Legal disclaimer

The opinions expressed by the authors on this blog and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of the Freedom2Choose organisation or any member thereof. Freedom2Choose is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information supplied by the blog Authors.

Monday, 12 October 2009

Are transplant doctors blind?

What sort of blithering idiot are we paying to perform transplant operations in our country?

An Iraq war veteran died after a hospital transplant gave him a pair of cancerous lungs donated by a smoker.

Matthew Millington, 31, a corporal in the Queen's Royal Lancers, had the operation to save him from an incurable lung condition.

But the donated organs - from someone who smoked 30 to 50 roll-up cigarettes a day - gave him cancer.

Ths surgeon who performed the operation should be sacked with immediate effect! After all, EVERYONE knows that cancerous smoker lungs are pitted, dry and black. This is what they look like.


How on earth was this not spotted prior to the operation?

Or could it be that the picture you see on fag packets is a weapons grade lie?

I think we now know the definitive answer, don't we?

15 comments:

The witch from Essex said...

Perhaps the surgeon was colour blind and the smokers lungs were jet black, but looked nice and pink and healthy to the poor surgeon ?
Or could it really be that a smokers lung looks exactly the same as a non smoker to the trained eye ??? Surely not !! The Government wouldn't lie to us about smokers having rotten lungs would they ??

Anonymous said...

Other than our MPs and our 'health workers', I think almost everyone knows that all these graphic pictures are a weapons grade lie.

Looks to me like this has exposed yet another huge porky in the anti-smoking propaganda.

How many more are needed before those at the top realise just how much they've fallen hook, line and sinker for one of the largest cons ever played.

Or do they realise it and have to continue with the lie themselves, so as not to appear stupid?

My mind boggles over the ridiculous claims made by the anti-smoking bodies (many without evidence) and the fact that our MPs and health bodies take what they say at face-value.

Marie

Anonymous said...

The end justifies the means.

I haven't trusted a word from public health in a long time, their credibility was blown years ago.

Bearwitch said...

I think we always knew this was propaganda but am pleased to see it outed.

I know this is a serious subject and have a lot of sympathy for the young chap who died. Unfortunately in the comments section I found something that literally had tears streaming I was laughing that hard.

Someone suggested that the person who donated the lungs should be prosecuted as they knew that they were a heavy smoker. Part of a reply to this was 'I'm gonna take a plunge here and guess he's dead'

Sorry, this was misplaced humour on my part but it really made me laugh. I hope the OP was suitably embarrassed.....

Mark Wadsworth said...

DP, you are a naughty, naughty man. I couldn't help smiling at this, despite it is a terribly sad story.

Maybe I should get a tattoo on my chest "Don't take my lungs, you f***s, I smoked like a chimney", just to prevent a repeat of this?

Anonymous said...

I thought the comment from his father was important:
"51% of all lungs transplated at Papworth come from donors who smoked. There is no statistical difference between smoking or non-smoking donors. If lungs pass tests based on of x-rays and oxygen transfer then they are deemed suitable for transplant. The lungs Matthew was given passed all the tests Papworth did, or would do today.This is the first recorded case of a tumour to come from a donor, and would have been so small that it was undetectable by any means. It was the immuno-suppressant drugs that allowed this to grow. In August, when the tumour was 'missed', it was rated at T1 N2, and even at that point was inoperable and incurable. In his summing up the coroner said that no actions or omissions by the hospital were linked to Matthew's death, and in his 'narrative' verdict the hospital was not mentioned or implicated in any way. Papworth has an excellent reputation and is one of the friendlest places I know. I have only praise for Papworth for everything they did for my son.
- Lester Millington (Matthew's Father),
"


My sincere condolences to his father, family and friends

Anonymous said...

I said the same earlier to my hubby, about the pictures Dick, but not as eloquently as you.
Great article/blog.
It is very sad what happened, but the smoker who donated the lung, did NOT die of lung cancer.
The Media could not help itself to add to the propaganda though.
I assume the donor was a non-smoker, with serious lung problems. So how many smokers would be given the opportunity of a lung transplant, and then it does not mean it,s a good lung even from a non-smoker, does it. If you catch my drift.
mandyv

Barking Spider said...

