Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Medical Bad news, good news, bad news

  1. Oct 12, 2009 #1

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Bad news: a young man gets a terrible lung disease.

    Good news: he gets a lung transplant.

    Bad news: the lungs he gets belonged to a heavy smoker and he dies a year later, of lung cancer.

    The critical question here, which I can't find in the article: did the patient know the donor was a heavy smoker before the transplant, and did he have an informed choice? If his only choice was, a) heavy smoker's lungs, or b) take a chance at dying before we get you a non-smoker's lungs....what a decision to have to make! It seems unethical to force the patient to make that choice.

    But if that choice was made for him...well that seems unethical too, if the decision is - yes we will give you a compromised organ.

    Is it ethical for doctors to use organs from a donor whose lifestyle makes those organs susceptible to a particular disease, if the patient doesn't know?

    This seems a Catch-22. It seems unethical to force the patient to make the decision, and it seems unethical to make it for him.

    How does medicine deal with this?

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/10/12/soldier.lung.cancer.transplant/index.html" [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 12, 2009 #2

    mgb_phys

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Not all smokers get lung cancer - also a smokers lungs doesn't necessarily mean from a 60 year old who had been smoking 40 a day for 40years. Does ever having smoked disqualify a donor? How many a day ?
    Looks like this was a screw up, or the patients history was wrong

    Here on the other side of the atlantic they go to the opposite extreme. They won't take my luscious fit young non-smoker body (well 1 out of 4) because I lived in the UK and so am a walking case of mad cow disease. Even more ironically the UK won't take my blood anymore because everyone visiting the USA has West Nile virus.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2009
  4. Oct 12, 2009 #3

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Why would a heavy smoker's lungs be up for donation in the first place? Surely that would disqualify them?
     
  5. Oct 13, 2009 #4

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'm surprised as well, but I don't know the actual criteria for donation.

    One thing to keep in mind is that an organ transplant patient needs to take life-long immunosuppressant drugs, which gives them a http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...el.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum". I would think that you don't give such patients a lung that has already an increased risk of developing cancer. On the other hand, the increase in the quality of life of the patient and the lack of donors may outweigh the risks of the transplant.

    Here is a review, that I unfortunately don't have access to:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
  6. Oct 13, 2009 #5
    Basically there is a healthy organ shortage, and you are given a choice to take an organ from someone with known conditions, or not take it.
     
  7. Oct 13, 2009 #6

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    It's true. I saw it on House. :biggrin:
     
  8. Oct 13, 2009 #7

    fluidistic

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Can the lung cancer caused by the transplanted "ill lung" spread over the whole organism like a generalized cancer? Like a common lung cancer.
    If so then transplanting cancerous organs seems dangerous and it is a way of transmitting cancer. I've always been told it's impossible to transmit cancer. I'm glad I've learned something here, unless I'm wrong.
     
  9. Oct 13, 2009 #8

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    True, forcing a sick patient make this choice really does have a TV drama aspect to it!

    I think there should be either some mechanism to exclude organs that have a high likelihood of being unhealthy for the recipient, or the recipient should know at least the basic lifestyle of the donor and have the choice to decline.

    But the root cause of this horrible dilemma: there are not enough donors.
     
  10. Oct 13, 2009 #9
    that's confirmation bias :bugeye:


    and that people smoke
     
  11. Oct 14, 2009 #10

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Organs that are transplanted are matched so that there is the least likelihood of rejection by the recipient, on top of that the transplant patients are on immunosuppressant drugs so that their body can't fight the foreign tissue. So yes, the tumor can spread.

    On a more grim note, although very rare mothers can spread their tumors (leukemia or melanoma) to their unborn baby. There is a recent publication in PNAS where a case is described that mother developed leukemia 1 month after giving birth and the baby developed leukemia 10 months later. Both tumor cells contained the same de novo mutation and are thus likely of the same origin, the tumor evaded the immune system of the baby probably through a 6p deletion (a chromosomal region that harbors the HLA immunorecognition genes).

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/09/0904658106.abstract"
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
  12. Oct 14, 2009 #11
    Is it all immunosuppresant drugs or just specific ones? I have an auto-immune disease for which I take Tumor necrosis factor binding proteins. Does this increase my risk of cancer?

    I realize the name "tumor necrosis factor" might be the answer to my question, but still curious.
     
  13. Oct 14, 2009 #12

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That's a good question, but I'm afraid I can't give a clear answer. TNFa is implicated both in tumorigenesis and anti-tumorigenesis, it really depends on the dose. You do want to suppress the inflammation associated with the auto-immune disease, since that in itself can be a factor in tumorigenesis. There are clinical studies being done that study the long-term effect of TNF-inhibitors, the best thing is to talk to your doctor and evaluate your medication and family history and schedule regular check-ups.
     
  14. Oct 15, 2009 #13

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    If the patient died only a year later of lung cancer, it's hard to believe the tumor wasn't already present in the transplanted lung, and I would agree it makes no sense why that organ (or donor) wasn't rejected. The key here isn't that the donor was an occasional smoker, or smoked for a year or two when young and quit, etc., but that the donor was a HEAVY smoker at the time of death.

    When considering transplants, I don't think it's enough to just toss any matching organ into a recipient if the prognosis is going to be pretty lousy with that organ. Rejection is already a high enough risk factor, you wouldn't want to complicate matters further with an organ that has a high likelihood of being diseased or developing a disease in a short time.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Bad news, good news, bad news
  1. Good news for prions? (Replies: 0)

  2. News : Bionic Eye (Replies: 1)

Loading...