Why is this in the politics hole?
Because vaccines are political chud.
Suddenly all redditors become experts in the field of organ transplantation and realize that giving a heart to a dying child is ethically wrong even if there is nobody else on the list and the child is unvaccinated.
The medical field says vaccines must be given as the child is at risk of getting diseases without the vaccines that make the heart transplant useless, conspiracytards respond that the covid vaccine has already been proven to cause heart issues in the first place as a side effect so makes no sense to require covid vaxx to get a heart transplant, my personal non expert opinion says that not having a vaccine increases your chances of getting a disease, but it does not guarantee it, and if the heart is the difference between life or death, then the child has every right to it as long as there is no else on the list before her who needs it more.
Interesting observations:
Hospital admits that vaccines increase the likelihood of a successful organ transplant. Which I believe should lead to the child still getting the transplant if nobody else needs the heart more at the moment.
https://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/news/release/2025/transplant-statement
Because children who receive a transplant will be immunosuppressed for the rest of their life, vaccines play a critical role in preventing or reducing the risk of life-threatening infections, especially in the first year. These decisions involve discussion between our providers and the patient's family.
Organs can stay alive for a few weeks after a person is dead, which means if the girl is the only person around who needs a heart in that time frame, then it makes sense to give it to her even if she is unvaccinated. Not a single redditor appears to have noticed this or mentioned it and all have decided the child is meant to die now.
A deceased organ donor is kept on a ventilator after she/he has been declared brain-dead. They will remain on the ventilator until necessary approvals are taken and the organs can be retrieved. A Brain stem Dead person's organs may stay alive for a period of time that may range from a few days to a few weeks.
As far as I can tell ( I might be completely wrong somebody confirm for me ) if you refuse the covid vaccine, you will not be allowed to get an organ transplant, even if nobody else needs that organ at the moment. So they would rather throw an organ in the trash rather than allow it access to an unvaccinated person.
In adult recipients, the median survival time is 9.4 years, in comparison with 2.4 years among patients awaiting a heart. In pediatric recipients, the median survival time is 12.8 years. Overall, heart transplantation has added approximately 270,000 life-years (mean, 4.9 yr/recipient)
This above statement is the only thing that to me somewhat explains why doctors are not willing to expend much time trying to save unvaccinated organ transplant patients. The survival years are already so low and organs available for donation are so low in number, but I still cannot ascertain why not just put the unvaccinated at the very back of the list and technically only able to get an organ after everybody vaccinated has gotten an organ. Even if the unvaccinated never receive an organ, it would show that there is no active discrimination or attempt to exclude people from the medical system altogether, simply a limitation of resources and focus on using them where they are most viable to work.
Interesting comments:
Not letting people with authority do whatever with your children because they know better makes you evil.
Letting your 12 year old die to own the libs. Classic MAGA
They killed their daughter. Not the hospital by rejecting the transplantation request no matter if the organ is going to rot instead. The parents of the child are evil. Not the system that won't even make them eligible to be on the very back of the list if they don't get the vaccines.
So they're collecting money on GoFundMe despite not even being eligible for the operation? They will not be getting an exemption
One redditor gets the reasoning right but still doesn't question why non-vaccinated cannot be at minimum at the very back of the list for transplants.
I'm assuming it's because getting the body to accept an implant requires a lot of antibiotics and the patient would be weak and thus at much higher risk of death - potentially wasting the transplant when other people who will get the jab are just as in need.
One great mind of reddit theorizes that this is a 4D chess move by the parents to get rid of an adopted child.
They can either cause a massive fuss about their child being killed by vaccine mandates or the government taking their child away because of vaccine mandates.
The parents turn out to be r-slurred. Nobody really surprised.
Janeen claims that vaccines are unsafe, and also said they came to their decision after "the Holy Spirit put it on our hearts".
But what about just putting them at the very back of the transplant list? What's wrong with that.
Fair. If you're not going to take care of your body you don't deserve new organs. They are in short supply. Sorry not sorry.
A "doctor of reddit" Chimes in.
Doctor here. Pretty straightforward regarding transplants. One of the most scarce resources we have in medicine, so to be eligible, you HAVE to show you are willing to follow medical advice and protocols to maximize chances of success, because even then there is a good percentage that fail. You are on immunosuppressants for life, and any infection can be fatal. So yeah, vaccination has always been prerequisite
That makes sense, but factoring in that organs are so rare for transplantation and vaccinated people have a far higher likelihood of success, why don't we at least allow the unvaccinated to be at the very back of the list, as having an organ transplant with a 5% chance of success is still higher than the 0% chance of success when their organ fails?
