User Controls
STICK IT, Damn It!
-
2022-01-31 at 5:13 PM UTCNBC News
Taking unvaccinated man off heart transplant list is tragic — but ethical
Opinion by J. Russell Teagarden and Arthur L. Caplan
Taking unvaccinated man off heart transplant list is tragic — but ethical
D.J. Ferguson, a 31-year-old father of two children with a third on the way, was lying near death at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston last week. He was waiting for a heart transplant, and his failing heart put him high on the transplant eligibility list. But then the hospital removed him from the list because he is not vaccinated against Covid-19. As tragic as this is likely to be for Ferguson and his family, we think the hospital made the right decision.
Organs are always in very short supply, forcing hospitals and transplant teams to decide who gets them. Hospitals rightly place considerable importance on which recipients are likely to live longer and better, preventing the waste of a precious resource and building trust that transplantation processes are consistent, reasonable and fair. The likelihood of transplant success is based, in part, on transplant candidates’ susceptibility to infections — an important cause of death after heart transplants. Ferguson’s decision not to get vaccinated against Covid makes him more susceptible to such infections.
Professional transplantation societies, such as the American Society of Transplantation, have recommended that any solid organ transplant candidate be vaccinated against all possible infections, including Covid. Many hospitals doing transplants have adopted these recommendations. The Brigham and Women’s vaccination requirements are a matter of public record, so the requirements should not surprise anyone.
Accordingly, in picking who gets a heart, hospitals have made vaccination one of a variety of considerations. That is not bias against the unvaccinated. It is trying to save the most lives with a scarce organ supply.
Covid vaccination requirements for transplant candidates are not addressing theoretical concerns. Researchers analyzing outcomes of solid organ transplant patients have found that more of them with Covid infections at the time of transplantation died in the hospital, more required mechanical ventilation, and more required time in ICUs than patients not infected.
Another consideration involves donor families. The decision to donate an organ can be excruciating, as most viable organs become available when an otherwise healthy person dies suddenly. The grieving family may have only a matter of hours after it is informed of the death of their loved one to decide whether to donate organs. In many instances, families agree to this because they know they can contribute to extending the lives of others who would perish for lack of organs.
Families who make decisions to donate are owed rationing policies that make the most out of their gifts. A family would in all likelihood feel aggrieved if the organ they agreed to donate went to a candidate with less of a chance to benefit than others, especially when those chances were diminished by a personal decision not to vaccinate.
Transplant centers also have to consider what offering organ transplants to unvaccinated candidates signals about their commitment to thoughtful use of their services and patient safety. Would this willingness make their constituencies wonder what other policies and processes work against the public good and individuals? Disregarding clinical evidence and standards of care concerning vaccination requirements for transplant candidates could make people wonder.
All this is to say that in general terms, giving a lower priority to people seeking solid organ transplantation who are not vaccinated against Covid is justifiable on ethical and clinical grounds. These general terms do not preclude consideration of individual patient circumstances that could yield exceptions to the Covid vaccination requirement. But from what we know about Ferguson’s case, should Brigham and Women’s make an exception for him? Our answer is no.
Had Ferguson’s heart failure arisen unexpectedly from a devastating heart attack, then time would not have allowed Covid vaccination in advance of transplantation. However, he had reasons to have been vaccinated before such an event, which does not make an exemption from the vaccination requirement reasonable. And Ferguson’s predicament probably did not arise overnight; he needs a heart transplant because of a hereditary condition causing heart failure.
Ferguson is young, with a still-expanding family. This scenario matters in the calculation, as well. When everything else is equal, Ferguson’s youth and family situation ought to get priority. But given how many vaccinated people need transplants and the importance of transplantation system integrity, Ferguson’s family situation is not sufficient to prioritize him for a transplant, especially considering he made the choice not to be vaccinated.
Family members report two different reasons for Ferguson’s not getting vaccinated. His father said vaccination was “against his basic principles, he really doesn’t believe in it. ... It’s his body, it’s his choice.” His mother says, “There are some adverse reactions he read about given his condition, and he made his decision.” Neither of these rationales is persuasive. Adverse vaccine reactions are the least of a transplant candidates’ worries. And standing on principle if it means lowering your chances of living means it is time to rethink your principles.
