No COVID vaccine, no organ transplant, Colorado hospital says

DENVER (KDVR) — A Colorado woman on a kidney transplant list was moved to inactive status by UCHealth for not receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. Her living donor is also unvaccinated and the hospital said both need to be vaccinated for the transplant process to continue.

Leilani Lutali, of Colorado Springs, received a letter from the University of Colorado hospital informing her that her change in status on the waiting list was due to “non-compliance by not receiving the COVID vaccine.”

“In almost all situations, transplant recipients and living donors at UCHealth are now required to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in addition to meeting other health requirements and receiving additional vaccinations,” according to the hospital. “Some U.S. transplant centers already have this requirement in place, and others are making this change in policy now.”

Lutaliz, who said her life is “in jeopardy” if she’s not allowed to get the transplant, said she has religious concerns as well as concerns that the vaccine would not be effective after receiving immunosuppressant drugs post-surgery.

“Both from a religious standpoint and from doing some reading, I’m not certain that this is the right way to go,” she said. “The shot’s relatively new, and as a consumer, I’m not an early adopter. I wait and see what’s going on. I feel like I’m being coerced into not being able to wait and see and that I have to take the shot if I want this life-saving transplant.”

Read the full story here...

No COVID vaccine, no organ transplant, Colorado hospital says | WDTN.com

I voted no. That's my opinion about it.

F this world and a lot of people in it.

From WebMD:

UCHealth cited studies that show unvaccinated transplant patients are more likely to die if they contract the, according to The Washington Post.

Click to expand...

Organ transplant recipients and donors are typically required to meet certain health measures to ensure that organs won’t be rejected after surgery, the newspaper reported. For instance, transplant centers often require people to get vaccinations, take crucial medications, stop smoking, and avoid alcohol.

Click to expand...

Colorado Health System Denies Transplants to Unvaccinated Patients

If this requirement were only for COVID vaccines due to the increased risk of death for unvaccinated transplant patients and not due to any other medical reasons, I would be against it, since many things increase a person's risk of death and I generally don't believe only one risky thing should be singled out for a mandate like this that could deny a person access to a life-saving procedure.

However, it seems that the requirements already in place specify a number of things an organ transplant patient has to avoid in order to qualify for the transplant. If that's the case, I don't see the issue with adding COVID vaccines to the list. From the above article, it appears that such requirements for having an organ transplant are neither new nor exclusive to COVID vaccines.

I definitely don't agree with effectively using a patient's unvaccinated status as a justification for denying them health care or treating their life as secondary in importance, but I doubt this is what's happening in this case due to the similar requirements listed in the above article. It seems that there are medical reasons for this and that it's not intended as some punitive mandate against the unvaccinated.

I didn't vote in the poll, by the way, since I don't think my agreement or lack thereof should matter. In my opinion, the decision should be based only on 1) the principle that health care is a basic right, and 2) the medical facts concerning the effect of being unvaccinated on the success of an organ transplant or its probability of actually helping an unvaccinated patient, and I don't know enough about the latter to have an informed opinion one way or the other here.

So a life in jeopardy without a transplant is less life threatening than not getting a transplant for fear of covid. Such nonsense.

We Never Know said:

DENVER (KDVR) — A Colorado woman on a kidney transplant list was moved to inactive status by UCHealth for not receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. Her living donor is also unvaccinated and the hospital said both need to be vaccinated for the transplant process to continue.

Leilani Lutali, of Colorado Springs, received a letter from the University of Colorado hospital informing her that her change in status on the waiting list was due to “non-compliance by not receiving the COVID vaccine.”

“In almost all situations, transplant recipients and living donors at UCHealth are now required to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in addition to meeting other health requirements and receiving additional vaccinations,” according to the hospital. “Some U.S. transplant centers already have this requirement in place, and others are making this change in policy now.”

Lutaliz, who said her life is “in jeopardy” if she’s not allowed to get the transplant, said she has religious concerns as well as concerns that the vaccine would not be effective after receiving immunosuppressant drugs post-surgery.

“Both from a religious standpoint and from doing some reading, I’m not certain that this is the right way to go,” she said. “The shot’s relatively new, and as a consumer, I’m not an early adopter. I wait and see what’s going on. I feel like I’m being coerced into not being able to wait and see and that I have to take the shot if I want this life-saving transplant.”

Read the full story here...

No COVID vaccine, no organ transplant, Colorado hospital says | WDTN.com

Click to expand...

