Doctors Versus Disabled Patients

[Yla]

Yay neurotypical/cisgender privilege then.  Everything is right with the world. </sarcasm>

Yay for ignoring the reasons Sylvana cited and behaving like it's all about cissexism.

[Witchyjoshy]

Yay neurotypical/cisgender privilege then.  Everything is right with the world. </sarcasm>

Yay for ignoring the reasons Sylvana cited and behaving like it's all about cissexism.

Her reasons were effectively "neurotypical cisgendered people get more out of life than neuro-atypical and transgendered people do, so the doctors deciding to completely exclude the latter in favor of the former are doing the right thing".

I don't think I'm the one ignoring reasons here.

[Shane for Wax]

Also if the 'extra hormone use' is a perfectly legitimate reason to deny an organ transplant then I guess those on birth control should also be excluded. As well as those who have to have hormones for whatever other reason that is legitimate medical need. Even if we ignore the fact not every transperson wants or is on hormones.

[Sylvana]

Her reasons were effectively "neurotypical cisgendered people get more out of life than neuro-atypical and transgendered people do, so the doctors deciding to completely exclude the latter in favor of the former are doing the right thing".

Very well, lets turn this around then.
Let us say you get your way. Everyone is allowed to be eligible to receive organ donations, and that it somehow does not create a massive administrative overhead.

You have one organ and two people who need it.
One had no significant medical history, the other is diagnosed with bipolar disorder, but it is in remission and being treated. Both patients have the same gender and are the same blood type, tissue type, race, economic standing etc.

Who gets the organ, and why?

[Witchyjoshy]

I don't know who should get it.  That's not for me to say.

What is for me to say is that both should be considered.  Anything else is blatant discrimination against neuro-atypicals.

In short, the scenario you presented should be happening.  That's all I've argued and all I will argue.

[Shane for Wax]

It's a whole quality of life issue. Instant disqualifications on the basis of discrimination, rather than clear problems such as drug abuse, should not be happening.

[m52nickerson]

I don't know who should get it.  That's not for me to say.

What is for me to say is that both should be considered.  Anything else is blatant discrimination against neuro-atypicals.

In short, the scenario you presented should be happening.  That's all I've argued and all I will argue.

If both are considered but the one free from the neurological issues always loses what than is the point? 

[Witchyjoshy]

I don't know who should get it.  That's not for me to say.

What is for me to say is that both should be considered.  Anything else is blatant discrimination against neuro-atypicals.

In short, the scenario you presented should be happening.  That's all I've argued and all I will argue.

If both are considered but the one free from the neurological issues always loses what than is the point? 

Did I say that the one free from neurological issues should always lose?

*re-reads post* Nope.

In fact, I explicitly said I don't know who should "lose".  Just that both should be allowed to "compete", instead of one always being excluded.

Shoving words down people's throats is a most dishonest tactic.

[m52nickerson]

I don't know who should get it.  That's not for me to say.

What is for me to say is that both should be considered.  Anything else is blatant discrimination against neuro-atypicals.

In short, the scenario you presented should be happening.  That's all I've argued and all I will argue.

If both are considered but the one free from the neurological issues always loses what than is the point? 

Did I say that the one free from neurological issues should always lose?

*re-reads post* Nope.

In fact, I explicitly said I don't know who should "lose".  Just that both should be allowed to "compete", instead of one always being excluded.

Shoving words down people's throats is a most dishonest tactic.

Calm down, I didn't mean to make it seem as if you said the one with neurological issues would lose.  However given everything else being equal I would expect them to.  You are not making the call but the doctors who are are not going to throw dice or flip coins.  Neurological issues are going to be seen as a negative and in the hypothetical we are talking about that is going to be the deciding factor.

[Witchyjoshy]

Calm down, I didn't mean to make it seem as if you said the one with neurological issues would lose.

Uh... you said the one free from neurological issues.  Not the one with neurological issues.  That changes a few things.

That being said, if they always lose, that is still pretty much discrimination.  But it's less discriminating than simply being excluded from the list at all, because in the event that TWO organs are available and two people need it, then both will get it.  Whereas before, the organ just gets put in storage and the person with the mental illness wouldn't be able to get it at all due to not being on the list.  An important thing, which I don't think Sylvana took into account.

[Sigmaleph]

I don't know who should get it.  That's not for me to say.

What is for me to say is that both should be considered.  Anything else is blatant discrimination against neuro-atypicals.

In short, the scenario you presented should be happening.  That's all I've argued and all I will argue.

If both are considered but the one free from the neurological issues always loses what than is the point? 

The point is that, in the general case, it won't be "two people identical in every relevant aspect except for neurological issues". It would be one factor among many.

[Shane for Wax]

I have said it once I've said it a billion times:

I am not asking for the neuroatypical to automatically win. I'm asking for them to not automatically lose. A single doctor should not play gatekeeper for getting onto the organ registry. That is what I have the problem with.

Here's a scenario:

You are diagnosed with liver failure at the same time as being diagnosed as having Asperger's (unlikely but for the sake of argument). Suddenly, your doctor no longer is saying 'we'll get you on the registry don't you worry!'. Instead, he suddenly turns around and says 'I'm sorry, but you are not eligible'. And then it turns out that he is actually highly ableist against neuroatypicals. What happens then? Should you just accept that your life is now worth less because you have Asperger's? Or, should you instead fight to have the same rights as someone without Asperger's? Should you instead demand his opinion, his singular opinion, shouldn't keep you off the registry?

[Sylvana]

That being said, if they always lose, that is still pretty much discrimination.  But it's less discriminating than simply being excluded from the list at all, because in the event that TWO organs are available and two people need it, then both will get it.  Whereas before, the organ just gets put in storage and the person with the mental illness wouldn't be able to get it at all due to not being on the list.  An important thing, which I don't think Sylvana took into account.

I agree, in a world where spare organs are plentiful, preventing someone with mental disorders from being eligible is discrimination. However in the real world there are always far more people needing organs than there are organs available.
A more accurate example of how reality is would be: You have a single replacement organ and 10 people who need the organ. They are all equal in every way except that 1 has a neurological disorder. Who gets the organ?

The basic rule at play here is triage.
The person with the highest chance of survival is given the limited medical resources needed. Unfortunately in the grand scheme of things, having a mental disorder places you lower on the triage list. People with neurological disorders will be placed behind those people who are effectively healthier, behind all the healthy people who will also never get the organs. Until replacement organs are available in sufficient quantities to finally treat all the healthy people on the lists, there will be automatic exclusions.

In a perfect world automatic exclusions wouldn't exist and there wouldn't be discrimination, but one must remember that the medical world is not politically correct nor can it afford to be.

[Witchyjoshy]

Pardon, are you saying that people with Asperger's and Bipolar Disorder have a lower chance of survival?

'Cause I don't think they do.

You can harp on about "political correctness" all you want, but it's about anti-discrimination.  Would you support it if a black person was put behind white people because "black people are more likely to be murdered"?

[Shane for Wax]

I'm really not sure how a neurological disorder is going to affect one's survival rate unless they are on suicide watch.

And as mentioned, we're already on the way to having enough organs for everyone. But the mindset that those who have a mental disorder are less worthy needs to start going away now.