In this case, his cancer would be an absolute contraindication for a heart transplant. In addition, 20% of candidates do not receive a heart and there are many other factors that will disqualify a person from becoming a candidate:
If you ever want to convince a smoker to quit, you can mention it is an absolute disqualification from receiving a transplant for at least 6 months after they quit.
> In this case, his cancer would be an absolute contraindication for a heart transplant.
Oof, I totally understand why it's an absolute contraindication (the hit that cancer gives to expected lifespan just seems too strong to justify such a scarce transplant), but it definitely feels like a double-whammy.
To a future with long-term viable artificial vital organs!
Tho, if organ donations were opt-out, or even no choice, and the infrastructure to match demand and supply would scale (it does not at the moment), we wouldn't need artificial organs to give this poor man this "high risk investment" and a chance to fight for his life.
Well, maybe in this particular case, an autologus transplant would be much better indeed, as I imagine cancer patients generally don't fare well with suppressed autoimmunity... Then again, no Repo Men visits.
I'm deeply skeptical that a smoker would, after ignoring the overwhelming evidence of the health damage from smoking, conclude that the risk of not being able to get a (quite rare) transplant operation for six months if they needed one would be the straw that breaks the decision-camel's back.
Getting a smoker to quit is a game of persistence. While this factor alone won't make someone quit, it may just be unique enough to make them start thinking. Human beings are good at ignoring things. If you want someone to listen you need new information and new arguments.
no, it's a waste of time trying to get a smoker to quit. i quit pretty much on a whim, when by chance my mind turned in a direction that was open to thinking of myself as someone who doesn't smoke. maybe you can foster that kind of openess, but certainly not by trying to "get" them to quit.
So knowing that the smoking is very likely to kill them directly doesn't convince them not to smoke, but knowing that they can't get a transplant would? That doesn't make much sense
I've found that little details like this can kick people out of destructive habits. Similar to how, if you make a careless parachutist jump without a backup they will check their main chute MUCH more closely, showing people that one less net is under them tends to be a bit of a wakeup call.
When you do something stupid and escape unharmed it tends to make you ignore the risk. Speeding, tailgating, smoking, drinking, fighting, etc... As human beings we really suck at assessing risk.
However there is always a small window when someone comes back to reality for a moment. When a friend gets lung cancer and can't get a heart, when a car loses a 2x4 and you barely escape being impaled on a timber, when you hit a patch of water and your car nearly loses control because you were going too fast, or when you watch a man die instantly after getting hit in the face for the 100th time during a friendly brawl.
I'm not a doctor, but maybee yes, thought that itself does not really move odds in his favour, infact heart transplants are themselves very notorious for becoming cancerous.
