Posted on 11/11/2013 7:31:11 PM PST by carlo3b
Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News
Jan. 29, 2013 at 4:35 AM ET
About 13 percent of double-lung transplants in the U.S. came from donors who were heavy smokers, a new study finds.
Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.
What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.
“I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
If you need a set of lungs badly enough to be on a transplant list, I can’t imagine there would be anything wrong with a set from someone who smoked. I would think you would take what you could get.
I know I sure as hell would take them, no questions asked.
“Honest Al’s Used Lung Company”
If I need a pair of lungs, I do not care how “bad” they are (as long as they better than mine).
That being said, lungs from a-pack-a-day smokers will mostly be need to be re-installed after a couple of years.
Ditto. As the saying goes, beggars can’t be choosers.
 |
 |
 America demands Justice for the Fallen of Benghazi! |
 |
 |
Beggars can’t be choosers.
Maybe a liver from a drunk?
A brain from a Liberal?
My mother smoked for over 60 years and just before she died the doctor said that her lungs, heart, and mind were all sound. Her skin gave out and she had rheumatoid arthritis. I think she just got tired of hurting and gradually over a couple of years, quit eating.
Probably not. Most smokers overestimate the lung cancer risk because it’s such a hideous way to die, but the biggest determinant in whether you will get lung cancer from smoking is a history of cancer in your family. Most smokers are actually killed by heart disease and other insidious effects of smoking that don’t necessarily impact their lungs directly.
Republican beggars won't have a choice under Obamacare
So does this mean smoking does not cause lung cancer?
It says more than that.. The hair on fire, about Second Hand Smoke is total BS!
Whoa... Not so far as that... YIKES! .. :)
Except Kools.
Lungs heal surprisingly well.
First, cancer is not longer even treated as cancer,
but something for patients so afflicted ‘to enjoy’.
Second, Congress and their families, not even under
ObamaCARE, will get the ripest, youngest lungs
from the pick of their constituents.
“A brain from a Liberal?”
I’d rather be dead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.