As the pandemic enters its third year, most of the public has had the opportunity to become educated about it. Ferguson’s mother, a trained nurse, confirmed that her son “is an informed patient.”
As his mother also said, Ferguson made his choice. Choices have consequences, sometimes very tragic consequences. In the meantime, Ferguson agreed to a left ventricular assist device, which should buy him enough time to get vaccinated. Let’s hope he rethinks his choice with the time he has been given. -
2022-02-01 at 12:37 AM UTC
Originally posted by stl1 NBC News
Taking unvaccinated man off heart transplant list is tragic — but ethical
Opinion by J. Russell Teagarden and Arthur L. Caplan
Taking unvaccinated man off heart transplant list is tragic — but ethical
D.J. Ferguson, a 31-year-old father of two children with a third on the way, was lying near death at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston last week. He was waiting for a heart transplant, and his failing heart put him high on the transplant eligibility list. But then the hospital removed him from the list because he is not vaccinated against Covid-19. As tragic as this is likely to be for Ferguson and his family, we think the hospital made the right decision.
Organs are always in very short supply, forcing hospitals and transplant teams to decide who gets them. Hospitals rightly place considerable importance on which recipients are likely to live longer and better, preventing the waste of a precious resource and building trust that transplantation processes are consistent, reasonable and fair. The likelihood of transplant success is based, in part, on transplant candidates’ susceptibility to infections — an important cause of death after heart transplants. Ferguson’s decision not to get vaccinated against Covid makes him more susceptible to such infections.
Professional transplantation societies, such as the American Society of Transplantation, have recommended that any solid organ transplant candidate be vaccinated against all possible infections, including Covid. Many hospitals doing transplants have adopted these recommendations. The Brigham and Women’s vaccination requirements are a matter of public record, so the requirements should not surprise anyone.
Accordingly, in picking who gets a heart, hospitals have made vaccination one of a variety of considerations. That is not bias against the unvaccinated. It is trying to save the most lives with a scarce organ supply.
Covid vaccination requirements for transplant candidates are not addressing theoretical concerns. Researchers analyzing outcomes of solid organ transplant patients have found that more of them with Covid infections at the time of transplantation died in the hospital, more required mechanical ventilation, and more required time in ICUs than patients not infected.
Another consideration involves donor families. The decision to donate an organ can be excruciating, as most viable organs become available when an otherwise healthy person dies suddenly. The grieving family may have only a matter of hours after it is informed of the death of their loved one to decide whether to donate organs. In many instances, families agree to this because they know they can contribute to extending the lives of others who would perish for lack of organs.
Families who make decisions to donate are owed rationing policies that make the most out of their gifts. A family would in all likelihood feel aggrieved if the organ they agreed to donate went to a candidate with less of a chance to benefit than others, especially when those chances were diminished by a personal decision not to vaccinate.
Transplant centers also have to consider what offering organ transplants to unvaccinated candidates signals about their commitment to thoughtful use of their services and patient safety. Would this willingness make their constituencies wonder what other policies and processes work against the public good and individuals? Disregarding clinical evidence and standards of care concerning vaccination requirements for transplant candidates could make people wonder.
All this is to say that in general terms, giving a lower priority to people seeking solid organ transplantation who are not vaccinated against Covid is justifiable on ethical and clinical grounds. These general terms do not preclude consideration of individual patient circumstances that could yield exceptions to the Covid vaccination requirement. But from what we know about Ferguson’s case, should Brigham and Women’s make an exception for him? Our answer is no.
Had Ferguson’s heart failure arisen unexpectedly from a devastating heart attack, then time would not have allowed Covid vaccination in advance of transplantation. However, he had reasons to have been vaccinated before such an event, which does not make an exemption from the vaccination requirement reasonable. And Ferguson’s predicament probably did not arise overnight; he needs a heart transplant because of a hereditary condition causing heart failure.
Ferguson is young, with a still-expanding family. This scenario matters in the calculation, as well. When everything else is equal, Ferguson’s youth and family situation ought to get priority. But given how many vaccinated people need transplants and the importance of transplantation system integrity, Ferguson’s family situation is not sufficient to prioritize him for a transplant, especially considering he made the choice not to be vaccinated.