Conclusion:
Redditors went insane in their echo chambers and will never be able to leave them. They are all brain wormed now and they will either be able to function in a Kamala world, or go insane and die out in a any other world.
An evil Republican may own a dozen s*x slaves to satisfy himself, but a good redditor will let an entire nation of women be r*ped as long as it is done in the name of "being on the right side of history and not letting white people harm (punish) minorities (male feminists from minority groups)".
!mottezans moral quandary for you. Should American medical system allow unvaccinated people on organ donation lists at the very back in case they ever run out of vaccinated people but there is still an organ around, or is it more ethical to perma ban all unvaccinated from the organ transplant list altogether and force them to get vaccinated to be on the list in any capacity? Note that organs are rare to acquire for transplantation, last only a few years, a decade if the person who received them is lucky, and being unvaccinated raises the chances of getting an infection and the transplant failing far faster than in the case of vaccinated individuals. The mortality rate may be 5X higher for unvaccinated patients who get an organ transplant compared to vaccinated individuals.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
They give organs to people who take their health seriously. Organs aren't easy to come by, ya know.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Already mentioned that in post. Organs die fast though once the host body is dead and can only be stored for a few weeks at best, so if in that time period only an unvaccinated person is around who needs a transplant then why shouldn't they be allowed to have that transplant?
Or am I misunderstanding something?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I don't think they ever run out of time lol, they have waiting lists for basically every organ. You're acting like they're going to throw this heart in the trash. More realistically, it'll be transplanted into somebody else.
Also vaccinations do matter more for transplant recipients, due to the immunosuppresants they're required to take.
Yeah yeah they could put unvaccinated people at the back of the line... but that's functionally the same as just not including them on the list, except I suppose the list might be marginally more work to manage with deadweight on it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Already linked to a study that suggests that unvaccinated would have higher risks not guaranteed deaths without the vaccination.
Yes and that is how it should be done. Otherwise you could just pass a law that says we only keep a list that is twice as long as the number of organs available and no more than that, which I would say is fair enough and in that scenario would be fine with unvaccinated being excluded because they never reach that far down the list to find them.
The medical industry is about accounting for extreme outlier cases. Including the unvaccinated in the list I would argue counts as one of those extreme outlier cases. Nobody would argue that hospitals have a right to ignore patients who have a 99.9% chance of dying and instead still expect them to keep trying to keep the patient alive till the last breath and heartbeat.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
In this case, should nothing be disqualifying?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Unless I misunderstood how the current list works.
Ofcourse cases where transplantation is 100% fatal should be disqualified.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
I'm really not sure why you're so pressed about this bb. We've already established (and you've agreed) that it's functionally the same.
It's not like she's banned from it anyways, pretty sure she can get vaccinated and be put on the list.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
She IS banned from it though and just saying "weeeelllll technically" doesn't change that fact and creates second hand citizens on an ideological basis irrespective of medical legitimacy.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
She's not eligible if she gets vaccinated?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
She is currently not eligible for being unvaccinated.
So She IS banned and you saying b-b-but if she did what we want her to do she won't be doesn't change the fact that she IS currently banned.
It is like saying I am not banned from a place because the owner will only allow me in if I apologize. I am still banned from there though as long as I don't apologize. Saying I am not banned is a straight up lie or misunderstanding of the English language.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Holy shit you're beyond r-slurred bb.
This is such a non issue. The reasons for it are clear and she could be on the list tomorrow if she wanted. Her not getting vaccinated is her choice.
I legitimately don't understand what the issue is here. Can some !commenters explain?
Also wtf religious belief makes it so she can't get vaccinated but it's totally okay for her to get a heart transplant with the drugs and injections obviously involved with that?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
They have a list of people who need organs. If one is disqualified, they move on to the next one.
Also, any organ recipient is going to be put on immunosuppressant drugs to prevent rejection. That would make her even more vulnerable to whatever she isn't vaccinated against.
I hope she lives a long and healthy life.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
But isn't the list based on priority already? And if it is based on priority, then what's wrong with leaving the unvaccinated lower down the list under the vaccinated?
