It isn't completely a private transaction unless the family is paying all hospital charges and professional fees out of pocket. Hospitals and insurance companies have rules to reduce waste of resources. So if they think there is an increased risk of failure due to the lack of vaccination, that is their choice (assuming the insurance coverage is written to give the company that latitude).
As much as I can't stand covid lunacy and stupidity, this is one of those exceptions where I have to side with restrictions. The science is pretty clear that contracting covid from an organ transplant increases one's risk of death from 15-30% so the restriction in this case makes sense.
However if the kid dies from being unable to find a kidney, then the doctors would have blood on their hands.
I don't get it. Can you explain to me why anyone would get Covid from an organ transplant?
Wouldn't the dad get tested for Covid right before giving the organ? Are the tests not accurate? If they aren't, couldn't you require him to do two weeks in isolation before the transplant? Have the dad check into the hospital for two weeks, never leave, and then give up the organ so you know he doesn't have it.
I 100% understand the logic as to why hospitals are requiring the recipients to be vaxxed. Organs are very rare. You don't want to waste them. But in this case, I don't agree at all.
1. It's basically a private transaction between a father and son.
2. If you don't take the dad's organ, the kid is going to have to get it somewhere so you will have one less life saving organ out there.
In their account of passive euthanasia, Garrard and Wilkinson present arguments that might lead one to overlook significant moral differences between killing and letting die. To kill is not the same as to let die. Similarly,...
The crazy part of this is that there is such an easy and simple solution for the family, but the dad is choosing against helping his son, right?
I mean, if you are thinking logically and you have all of the information that we all have, what choice would a logical person make:
1. Take the (extreme, lol, not) risk of getting vaccinated where something (absolutely nothing) negative might happen to you?
2. Let your son suffer kidney disease?
Out of hundreds of millions of vaccinations, how many instances of a negative side effect have there been? What is the likelihood of surviving kidney disease without a transplant? I guess everyone has their own right to interpret statistics any way they choose, but according to math and science there is a right way and a wrong way.
Man trusts doctors to transplant a kidney into his child but does not trust doctors when they recommend vaccines.
This "father" did not trust doctors in 2018. He declined giving his son a kidney back then. This father is using the vaccine excuse to shame someone into giving away a kidney to his son. That way the father doesn't have to give away one of his to save his son's life.
The father can travel to a country that will allow the transplant. Trouble is, dad doesn't want to give away one of his kidneys. So, traveling is out of the question.
I’m triple jabbed and generally support legitimate anti-covid measures but the amount of ridiculous/virtue-signaling policies (have to enter a crowded bar with a mask on then can immediately take it off) and situations like this where there is a very easy work-around are ludicrous.