Family members report two different reasons for Ferguson’s not getting vaccinated. His father said vaccination was “against his basic principles, he really doesn’t believe in it. … It’s his body, it’s his choice.” His mother says, “There are some adverse reactions he read about given his condition, and he made his decision.” Neither of these rationales is persuasive. Adverse vaccine reactions are the least of a transplant candidates’ worries. And standing on principle if it means lowering your chances of living means it is time to rethink your principles.
As the pandemic enters its third year, most of the public has had the opportunity to become educated about it. Ferguson’s mother, a trained nurse, confirmed that her son “is an informed patient.”
As his mother also said, Ferguson made his choice. Choices have consequences, sometimes very tragic consequences. In the meantime, Ferguson agreed to a left ventricular assist device, which should buy him enough time to get vaccinated. Let’s hope he rethinks his choice with the time he has been given.
Sure it's ethical. It's ethical for low-intelligence, fascist, brainwashed, ugly, treasonous rats like you, who are going straight to hell when the time comes. -
2022-02-01 at 12:38 AM UTC
-
2022-02-01 at 1:10 AM UTC
-
2022-02-01 at 2:16 AM UTC
-
2022-02-01 at 2:20 AM UTC
-
2022-02-01 at 1:26 PM UTC
-
2022-02-01 at 1:38 PM UTC
Originally posted by Technologist You mean people like you that withdraw from society and get all their info online?
This is what lockdowns want, for kids not to go outside and not learn proper social development in school. This teaches them to be a slave to the system instead of relying on their natural human instincts and social skills. What are you complaining about? This is exactly what you wanted.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2022-02-01 at 5:09 PM UTCSTICK IT, JOE ROGAN
Bloomberg
Spotify Exodus Grows as Graham Nash Signals Withdrawal
Mary Biekert
(Bloomberg) -- Singer-songwriters Graham Nash and India Arie on Tuesday announced plans to remove their music from Spotify Technology SA in protest of its support for controversial podcaster Joe Rogan. The moves come after Neil Young and folk-rocker Joni Mitchell both removed most of their music from the platform last week.
Young, 76, accused Rogan of spreading vaccine misinformation on his show -- called “The Joe Rogan Experience” -- distributed by Spotify. In response, the platform publicized its internal content rules and Rogan pledged more balance and research. Nash said he agrees with his former Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young bandmate after “having heard the Covid disinformation spread by Joe Rogan on Spotify” and is requesting that his solo recordings be removed from the platform, according to a statement from the singer. Arie intends to leave Spotify because of Rogan’s “language about race,” she wrote in a note on Instagram.
The combined exodus further escalates a dispute over the streaming service’s support for Rogan and intensifies questions about Spotify’s responsibility for monitoring content distributed on its platform to hundreds of millions of listeners. Young’s removal of his music from the service led the hashtag #spotifydeleted to trend on social media. While it’s not clear if all of the artists’ labels will comply with their requests, Arie’s efforts to draw attention to Rogan’s comments on race signals the backlash is spreading beyond Covid misinformation.
“Neil Young opened a door that I must walk through,” Arie wrote. “I believe in freedom of speech. However, I find Joe Rogan problematic for reasons other than his Covid interviews. For me, it’s also his language around race.”
Rogan, 54, was criticized last month after his interview with Jordan Peterson, a conservative YouTube personality. In that conversation, Rogan said it’s “very strange” that anyone would call themselves Black unless they’re from the “darkest place” of Africa. The comments and Spotify’s willingness to provide a platform for such rhetoric are “deeply disturbing,” David Johns, executive director of the National Black Justice Coalition, said in an e-mailed statement last week. “Joe Rogan and his friends like Jordan Peterson can describe it however they want - as ’they’re just asking questions’ or ’they’re just discussing skin color’ - but the simple reality remains that they are doing so to perpetuate a system where heterosexual cisgender white men remain in positions of power, while acting like they’re targeted victims.”
Separately this week, the creators of “Science Vs”, an award-winning podcast that streams on Spotify, announced on Twitter that they will focus on fact-checking Rogan and other sources of misinformation on the platform and pause production of other content. The show is produced by Gimlet, which Spotify purchased in 2019.