These fucking pictures have always annoyed the shit out of me - but to find that these very lungs must have spent hours upon hours in make-up to help them use their acting skills and allow them to get into character for the photo shoot - well that is just incredible!

What a bunch of cunts we are now being taken for and portrayed as!

Anonymous said...

It is my understanding that cadavear lungs are removed from dead pigs and charcoal roasted in a smoker in order to obtain the dark crispy effects before being dragged around to school children and claimed to be those of a smoker.

Furthermore, if NHS makes claim that a smokers lungs look as they require portrayal on cig packs yet transplanted such then NHS should be subject to a massive private lawsuit for billions of dollars in wrongful death; or if no private civil suit be sought and the excuses believed, then a major government investigation be launched.

After all, it makes no sense, the required photos and claims on the one hand versus the stupidity of NHS who would have authorized such a transplant on the other hand which should have been plainly visible - even a school child these days would "know the difference", having been exposed to the required propaganda displays of burnt pig lungs from early on.

Of course politicians won't investigate such a claim because really they're in on the take all along, always have been since day one, starting decades earlier.

Steve Ferkau said...

My sincerest condolences are with the Millington family. Those of us more closely connected to the organ donation / transplant world realize that these are risks we take when we agree to transplant. Beyond all of the testing for various viruses and infections, and visual inspection for cancers and other issues – we take a calculated risk that something will be wrong.

In the U.K. and the U.S., lungs and other organs are accepted from smokers. Far more often than not, the lungs are OK and too often, the choice is accept the lungs offered or die. It has been noted that 51% of organs in the U.K. come from smokers and statistics are likely similar in the U.S. As for how the lungs look – you cannot easily spot cancer in its earliest stages… And putting an organ with an infinitesimal amount of cancer into a patient and then suppressing their immune system is like pouring gasoline around a glowing ember…

And – check with your local lung transplant surgeon – lungs taken from a non-smoking city-dweller exposed to a good amount of pollution, though relatively healthy, can look like the lungs of a regular smoker – and lungs from a smoker or non-smoker can often perform their functions very similarly… As for the pictures – as implied in other comments – that may be the lungs of a very long term, very effected smoker, but they are a silly example in this case. A surgeon would not and could not work with lungs of that nature…

With the current organ shortage – even if the lungs were questionable or borderline acceptable, too often they cannot afford to pass them over. Roughly 80% of the population believe that organ donation is a good and generous thing to do, yet only 30% register. The irony here is how much of the population are up-in-arms over the fact that this soldier was given marginal lungs, yet they readily shot down the presumed consent / opt-out option for organ donation that was recently proposed and defeated… It seems rather two-faced.

MarieC said...

As you say Dick we always knew these Health & Safety ads and fag packet pics were 'doctored'. Will this tragic story make them stop and think. Not a chance. They'll continue to tell their lies and cook the statistics and the general public will go on believing them.

B7 said...

Just a reminder that the department of health do not know that the ailments shown on cigarette packets are caused by smoking, they admitted this in a freedom of information enquiry.

Anti smoking bigots should be made aware that organs from smokers may well save their lifes.

I bet employees from ASH, Smokefree the government etc would not object to smokers organs if they saved their lives.

Anonymous said...

A good way to get the government & publics full attention is for all smokers to withdraw from organ donation by sending their donor cards back with an explanation of why.

It could say:

As the majority of the country, the medical profession included, believe smokers are disease ridden sub-humans, from top to bottom, we thought we'd do the decent thing and withdraw our organs before ASH & Liam Donaldson call for them to be banned.

Jeff Wood said...

So.

51% of donated organs come from smokers.

Last I heard, about 30% of the population are smokers.

Reasonable to conclude that smokers are disproportionately altruistic? Or do we have more fatal accidents?

hungeryjack said...

Nice post - pictures of lungs ..Keep Posting


Ron
pictures of lungs

opinions powered by SendLove.to

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Pages on this blog