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.
My mother had pulmonary fibrosis. She was a former smoker. She had quit a few months before and was otherwise healthy. She was only 65 and I don't think the smoking even caused her disease, but probably made it worse. She got the flu then pneumonia and was gasping. I begged for a transplant but they just said no, would not even discuss it. I held her hand and sang gospel music to her as she passed. 1/17/15 was the worst day of my 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
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.
They started smoking with the knowledge of the effects. In this day and age it's hard to miss out on what smoking does to you. They knowingly kill themselves. We all deserve second chances, but if you're just going to hurt yourself, give the lungs to someone else. Someone else could use the lungs. Someone who actually didn't have a choice to become sick or not. You chose to smoke, you were aware of the effects and now you should deal with the consequences. It's harsh reality I suppose.
Because it's their choice to smoke. It wasn't the non smokers choice to get hurt and one of their lungs got damaged. I think that they should put the non-smokers first. It's not there fault. But it is the smokers fault that they have cancer. People should take into account that there are other people who are not smoking and don't actually get the transplant.
All smokers know that smoking does serious harm to their lungs but then claim that they can't quit because they're addicted, however there are so many programs available for them. The NHS does a program where you can see how it's starting to improve your lungs and health. I used to be a smoker but I quit, no problem, in my second year of college when most of my friends and the people around smoked.
They are the ones who started smoking so they shouldnt get one. They should have to wait until everyone who didnt get lung disease on their own to get one or buy one on their own. They shouldnt be able to take them from the people that had diseases that were not caused by them.
As some of the previous delegates have said, you choose to smoke, you choose to make the choices that you make. You know that the behavior you're engaging in is wrong, so why keep doing it? How many ways are there to cope and manage situations in our lives, other than partaking in the ones that can harm you? Should you be allowed a second chance to live a healthier life?
From my point of view, smokers should not get lung transplants, because it was only their choice to smoke. There are many people who really need transplants because of their illness and better they will get lung transplant rather smokers. However, I can agree with an argument, which was posted by haighstreet and accept that if smokers need lung transplants, they have to pay for this.