Spotify has invested billions in podcasting and advertising technology to turn its money-losing music platform into a profitable audio service. It struck a deal in 2020 with Rogan worth more than $100 million. In contrast, many musicians say their streaming royalties are far too meager. -
2022-02-01 at 5:15 PM UTC
Originally posted by stl1 STICK IT, JOE ROGAN
Bloomberg
Spotify Exodus Grows as Graham Nash Signals Withdrawal
Mary Biekert
(Bloomberg) – Singer-songwriters Graham Nash and India Arie on Tuesday announced plans to remove their music from Spotify Technology SA in protest of its support for controversial podcaster Joe Rogan. The moves come after Neil Young and folk-rocker Joni Mitchell both removed most of their music from the platform last week.
Young, 76, accused Rogan of spreading vaccine misinformation on his show – called “The Joe Rogan Experience” – distributed by Spotify. In response, the platform publicized its internal content rules and Rogan pledged more balance and research. Nash said he agrees with his former Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young bandmate after “having heard the Covid disinformation spread by Joe Rogan on Spotify” and is requesting that his solo recordings be removed from the platform, according to a statement from the singer. Arie intends to leave Spotify because of Rogan’s “language about race,” she wrote in a note on Instagram.
The combined exodus further escalates a dispute over the streaming service’s support for Rogan and intensifies questions about Spotify’s responsibility for monitoring content distributed on its platform to hundreds of millions of listeners. Young’s removal of his music from the service led the hashtag #spotifydeleted to trend on social media. While it’s not clear if all of the artists’ labels will comply with their requests, Arie’s efforts to draw attention to Rogan’s comments on race signals the backlash is spreading beyond Covid misinformation.
“Neil Young opened a door that I must walk through,” Arie wrote. “I believe in freedom of speech. However, I find Joe Rogan problematic for reasons other than his Covid interviews. For me, it’s also his language around race.”
Rogan, 54, was criticized last month after his interview with Jordan Peterson, a conservative YouTube personality. In that conversation, Rogan said it’s “very strange” that anyone would call themselves Black unless they’re from the “darkest place” of Africa. The comments and Spotify’s willingness to provide a platform for such rhetoric are “deeply disturbing,” David Johns, executive director of the National Black Justice Coalition, said in an e-mailed statement last week. “Joe Rogan and his friends like Jordan Peterson can describe it however they want - as ’they’re just asking questions’ or ’they’re just discussing skin color’ - but the simple reality remains that they are doing so to perpetuate a system where heterosexual cisgender white men remain in positions of power, while acting like they’re targeted victims.”
Separately this week, the creators of “Science Vs”, an award-winning podcast that streams on Spotify, announced on Twitter that they will focus on fact-checking Rogan and other sources of misinformation on the platform and pause production of other content. The show is produced by Gimlet, which Spotify purchased in 2019.
Spotify has invested billions in podcasting and advertising technology to turn its money-losing music platform into a profitable audio service. It struck a deal in 2020 with Rogan worth more than $100 million. In contrast, many musicians say their streaming royalties are far too meager.
You anti-freedom/anti-free speech fascists never stop, do you? -
2022-02-01 at 5:32 PM UTC
Originally posted by the man who put it in my hood This is what lockdowns want, for kids not to go outside and not learn proper social development in school. This teaches them to be a slave to the system instead of relying on their natural human instincts and social skills. What are you complaining about? This is exactly what you wanted.
The pandemic has been great for me. I was a shut-in NEET withdrawn from society with no social skills but thanks to government mandates and lockdowns I am doing much better with less competition, I managed to get a job and am improving my life.
But holy shit, if you are a zoomer or kid in school, or a small developing child you got FUCKED OVER HARD. I thought my life was hard being a drugged out retard and such in a post 2008 economy, but looking back I did not have it that bad at all. The economy was relatively stable and life was normal and I had all the chance in the world to get into crypto early and build my life.
For someone 10-25 years old that has been living through this pandemic they have none of that. Their lives have been at a standstill for years and it's not getting any better, in fact it's getting worse. Not because of a fake virus but because people support government abuse of freedom. They are being completely cut out of the economy in a labor shortage with low wages while the 1% slurp up all liquidity in the world and leave us with worthless inflated paper.