No. Unless not having the vaccine interferes with her treatment (i.e. foods and some meds are avoided before general anesthesia), I don't see a problem. If she tests negative (if her risk isnt that high to warrant that concern), I see no problem with getting the kidney transplant. If the transplant heightened the risk of COVID infection that may be a concern but not insofar to risk her in a definite "possibility" of dying as opposed to a unknown possibility of catching COVID but higher risk of survival depending on the health of the patient.

Edit
Can the hospital be sued if the patient died without the hospital proving she a. has COVID with a positive test results and/or b. not having the vaccine directly interferes with her treatment?

Does the treatment open her up to a higher risk of infection and why can't she be isolated from other patients to monitor if symptoms of COVID pop up if that happens?

Without the transplant I'm sure the patient's risk of dying is way over 20% of the possibility of catching COVID; and, unless patients can spread something they don't have, I disagree and find that policy unnecessary.

Also, another possible lawsuit is if someone cannot take the vaccine because of medical reasons but the hospital still gives that patient a transplant then the policy would have nothing to do with the patient's health and treatment.

Alienistic said:

F this world and a lot of people in it.

Click to expand...

And it's probably going to get worse

Alienistic said:

So a life in jeopardy without a transplant is less life threatening than not getting a transplant for fear of covid. Such nonsense.

Click to expand...

Organs are of limited supply. They've long been rationed
based upon the patient's probability of successful outcome.
It makes sense to give them to those most likely to benefit.
Moreover, if someone refuses vaccinations, are they less
likely to be diligent in taking the many medications necessary
to prevent rejection?

Hospital system says it will deny transplants to the unvaccinated in ‘almost all situations’
Excerpted....
Multiples studies show that covid-19 is especially deadly for recipients of kidney transplants. Weaver said the mortality rate observed for transplant patients who develop covid-19 ranges from about 20 percent to more than 30 percent — far higher than the 1.6 percent fatality rate observed generally in the United States.
:
An FAQ about vaccination and transplants explains that vaccination requirements prior to transplants are not new: “UW Medicine has long required patients awaiting a solid organ transplant to be current on all critical vaccinations prior to their procedure," it says.

Revoltingest said:

Organs are of limited supply. They've long been rationed
based upon the patient's probability of successful outcome.
It makes sense to give them to those most likely to benefit.
Moreover, if someone refuses vaccinations, are they less
likely to be diligent in taking the many medications necessary
to prevent rejection?

Hospital system says it will deny transplants to the unvaccinated in ‘almost all situations’
Excerpted....
Multiples studies show that covid-19 is especially deadly for recipients of kidney transplants. Weaver said the mortality rate observed for transplant patients who develop covid-19 ranges from about 20 percent to more than 30 percent — far higher than the 1.6 percent fatality rate observed generally in the United States.
:
An FAQ about vaccination and transplants explains that vaccination requirements prior to transplants are not new: “UW Medicine has long required patients awaiting a solid organ transplant to be current on all critical vaccinations prior to their procedure," it says.

Click to expand...

These transplant recipients are willing to take other vaccines,
anti-biotics, other drugs, an organ from someone else, & a
lifetime of immuno-suppressive drugs to prevent rejection.
Why refuse this one vaccine?
Why expect the privilege of the donated organ if
they're willingly reducing their chances of survival?
Why deny letting someone else have the organ...
....someone who is a better risk?

Alienistic said:

So a life in jeopardy without a transplant is less life threatening than not getting a transplant for fear of covid. Such nonsense.

Click to expand...

I think @Revoltingest's post (#9) addresses this pretty well.

If the reasons for prioritizing those who meet certain requirements for organ transplants is to maximize the probability of success or saving a life, then it makes perfect sense. There isn't an unlimited supply of organs for such procedures, so making sure they're used in the way most likely to save a life is much better than ignoring probabilities and ditching any requirements for the operations.

Then again, we could probably apply similar logic to triaging patients in ICUs based on vaccination status, which I'm against because I consider health care a basic human right. So I don't have a definitive stance on this specific case one way or another.

Revoltingest said:

These transplant recipients are willing to take other vaccines,
anti-biotics, other drugs, an organ from someone else, & a
lifetime of immuno-suppressive drugs to prevent rejection.
Why refuse this one vaccine?
Why expect the privilege of the donated organ if
they're willingly reducing their chances of survival?
Why deny letting someone else have the organ...
....someone who is a better risk?

Click to expand...

If not having the vaccine in itself doesn't interfere with treatment then it shouldn't be required. For example, when you get general anesthesia you can't take antibotic meds, no food, and only water. They have evidence that these things "do" interfere with treatment because it can cause infections if one doesn't comply.

