[coffeebean]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

There is a story in the news today about a woman who needs a kidney transplant. She has a friend who will provide the kidney, but the hospital will not perform the surgery unless both women get the COVID vaccine. They both refuse to get the vaccine because of their religion, so the woman is prepared to die because she cannot get the surgery. I am not an expert on religion or medicine, but, apparently the woman's religion will allow her to undergo major surgery, involving multiple drugs and medical intervention, to remove her kidney and replace it with another person's kidney, and then take anti-rejection drugs forever. But, the religion will not allow her to be vaccinated for the COVID virus. Can someone please explain how this makes any sense?

She won't die if she gets dialysis treatment.

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by coffeebean

She won't die if she gets dialysis treatment.

Or they can go to another hospital where they WILL perform the LIFE SAVING operation. I don't know if the story is true, but I believe there is more to the story than we are reading.
By the way, I had a relative in the hospital for is dialysis treatment and he died with Covid. So, I guess dialysis was not the answer at that particular time. Of course, the cause of death that I received from the family was Covid.

[Velvet]

Originally Posted by Kelevision

there are actually very few religions who have documented, doctrinal reasons for not believing in immunizations.
Despite the fact that it has been dominating national news, evangelical Christianity isn’t one of them.
Still, some Christians and other people of faith are citing their religion as a reason why they won’t get the COVID-19 vaccine.

Curious as to what their “religion” is?

Anything they want it to be. Religion is amorphously defined, look at all the cults that call themselves religion. I am not sure if you need more than one person to “believe” in something for it to be called a religion. One could say, “God told me, no Covid vaccine!” And who can say to you, “He did not!”

[Boffin]

This individual is definitely a Darwin Award candidate.

[lkagele]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

There is a story in the news today about a woman who needs a kidney transplant. She has a friend who will provide the kidney, but the hospital will not perform the surgery unless both women get the COVID vaccine. They both refuse to get the vaccine because of their religion, so the woman is prepared to die because she cannot get the surgery. I am not an expert on religion or medicine, but, apparently the woman's religion will allow her to undergo major surgery, involving multiple drugs and medical intervention, to remove her kidney and replace it with another person's kidney, and then take anti-rejection drugs forever. But, the religion will not allow her to be vaccinated for the COVID virus. Can someone please explain how this makes any sense?

The religious objection is due to using fetal parts from aborted babies used in the development of the vaccine. Also, recipient has recovered from CV previously and tests positive for antibodies. Both donor and recipient were willing to sign waivers releasing the hospital from any liability if either one was to die of CV.

This religious objection isn't unique. It's held by millions of pro-life Christians. Agree or disagree, you still should be respecting one's personal religious beliefs. At least, that's what I think.

Considering the recipient has tested positive for antibodies and both are willing to sign waivers, the hospital has given a rather lame reasoning why it can't perform the transplant. “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 serious illness, hospitalization and death. … A living donor can pass COVID-19 infection to an organ recipient, even if they initially test negative for the disease, putting the patient’s life at risk." Newsflash: Patients not receiving a needed transplant is putting the patient's life at risk.

This has nothing to do with CV or risk or science. This is a Woke hospital that doesn't care if patients of a perceived political belief receive proper treatment or not.

Sorry I said the "p" word. I've already received two, Dean Wormer, double secret demerit points for apparently making "p" posts.

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan

Hmm, in an almost, but not quite sarcastic voice, "Would her death qualify as being caused by COVID? or should the cause of death be recorded as stupidity."

Nomination for the "Darwin Award" for sure

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Dana1963

Religion is a Cult.

Heh.

In my experience, a "cult" is what the OTHER guy believes in.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

There is a story in the news today about a woman who needs a kidney transplant. She has a friend who will provide the kidney, but the hospital will not perform the surgery unless both women get the COVID vaccine. They both refuse to get the vaccine because of their religion, so the woman is prepared to die because she cannot get the surgery. I am not an expert on religion or medicine, but, apparently the woman's religion will allow her to undergo major surgery, involving multiple drugs and medical intervention, to remove her kidney and replace it with another person's kidney, and then take anti-rejection drugs forever. But, the religion will not allow her to be vaccinated for the COVID virus. Can someone please explain how this makes any sense?

"Can someone please explain how this makes any sense?"

Not knowing anything more about this story than what I've read here, it is possible that the hospital in question is taking this road because of the increased risk of getting an infectious disease while in the hospital. Probably more dangerous to the recipient than to the donor (transplants, as I understand it, involve suppressing the recipient's immune system, which makes catching other diseases much more likely) so it is understandable from that perspective.

However unless the hospital sticks to the same rule during, say, the height of flu season, the donor and recipient in this case might have grounds for some kind of action against the hospital, especially if they could show that the hospital respected religious beliefs in other similar situations. The 1st Amendment would come into play if the hospital accepts any kind of government funding including Medicare payments.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Originally Posted by lkagele

The religious objection is due to using fetal parts from aborted babies used in the development of the vaccine. Also, recipient has recovered from CV previously and tests positive for antibodies. Both donor and recipient were willing to sign waivers releasing the hospital from any liability if either one was to die of CV.

This religious objection isn't unique. It's held by millions of pro-life Christians. Agree or disagree, you still should be respecting one's personal religious beliefs. At least, that's what I think.

Considering the recipient has tested positive for antibodies and both are willing to sign waivers, the hospital has given a rather lame reasoning why it can't perform the transplant. “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 serious illness, hospitalization and death. … A living donor can pass COVID-19 infection to an organ recipient, even if they initially test negative for the disease, putting the patient’s life at risk." Newsflash: Patients not receiving a needed transplant is putting the patient's life at risk.

