Daniela Mignogna (National Secretariat of the PSI - Policies Socio Sanitarie)
Le linee guida della regione Veneto giudicano il ritardo mentale una specie di controindicazione al trapianto, escludendo quindi i pazienti con disabilità intellettiva da questa procedura salvavita. Luca Coletto, assessore regionale alla sanità ha dichiarato che la delibera si rifà alle indicazioni internazionali, le quali pongono i disabili mentali con quoziente intellettivo sotto i 70 come soggetti in cui il trapianto di un organo avrebbe maggiori possibilità di fallimento e ciò andrebbe ad incidere anche sulla scarsità di organi disponibili; pare di capire insomma che sarebbe come wasting an organ.
There would, however, is another question. Given the physical condition of the patient, the subject should also be better to meet danger of death, because we must be sure that the person once passed the intervention is able to support and maintain adherence to highly invasive therapies, then, these guidelines would also be a kind of cautionary maneuver to those who have mental retardation.
I was very surprised that a public endorsement of a policy that did not in my view is reflected neither legal nor ethical nor serious clinical namely to exclude a priori patients with delayed from mental trapiantabilità.
is repeated at the National Transplant Center: up to date at the national level there is not this discrimination even though the Veneto open to this possibility.
In fact at the national level almost all the centers so far have always valued the patient's case, without regard to the Intelligence Quotient (IQ) as a discriminatory fashion, but always considering the individual patient. This to me seems to be the most accurate assessment to be done.
It 'clear that the guidelines published by the Veneto likely to have implemented clinical guidelines, medical, psychological, and then developed by experts. The problem is even before the political one - I say - a medical problem. Clearly for the case of the Veneto region, we now expect a correction and we hope everyone.
There would, however, is another question. Given the physical condition of the patient, the subject should also be better to meet danger of death, because we must be sure that the person once passed the intervention is able to support and maintain adherence to highly invasive therapies, then, these guidelines would also be a kind of cautionary maneuver to those who have mental retardation.
I was very surprised that a public endorsement of a policy that did not in my view is reflected neither legal nor ethical nor serious clinical namely to exclude a priori patients with delayed from mental trapiantabilità.
is repeated at the National Transplant Center: up to date at the national level there is not this discrimination even though the Veneto open to this possibility.
In fact at the national level almost all the centers so far have always valued the patient's case, without regard to the Intelligence Quotient (IQ) as a discriminatory fashion, but always considering the individual patient. This to me seems to be the most accurate assessment to be done.
It 'clear that the guidelines published by the Veneto likely to have implemented clinical guidelines, medical, psychological, and then developed by experts. The problem is even before the political one - I say - a medical problem. Clearly for the case of the Veneto region, we now expect a correction and we hope everyone.
There are some articles and some bioethicists who claim that it is unnecessary to transplant them, because then in terms of quality of life took advantage of the transplant. But again I say: who evaluates their quality of life? Is questioned even human dignity. - We are at the usual problem of the concept person who is and who is not . Basically this is the basis of much controversy in its bioetica.Se you want to be brutal, as if you were saying "do not waste spare parts for people they do not worth it "back to the children of a lesser God?
0 comments:
Post a Comment