Man Dies From Cancer-Lung Transplant.

[Composure]

Originally Posted by Yahoo News

A man in the UK has died after he was the recipient of a pair of cancerous lungs from a transplant.

The UK Press Association reports Corporal Matthew Millington had the transplant after he fell seriously ill from a supposed incurable respiratory condition, diagnosed while he was serving in Iraq.

Corporal Millington died a year after the transplant took place.
According to Times Online, the organs were from a donor who was believed to have had rolled himself "30 to 50 roll-up cigarettes a day."

He received the double lung transplant over two years ago in Papworth Hospital, the UK's largest specialist cardiothoracic hospital.

However, doctors discovered a tumour in his new lungs and despite radiotherapy, Corporal Millington died just ten months after the operation.

"Papworth Hospital has a very strong track record of high quality outcomes and this is an extremely rare case," said a spokeswomen for the hospital.

"Patients who are accepted on to the transplant waiting list have no other option open to them however we must stress that all donor organs are screened rigorously prior to transplantation."

The hospital concedes that using lungs from donors is not unusual.
Millington's father Lester told a local paper they held no grudges against the hospital and its staff.

"It is a brilliant place and they are so friendly."

Thoughts? Discuss.

[Toast]

Whaaaaat. Why would they even accept lung donations from someone who smokes that much? Doctors of all people should know that smoking wrecks havoc on your lungs.

[Xujhan]

Hey, if I had to choose between dying from whatever lung disease and only maybe dying from a potentially cancerous lung transplant, I'd probably play the odds too.

[✖Ice✖]

Sad story.

[Toast]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Hey, if I had to choose between dying from whatever lung disease and only maybe dying from a potentially cancerous lung transplant, I'd probably play the odds too.

But it's not just potentially cancerous, the lungs would be damaged anyway. I'm sure inhaling that toxic crap isn't going to be good for your lungs whether you end up with cancer or not.

[Composure]

Originally Posted by Toast

But it's not just potentially cancerous, the lungs would be damaged anyway. I'm sure inhaling that toxic crap isn't going to be good for your lungs whether you end up with cancer or not.

This is one of those cases where I have to agree with you. I respect smoker's decisions to smoke, because they are their own lungs afterall - I don't particularly care what they do with their own body (not to mention I smoke like a chimney). However, in this case, its obvious that they're no longer his lungs - even though it's almost certain that the donor is dead, shouldn't family or friends or relatives have said something shortly after being notified his lungs were being taken?

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by Toast

But it's not just potentially cancerous, the lungs would be damaged anyway. I'm sure inhaling that toxic crap isn't going to be good for your lungs whether you end up with cancer or not.

Absolutely, and in an ideal world with enough spare lungs to go around I'd completely agree that smoker's lungs shouldn't be donated. Given reality however, often we're stuck choosing the lesser of two evils. Now, the article didn't give the specifics of the lung disease in question, but I'm assuming for sake of argument that he wouldn't have fared much better without the lung transplant. If instead he might have lived for many more years without the transplant, that's a different story. If I had to choose between a disease that would pretty definitely kill me in five years, or a pair of lungs that might kill me in one or might let me live twenty, I'm not sure which I'd choose.