If the person's health is at stake if he or she doesn't take the vaccine (and any vaccine) then yes, it would be required. However, when patients are have contagious diseases in the hospital they are isolated from the public. So if not vaccinating does nothing to interfere with the patient's health, then isolate the patient so they won't be in possible harm to other people. It would help if they get a COVID test and go off that. Maybe have it a couple of weeks straight to see a pattern and go off the results.

There are so many more ways to do this. It doesn't sound like caring about people's health but putting policy over health (and influence from the government to require that policy) in order for businesses and hospitals to justify why some people need treatment in the latter and others don't deserve it.

Debater Slayer said:

Then again, we could probably apply similar logic to triaging patients in ICUs based on vaccination status, which I'm against because I consider health care a basic human right.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, anti-vaxers have been clogging some
ICUs, which means that hospitals must decide who
gets in & who doesn't.

Unveiled Artist said:

If not having the vaccine in itself doesn't interfere with treatment then it shouldn't be required.

Click to expand...

This misses the point that refusing vaccination significantly
lowers the odds of transplant success. Id est, it doesn't
interfere with treatment....it interferes with patient survival.

...when patients are have contagious diseases in the hospital they are isolated from the public.

Click to expand...

But they leave the hospital later, & are exposed to the
SARS CoV-2 virus. Moreover, there are some anti-vaxers
working in some hospitals. They pose a risk to transplant
patients in the hospital.

So if not vaccinating does nothing to interfere with the patient's health...

Click to expand...

Yes it does. Their odds of dying increase
greatly if they contract Covid 19. Vaccination
improves those odds.

It doesn't sound like caring about people's health but putting policy over health....

Click to expand...

It sounds like the anti-vaxers are the ones who
care little about their own & the health of others.
Hospitals are stuck coping with their risky behavior.
Denying them transplanted organs, & giving them
to people with a better chance of survival means
greater overall health.

Revoltingest said:

This misses the point that refusing vaccination significantly
lowers the odds of transplant success. Id est, it doesn't
interfere with treatment....it interferes with patient survival.

Click to expand...

How does it lower the odds?

Before vaccination came about, people had transplants and many successfully.
What changed in those regards?

The COVID vaccine is ideally given to protect others. If the patient is isolated (as usually is the case anyway), and that patient doesn't have COVID, he or she doesn't need the vaccine.

Revoltingest said:

But they leave the hospital later, & are exposed to the SARS CoV-2 virus. Moreover, there are some anti-vaxers working in some hospitals. They pose a risk to transplant patients in the hospital.

Click to expand...

We just don't know that. It's all an assumption. For all we know the patient can go home to their family and get better by doctor's advice or requirement. We don't know whose unvaccinated in the hospitals (not all chosen unvaccinated are antivaxxers). I would hope all medical professionals get tested for COVID. Now that it is a requirement and most people got the vaccine, it would be rare to be with a doctor who isn't vaccinated and even more rare that they catch COVID unless they are doing things that heighten their risk say take care of COVID patients.

Revoltingest said:

Yes it does. Their odds of dying increase greatly if they contract Covid 19. Vaccination improves those odds.

Click to expand...

In a hospital the odds are higher but in general, we don't know the odds relative to the vaccinated.

Revoltingest said:

It sounds like the anti-vaxers are the ones who
care little about their own & the health of others. Hospitals are stuck coping with their risky behavior.
Denying them transplanted organs, & giving them to people with a better chance of survival means
greater overall health.

Click to expand...

You're mixing antivaxxers with the unvaccinated. I don't see the relationship unless the unvaccinated are against vaccines.

Someone dying because they are denied the transplant is higher than someone catching COVID and dying of that. It just depends on that person's overall health. If they are isolated they have minimal chance of catching COVID and, like patients who didn't receive the vaccine before the pandemic came about, ideally would have success in their treatment.

Separate the antivax for a minute. That's all political arguments

You'd have to:

1. Show that patients before the pandemic had high risk of failure because they did not vaccinate.
Have a precedent first.

2. Show that the unvaccinated by choice put people in danger more than the exempt vaccinated
(No double standard)

3. Show that unvaccinated patients are in danger to others in the hospital
(Despite being isolated as lay people do when they sick they quarantine)

I'm talking more about being unvaccinated in and of itself. Doctors don't chose who they treat based on what the patient chose to do or not do. Vaccination is no different. (Similar to doctors will treat people who develop lung cancer even if they decide Not to wear a nicotine patch)

What would doctors do if someone is vax exempt and needed a transplant?

