in the same category as cigarettes? Does pot not damage the lungs? Should prostitutes get proper medical attention if they catch AIDS? Should obese people get proper medical attention if they have diabetes? Should people who get addicted to pain pills get proper medical attention and don't they get sympathy? This is suppose to be a country of equality.
If you can say no to smoker getting a transplant them no body should get a transplant of any kind. You have to be quit for at least 6 mos. So you smoked in your past drank in your past eat fat greasy food in your past and clogged all your arteries... Maybe you laid in the sum too long... There are so many reasons for transplants all kinds of health issues! I am an ex smoker I have own insurance and I have two young children that need their mom but you think I should just sit back and die without an effort?? My family doesn't feel that way. So sad to all you who think it's a vote as to who is worthy of living! Shame on you! There was a little baby girl in our community who died because she needed. Heart transplant... The community would have raised money in support the babies needs she was healthy other wise but was denied because she had Down syndrome now if you want to see something sad... Go look at her page Annie Golden Heart.... Makes me sick that the family had to watch that baby die because some one deemed her life unworthy!! Sick bunch of people.... No one kn here has the final say anyway... That belongs to the Lord
If you are a basic human with basic human qualities you would certainly understand that even though smokers are damaging their lungs they too deserve every chance for a new pair of lungs. It goes without saying every human needs a second chance of life. Remember smokers maybe smoking for a deeper reason than you think e.g. family problems.
We don't live in the dark ages as far as awareness of what smoking does to one's lungs. My wife smoked for about 16 years but quit when we had our baby. The damage that was done to her lungs was done by her own choice. I love her very much but she should not be eligible for a lung transplant if she needed one to survive. God gave her 2 perfect lungs. Some people aren't so lucky. The same goes for me. Even though I've never smoked, I drank for about 12 years and any damage I've done to my perfectly good liver is my fault. We are both doing things to help correct the damage we did cause and hopefully prevent any major disease states later in life. Anti-smoking proclamation is everywhere. If you smoke, you're a fool and you deserve the damage that's comes with your poor choice of preoccupation.
Part of me believes that the smoker of today has an informed choice whether to continue smoking and taking the risks associated, therefore, should not go ahead of non-smokers. However, I think it might be discriminatory not to let the patient be moved to the top of this list as long as it was legal and ethical to do so. But, as long as a smoker is nicotine free for at least 6 months, they can get one.
A person who smokes knows that smoking is bad, so why reward them with a new set of lungs to ruin? There are many people out there who have lung disease not caused by smoking and never have smoked. I would not want my lungs to go to a person who did the damage on purpose. It would be like giving a person on death row a new heart only to know that he is going to die when he recovers. Let them die like the way they lived, by choice.
As a life long smoker, I know the damage I am doing to my body. I would rather see someone who was born with an unfortunate disease and have a chance at life, and take care of themselves better than I did. I made a choice, whereas somebody with cystic fibrosis did not.
Let them realize the extent of those warnings on the package, and leave the lung transplants for those who didn't poison their own lungs on purpose! Ditto liver transplants for cirrhosis due to alcoholism. Sure cigarettes are legal, but there is also a lot of education about the dangers. Just say no!
My mum is needing a lung transplant, as she has Cystic Fibrosis. If a smoker was given priority over my mum I would be highly disappointed in the health team as my mum has always taken care of her lungs and it isnt her fault that her lungs are the way they are from her genetic disorder.
We all know effects of smoking. Billions spent on education of public. We should not be spending a Million dollars $$ on anyone who destroyed their own health to do a transplant. Alcoholics shouldnt get liver transplant either. Use that money for those disease treatments that people had no choice about.
Would you put a new engine in a stolen car? Didn't think so... If i were injecting poison in my body for fun, or to cope with life's petty problems i would fully expect my short lived time on earth . My boss smoked almost twenty years and one day he quit cold turkey, yes he had withdraws and fevers but a strong will to live got him threw. That was 4 years ago.. It can be done people. No more excuses. And no free rides!!
If a person can stop smoking, stop taking addictive or any drugs, can work hard to heal their lungs and health then why should they have a lung transplant.? It might ruin their lives in a number of resons; -they might not act in the same way as they acted before smoking.
-they might be prescribed by their dolctors to eat limited amounts of food.
-their transplant or surgery might fail causing death.
It is their fault they have cancer, and they know that smoking is dangerous to their health but they keep smoking. If someone who does this and knows the risks then why should they deserve another chance, it they are going to do it again. Its the same with people who drink, why do they deserve a new liver, if they are going to do the same thing again.