No, it’s not. Organs are hard to come by and the courts have long held that organ donation networks can choose recipients based on the highest likelihood of success including vaccination status. She chose to die rather than getting a safe, effective vaccine. It was her right to make that choice but, like every choice we make, that choice had consequences.
It’s definitely sad, but not discriminatory. Organ transplant recipients generally need to take a lot of immunosuppressive medications. Getting fully vaccinated is a bare minimum for improving the likelihood of a successful transplant.
You can also be denied a transplant for bad hygiene, missing appointments, being too old, or any other reason that makes them think you wouldn’t get the most out of the organ. Not following your doctor’s instructions is definitely going to kill your chances - if you refuse to be vaccines, what happens if you decide maybe you don’t need to take your immunosuppressants? Or you decide you could probably drink a bit just this once, no matter what your doctor said. You can destroy a transplanted organ with one bad decision
A new organ isn’t a right or a privilege, it’s triage. There aren’t enough to go around, so medical ethics dictate you first save people who are dying, but are most likely to be savable - refusing a vaccine is a serious risk factor
It was discriminatory, just not bigoted. Medical professionals have to be discriminating in who gets organs, because there aren’t enough for everyone. They rightfully, necessarily discriminate against people who will not significantly benefit from the organs they have, including against antivaxx morons.
There’s all sorts of shots, need meds, treatments you have to keep up with sheet an organ transplant
She made it clear that she wasn’t going to follow those directions, making it a waste to give her an organ transplant.
A bit of a semantics thing but it’s not discrimination because they’re subjecting all organ transplant candidates to the same requirements. Discrimination has a specific meaning in a Canadian legal context.
If you can’t even be bothered to get vaccinated, you can’t be trusted to keep up with your treatments and meds required for an organ transplant. If she’s not gonna trust science and doctors, why should they waste their time and a good donor organ on her?
There’s a very high likelihood she would have died if their gave her the transplant without her being vaccinated. A transplant is already a huge stress on a body and if you’re not vaccinated, you have a high chance to die from something as simple as the flu or a staph infection, due to all the immunosuppressant meds required.
Do I think she really sat down and did the internal cartography we all need in order to grow as people? No. Do I think she was competent enough to understand the concepts of death and 100%? As well as anyone, well enough that I don’t think that it’s reasonable to take the decision making power from her.
I disagree that any decision making power was taken from her.
She was given instructions from a her doctors: get vaccinated if you want a transplant.
She chose to not follow those instructions.
I think her failing was, was that the disinformation she’d internalised some how made her think that the imagined risks of the vaccine were worse than guaranteed death from not getting a transplant.
I suspect she’d had a privileged enough life that the consequences of her making poor decisions like that were minimised: right up until the consequence was significant: death. Even then she failed to make a rational decision.
That is sad and discriminatory.
No, it’s not. Organs are hard to come by and the courts have long held that organ donation networks can choose recipients based on the highest likelihood of success including vaccination status. She chose to die rather than getting a safe, effective vaccine. It was her right to make that choice but, like every choice we make, that choice had consequences.
It’s definitely sad, but not discriminatory. Organ transplant recipients generally need to take a lot of immunosuppressive medications. Getting fully vaccinated is a bare minimum for improving the likelihood of a successful transplant.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
The Supreme Court of Canada doesn’t agree
Pffft… What do they know?
I know, right? They think they’re so smart with their fancy robes and law degrees.
Oh. It absolutely is, lol? 🤡
“I declare it!”
Discretion, not discrimination
You can also be denied a transplant for bad hygiene, missing appointments, being too old, or any other reason that makes them think you wouldn’t get the most out of the organ. Not following your doctor’s instructions is definitely going to kill your chances - if you refuse to be vaccines, what happens if you decide maybe you don’t need to take your immunosuppressants? Or you decide you could probably drink a bit just this once, no matter what your doctor said. You can destroy a transplanted organ with one bad decision
A new organ isn’t a right or a privilege, it’s triage. There aren’t enough to go around, so medical ethics dictate you first save people who are dying, but are most likely to be savable - refusing a vaccine is a serious risk factor
Sad but not even slightly discriminatory. She made the choice and suffered the consequences.
It was discriminatory, just not bigoted. Medical professionals have to be discriminating in who gets organs, because there aren’t enough for everyone. They rightfully, necessarily discriminate against people who will not significantly benefit from the organs they have, including against antivaxx morons.
There’s all sorts of shots, need meds, treatments you have to keep up with sheet an organ transplant She made it clear that she wasn’t going to follow those directions, making it a waste to give her an organ transplant.
A bit of a semantics thing but it’s not discrimination because they’re subjecting all organ transplant candidates to the same requirements. Discrimination has a specific meaning in a Canadian legal context.
You and @Holyginz are just using different meanings of the word from each other.
discriminatory
adjective
Marked by or showing prejudice; biased.
Making distinctions.
Organs go to those who follow doctor’s orders. The unvaccinated are not a protected class.
If you can’t even be bothered to get vaccinated, you can’t be trusted to keep up with your treatments and meds required for an organ transplant. If she’s not gonna trust science and doctors, why should they waste their time and a good donor organ on her?
There’s a very high likelihood she would have died if their gave her the transplant without her being vaccinated. A transplant is already a huge stress on a body and if you’re not vaccinated, you have a high chance to die from something as simple as the flu or a staph infection, due to all the immunosuppressant meds required.
Edit: Staph not staff 🤦♂️
Staph infection?
Yeah, that was what I meant. Thanks for catching that.
No one is entitled to an organ. She understood the consequences of a choice, and she made her choice.
I don’t think she understood any consequences of any choice ever.
Do I think she really sat down and did the internal cartography we all need in order to grow as people? No. Do I think she was competent enough to understand the concepts of death and 100%? As well as anyone, well enough that I don’t think that it’s reasonable to take the decision making power from her.
I disagree that any decision making power was taken from her.
She was given instructions from a her doctors: get vaccinated if you want a transplant.
She chose to not follow those instructions.
I think her failing was, was that the disinformation she’d internalised some how made her think that the imagined risks of the vaccine were worse than guaranteed death from not getting a transplant.
I suspect she’d had a privileged enough life that the consequences of her making poor decisions like that were minimised: right up until the consequence was significant: death. Even then she failed to make a rational decision.
deleted by creator
It only discriminates against people who refuse to take simple basic steps toward self-care.
Stupidity isn’t one on the list under which it’s illegal to discriminate.
personally I think its fucking hilarious and just
edit: aw the poor cookers feeling upset their deaths are laughed at?
Choosing to make stupid decision about your health is not a base for crying discrimination