The immunosuppressant argument still does not explain why a 5% chance of survival with an organ transplant is not better than no organ transplant when the organ fails.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Refusing to get vaxxed for a life-saving transplant is extremely correlated with being r-slurred and dying young
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
i mean she isn't choosing to be unvaccinated. her adopted parents
are crazy.
similar situation to liberal
parents 
pressuring their kids to 
out.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
And that's the problem. There's a dozen kids without r-slurred parents on the list; it's pure mathematics. She just got triaged and it is what it is.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
True this may be the one exception since she's Chinese or whatever. In most cases the r-slurredness gets passed down
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Most children who need an organ transplant will die young anyways irrespective of vaccination status so you are again wrong.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
An unvaccinated, immunosuppressed individual is like playing Russian roulette with influenza, with a 5–15% mortality rate if they get infected. When your immune system is already gigacucked, a simple infection can plant you.
Median survival times for transplant patients also factor in the ones whose bodies reject the organ outright, which drags the average down. Heart, lung, and liver transplants tend to have higher early mortality rates, also in the 5–15% range, depending on the patient population and the transplant center. That's because these are high-risk procedures with immediate complications—which makes sense, considering your fricking heart doesn't work.
Early mortality rates in transplants are high because the procedure itself is complicated as heck. The underlying condition was already life-threatening, the body sometimes just says, "Nope", and the fact that surgeons are human, and sometimes they sew a $7,000 Breitling watch or a pair of forceps into your chest cavity. "Big oof, bruh"
The median survival data includes every patient from day one, meaning it factors in every post-op disaster, rejection case, and fatal complication. So those numbers aren't just clean, long-term success stories—they count every loss along the way which makes it look like if you make it out of the danger zone, you'll die in 9 years, but that's not accurate
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I already finished this conversation on other comments in this post and am no longer attempting to continue the conversation. Sorry for wasting your time on this last comment of yours. Have a good day.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
you're fricking bananas if you think I'm reading all that, take my downmarsey and shut up idiot
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Yeah, you're misunderstanding the supply and demand. You somehow think they've got garages full of organs and they're denying her purely out of spite or to save money or something. In reality for every available organ there's hundreds of people who need it.
Only half of people on the waitlist will ever get an organ. Forget the people they don't even allow on the list. They've simply decided that her (or her parents) lack of care for her health makes her statistically unlikely to benefit from it as much as others will.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Cool. They can prove this by keeping her on the back of the list just in case and when she still dies because no organ was available fast enough for her risk level, it would show a paper trail of disapprovals stating reasons for what happened.
Things never change fallacy. She should still be allowed at the back on the list on the merit of one day possibly getting the organ if things change fast enough. Just like we keep people alive till the last moment. Or do you support government funded death squads saying which patients ought to die and which ones live?
Statistically unlikely doesn't mean zero likely. I already added a link to post where it shows mortality rates go up 5x for the unvaccinated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yeah dude it's not a proper waitlist even though they call it that, it's a small pool of people that fit the basic criteria to be worth tapping into the incredibly small pool of available organs. The reason she isn't on the pool has been given, she and her parents don't consider her health a priority.
"Death squads", be it the government or private health insurance, do and always have ration out healthcare as they see fit. Organs are a scarce resource. Unless you think we live in a post-scarcity society? You're posting in /h/chudrama so probably not.
If "things change" then she'll get her transplant. In the meantime, hearts are in limited supply and the criteria for being in consideration is public knowledge.
Oh, okay, she's only 500% more likely to die than the most high-risk person on the list. Maybe you're not a math guy, but these aren't good odds. So you think they should waste time deciding whether or not to give her a new heart, every single time an available heart pops up, when literally everybody else on the list is wildly more likely to live a full, healthy life? Maybe we should also have the board decide whether a guy who declares he's never going to quit drinking deserves a new liver, too. Or maybe we could just be smart and agree that if you want to be in consideration for a new liver you should stop drinking a bottle of Johnny Walker every night.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Why are you accusing a 12 year old of making bad decisions?
Ethically yes. The only good argument against I have received so far in the entire post is that there aren't enough doctors to make that check constantly so they are making cut offs to shorten the list enough for the doctors to be able to track while still ensuring the organs do not go to waste.
In an ethical world yes. Nobody says it is okay for hospitals to just stop treating people once they cross 95 because they are supposed to be dead anyways.
Ethically no. Based on limited resource availability yes.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
We have a word for trying to make your entire society revolve around ethics at the expense of efficiency and function. It's called communism.
Until we reach a state of society where we have infinite resources and luxury gay space communism has finally been achieved, the world revolves around not ethics but the rationing out of scarce resources as efficiently as possible. Be it this girl or the unrepentant alcoholic, medical authorities have looked at their cases and decided they're not going to put them into consideration until they've made very basic lifestyle changes that maximize their life expectancy.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
k. Have a good day.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
I have plenty in my basement
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context