This has nothing to do with CV or risk or science. This is a Woke hospital that doesn't care if patients of a perceived political belief receive proper treatment or not.

Sorry I said the "p" word. I've already received two, Dean Wormer, double secret demerit points for apparently making "p" posts.

Explanation of "fetal cells" used in COVID vaccination testing - the following was copied from a state health department website:
----
Historical fetal cell lines were derived in the 1960’s and 1970’s from two elective abortions and have been
used to create vaccines for diseases such as hepatitis A, rubella, and rabies. Abortions from which fetal
cells were obtained were elective and were not done for the purpose of vaccine development.

Any vaccine that relies on these historic cell lines will not require nor solicit new abortions."
----
And the hospital's decision is not "lame". There is a policy of no transplants for un-vaccinated to give the donated organ the best chance of surviving. If they make exceptions, they will enter into a quagmire of having to spend time and money making decisions on every case.

There are not enough organs to supply all patients that need them. The patient made the decision to NOT be vaccinated and they were aware that would disqualify them from receiving a transplant to save their life. If we had a plethora of organs sitting on the shelves waiting, then I would say you have a point. But we don't. And your position is that somehow this person is more worthy to receive the transplant than the other people who may die because this one wants to risk the organ by not following doctors' advice.

I completely disagree with that rationale. The doctors have to make decisions to ration organs every day. This is not new, other than COVID is involved and so suddenly anti-vaxxers want to take the decision out of the doctor's hands and put it in the hands of the courts.

Just like the case a couple of weeks ago of forcing a hospital to provide horse de-wormer medication and using hospital resources and beds and personnel to provide a treatment that is not recommended. So, again, they went to court.

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan

Explanation of "fetal cells" used in COVID vaccination testing - the following was copied from a state health department website:
----
Historical fetal cell lines were derived in the 1960’s and 1970’s from two elective abortions and have been
used to create vaccines for diseases such as hepatitis A, rubella, and rabies. Abortions from which fetal
cells were obtained were elective and were not done for the purpose of vaccine development.

Any vaccine that relies on these historic cell lines will not require nor solicit new abortions."
----
And the hospital's decision is not "lame". There is a policy of no transplants for un-vaccinated to give the donated organ the best chance of surviving. If they make exceptions, they will enter into a quagmire of having to spend time and money making decisions on every case.

There are not enough organs to supply all patients that need them. The patient made the decision to NOT be vaccinated and they were aware that would disqualify them from receiving a transplant to save their life. If we had a plethora of organs sitting on the shelves waiting, then I would say you have a point. But we don't. And your position is that somehow this person is more worthy to receive the transplant than the other people who may die because this one wants to risk the organ by not following doctors' advice.

I completely disagree with that rationale. The doctors have to make decisions to ration organs every day. This is not new, other than COVID is involved and so suddenly anti-vaxxers want to take the decision out of the doctor's hands and put it in the hands of the courts.

Just like the case a couple of weeks ago of forcing a hospital to provide horse de-wormer medication and using hospital resources and beds and personnel to provide a treatment that is not recommended. So, again, they went to court.

You might want to do a bit of research on the medicine that you call "horse dewormer" before parroting lame stream media propaganda.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

"However unless the hospital sticks to the same rule during, say, the height of flu season, the donor and recipient in this case might have grounds for some kind of action against the hospital, especially if they could show that the hospital respected religious beliefs in other similar situations. The 1st Amendment would come into play if the hospital accepts any kind of government funding including Medicare payments.

Actually, they do. There are protocols for being put on the organ donation list to wait for an organ to become available.

The patient KNEW that the hospital required vaccination to qualify. The patient chose not to be vaccinated and was so self disqualified. The hospital did not disqualify them.

I feel sorry for the person that won't get an organ, but imagine you (or your child) were on the waiting list with that person, and you agreed to be vaccinated and they got the kidney instead of you, and then 3 months later they died from COVID? There are not enough organs to go around, so, rationing is real-world hard decision. I completely support not giving organs to anyone that refuses to follow medical advice.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Heh.

In my experience, a "cult" is what the OTHER guy believes in.

True

I agree with the contents of this post, and I am an atheist.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan

Just like the case a couple of weeks ago of forcing a hospital to provide horse de-wormer medication and using hospital resources and beds and personnel to provide a treatment that is not recommended. So, again, they went to court.

You're really gonna' hang your hat on this lie? You know better than this...

Or, should I say, I HOPE you know better than this. Because of you don't, you've lost whatever credibility you ever had...

[GrumpyOldMan]

Originally Posted by MDLNB

You might want to do a bit of research on the medicine that you call "horse dewormer" before parroting lame stream media propaganda.

I have researched it. It is NOT approved for use in humans for the treatment of COVID. PERIOD.

Aren't you one that previously complained about the vaccines not being approved for the treatment of COVID?

[GrumpyOldMan]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

You're really gonna' hang your hat on this lie? You know better than this...

Or, should I say, I HOPE you know better than this. Because of you don't, you've lost whatever credibility you ever had...

I will hang my hat on the drug that is NOT approved for use in treating COVID in humans. Seems "not approved" was a regular comment against vaccinations recently. I guess NOT APPROVED only applies when someone disagrees with it. If THEY want it, then it doesn't matter.

I make NO claims on whether it is effective or not.

I will hang my hat on it is WRONG for a judge to decide medical treatment over doctors.