It's honestly disgusting how this society treats younger generations and WHEN they get pissed off and fight back and start killing you fuckers do you think i'm going to stop them? I WILL HELP AND SUPPORT THEM. You might call them terrorists but YOU are the real terrorists, I support freedom.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-has-the-pandemic-affected-graduate-students-this-study-has-answers
-
2022-02-01 at 5:48 PM UTC
-
2022-02-01 at 5:57 PM UTCMainstream politics are homosexual.
The democrat, republican, conservative, liberal and all UK parties all support vaccine mandates of some sort. They are all scammers in bed with big pharma working for the kike. If you can't see that you are blind.
The future is in decentralized governance.
https://future.a16z.com/building-and-running-a-dao-why-governance-matters/
-
2022-02-02 at 3:35 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2022-02-02 at 5:03 AM UTCYou know how these leftwing nuts like to point fingers and call everyone they don't agree with racists, fascists, supremacists and liars? Well, it ends up they are actually the ones who are the racists, fascists, supremacists and liars. Pretty ironic, eh?
-
2022-02-02 at 6:12 AM UTCNews Tribune, Tacoma, Wash.
State trooper who told off Washington Gov. Jay Inslee over vaccine mandate dies from COVID
Craig Sailor, The News Tribune (Tacoma, Wash.)
TACOMA, Wash. — A former Washington State Patrol trooper who told off Gov. Jay Inslee over the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, resigned and then became a sought-after media figure, has died, according to the State Patrol.
Trooper Robert LaMay's death was announced Friday. He was 50.
According to FOX News, KIRO News Radio, Newsweek and other media sources, LaMay died after contracting COVID-19.
His former boss, State Patrol Chief John Batiste, said he was deeply saddened to hear of LaMay's death Friday.
"Rob served honorably for over two decades and we were disappointed to see him leave the agency this past October," Batiste said. "His service to this state and agency will be long remembered and appreciated."
LaMay took early retirement in October rather than get vaccinated.
A video shows him giving his final radio call in which he tells Inslee to "kiss my a--." The video went viral and LaMay soon was appearing on numerous news outlets.
No statement from his family has been issued.
Last summer, LaMay had said he and his family did not "do" vaccines and he never received any as an adult. In August, on his Facebook account, he said vaccines go against his religious beliefs. His account is no longer visible.
While 73 other commissioned officers quit the State Patrol over the mandate, none received the media celebrity status LaMay did. On Jan. 12, Jerrod Sessler, a Prosser businessman running for Congress in Washington's 4th District, announced that LaMay had endorsed him.
"Mr. Lamay took the hearts of Americans by storm when he resigned from his position as a state trooper because he refused to succumb to the mandates enforced upon him by a constitutionally over-extended governor," Sessler said.
Sessler said he would appoint LaMay to head an anti-human-trafficking task force he would commission.
In the endorsement, LaMay accuses state politicians of ignoring human trafficking. He went on to say, "many of whom are involved in it themselves and do not want it to go away."
LaMay joined the State Patrol in 1999 as a trooper cadet. He was commissioned in 2001.
The trooper served in Poulsbo, Bremerton, Ellensburg and, most recently, Yakima. He worked as an armorer, collision reconstructionist and as a drug recognition expert.
LaMay's is not the first high profile death to affect the State Patrol. Trooper Eric Gunderson died Sept. 26 after contracting COVID while on business for the agency six weeks earlier.
The trooper was 38 and unvaccinated but his family said he would have followed the mandate.
"It is important for everyone to know, he was not a part of any anti-vaccine or political movement," Gunderson's family said in a statement.
To date, 10,699 Washington residents have died of COVID. -
2022-02-02 at 11:01 AM UTC
-
2022-02-02 at 11:03 AM UTCwouldn't be surprised, that's going to be a hard sell though
-
2022-02-02 at 11:43 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2022-02-02 at 12:59 PM UTCEach group should have its own rules. If you want to take vaccines and wear masks you can be in that group and ban racist books and wash the feet of blacks. You can vote on how much money to give to Israel
And there can be another group that doesn't wear masks and cocaine is legal and instead of opposing visions they compete and solve problems working together instead of this partisan then versus us for the reins of power how about each group is responsible for its own power
Instead of being imposed upon society. If you break the rules in your group they can remove you. Similar to cancel culture now either toe the line or get out. Kinda like tribalism. Economic freedom of association, it works for every side of the spectrum.