Does choice determine who is at higher risk of getting COVID at a hospital, isolated from others, and protected by non COVID infected doctors or does it matter if one decides or not? They are just* out of luck.

And how does antivax political arguments play into this?

Unveiled Artist said:

How does it lower the odds?

Click to expand...

By increasing the probability of dying due to Covid 19.

Before vaccination came about, people had transplants and many successfully.
What changed in those regards?

Click to expand...

The SARS CoV-2 virus.

The COVID vaccine is ideally given to protect others. If the patient is isolated (as usually is the case anyway), and that patient doesn't have COVID, he or she doesn't need the vaccine.

Click to expand...

This & the rest already addressed.

Revoltingest said:

By increasing the probability of dying due to Covid 19.

Click to expand...

If the hospital made it to where the patient had less chance of getting COVID as they do with many patients who do have sensitivity to catching viruses, it wouldn't be as much of a problem.

Revoltingest said:

The SARS CoV-2 virus.

Click to expand...

If they isolated the patient they'd have little chance of catching COVID. Since they won't catch COVID, they don't have to worry about their treatment. But it depends (again) on the risk involved.

Revoltingest said:

This & the rest already addressed.

Click to expand...

It wasn't addressed in this context.

Many patients are isolated so their risk of catching diseases are low-COVID included.

The transplant treatment wouldn't be a problem if they lessen the chances of catching COVID (and any other virus that-if this is the case-interfere with treatment).

There's always a chance of catching any virus, so doctors already have procedures to prevent as such. The same with the transplant situation.

No one should be denied transplant because they are at A risk of catching COVID. If that be the case, the same should apply to the exempt and to vaccinated people because they are all at A risk.

That and all medical professionals ideally should be vaccinated. If the patient was isolated, what is their risk of catching COVID (and other viruses) assuming their immune system isnt compromised?

Unveiled Artist said:

If the hospital made it to where the patient had less chance of getting COVID as they do with many patients who do have sensitivity to catching viruses, it wouldn't be as much of a problem.

Click to expand...

Perhaps they know more about managing people
in their care than us rando internet gadflies, eh.

There's always a chance of catching any virus, so doctors already have procedures to prevent as such. The same with the transplant situation.

Click to expand...

They believe that it's worthwhile to minimize the chances
of catching a virus. You shouldn't advocate treating
treating all risks as equal probability.

No one should be denied transplant because they are at A risk of catching COVID. If that be the case, the same should apply to the exempt and to vaccinated people because they are all at A risk.

Click to expand...

Transplant organs are of limited supply.
So many people will be denied replacements.
The system allocates them based upon likelihood of
successful outcome.
Some people have factors making them less likely to
survive, eg, anti-vaxers, alcoholics, elderly.

Revoltingest said:

Perhaps they know more about managing people
in their care than us rando internet gadflies, eh.

Click to expand...

Of course. Both sides alike. Though I'd say it's not about health reasons,maybe liability and government push if the same criteria doesn't apply to the exempt.

If they can figure how someone exempt can get a transplant than someone unvaccinated regardless the cause would be no different.

It's not an antivax issue. That's the problem. Healthcare, businesses, media, and government are making it a antivax issue when it's not. It's an unvaccinated issue. COVID doesn't care about decisions.

Revoltingest said:

They believe that it's worthwhile to minimize the chances
of catching a virus. You shouldn't advocate treating
treating all risks as equal probability.

Click to expand...

The risk of catching COVOD goes up if people treating them has COVID, they are in a populated environment, they are immune compromised, etc. If patients in the hospital doesn't meet these things it's really a policy issue not a health one. Liability probably. What if that 1% person got COVID and interfere with the transplant treatment and died, that would be a problem the hospital doesn't want to risk.

I (edit) see it as a health issue. They're making it an antivax issue. I bet the hospitals wouldn't push it if the government didn't treat unvaccinated nonexempt as having the plague.

Revoltingest said:

Transplant organs are of limited supply.
So many people will be denied replacements.
The system allocates them based upon likelihood of
successful outcome.
Some people have factors making them less likely to
survive, eg, anti-vaxers, alcoholics, elderly.

Click to expand...

Antivaxers don't add into this because not having the vaccine in itself doesn't interfere with the risk of treatment.

Now, if the doctor told the unvaccinated to quarantine (like they did with lockdowns) for 14 days before treatment that's an option. Anyone who doesn't go by this can't get the transplant.

It's not an antivax issue. It's strictly medical related.

Choice doesn't figure into this nor does politics.