Health /

Woman Denied Life-Saving Kidney Transplant Because She Is Unvaccinated

"Doctor or nurse filling a syringe with Covid-19 Vaccine" by wuestenigel is licensed under CC BY 2.0

A woman with stage 5 renal failure is being denied a kidney transplant at the University of Colorado Hospital because she and her donor have not been vaccinated against COVID-19, according to CBS Denver.

Jaimee Fougner, who is trying to donate a kidney to Leilani Lutali, said she has not received the COVID-19 vaccine for religious reasons. Lutali said she has not received the vaccine because there are too many unknown variables.

The women, who met in a Bible study, were not aware of the requirement until receiving a letter on Sept. 28 from the UCHealth Transplant Center that stated the following:

“The transplant team at University of Colorado Hospital has determined that it is necessary to place you inactive on the waiting list. You will be inactivated on the list for non-compliance by not receiving the COVID vaccine. You will have 30 days to begin the vaccination series. If your decision is to refuse COVID vaccination you will be removed from the kidney transplant list. You will continue to accrue waiting time, but you will not receive a kidney offer while listed inactive. Once you complete the COVID vaccination series you will be reactivated on the kidney transplant list pending any other changes in your health condition.”

“At the end of August, they confirmed that there was no COVID shot needed at that time,” Lutali told CBS Denver. “Fast forward to September 28. That’s when I found out. Jamie learned they have this policy around the COVID shot for both for the donor and the recipient.”

The letter quickly gathered attention on social media, including from Colorado State Rep. Tim Geitner who said, “The understanding is basically … conform to this demand. Take this COVID vaccine or otherwise you will be denied a life-saving procedure.”

In response to the backlash, UCHealth suggested that denying the life-saving surgery was to protect transplant recipients from the “extreme risk” COVID-19 poses to them.

“For transplant patients who contract COVID-19, the mortality rate ranges from about 20% to more than 30%,” UCHealth said in a statement to CBS Denver. “This shows the extreme risk that COVID-19 poses to transplant recipients after their surgeries.”

*For corrections please email [email protected]*

15 responses to “Woman Denied Life-Saving Kidney Transplant Because She Is Unvaccinated”

  1. pandusa says:

    BTW a lot of people that have matriculated in society, have probably already been exposed at some time by this point.

  2. pandusa says:

    By meticulous test I mean deep dive immunity testing.

  3. pandusa says:

    I am an organ donor. My kidneys (and all the organ you take) are MINE and I should have approval on who they go to…how about THAT well-pleated assholes ? I say if they have had the virus (or show antibodies on the meticulous test ) or the vax…they good.

  4. pandusa says:

    This is some old gal in the US. I agree with what you said about antibodies. I am a retired RN with 22 years in the biz. Some of the BS I am hearing (about covid and other things) from my friends still working is egregious, but I don’t know if it is widespread. Hope these are incidents not becoming the rule.

  5. Devilsgun says:

    BidenCo is probably planning a gritty reboot of Aktion T4 at this very moment

  6. Spork Witch says:

    The worst of this, in my opinion, is that this isn’t a random donor organ and someone waiting in line on the list. This is literally informed consent of both parties saying “I want to give my kidney to THIS person.” But hey, can always go to China, I’m sure they can buy as many Uighur kidneys as they need until one takes (for those that don’t recall, I’m basically quoting some hidden video from those clinics; they’ll literally harvest an organ, implant it, and if it doesn’t take they’ll just harvest another, and another, until they find one that does).

    It’s horrific (and illegal) either way, but they might at least have SOME justification if it wasn’t a direct person-to-person donation, and was instead waiting on the list for a random one to become available. That does raise the question, though: are these two compatible? I know with a lot of voluntary donations like this, they aren’t necessarily compatible and so the way it works is actually your volunteer donor is matched with someone compatible, whose donor is compatible with the other person that needs one (so it’s basically a trade). If so, it would mean that all four parties would need to have informed consent.

    In any case, testing negative for actively carrying COVID should be sufficient, and the more desirable. As others mentioned, we have no clue what the long-term effects of these new Nuremburg-violating experiments are; normally things like experimental drugs (such as these vaccines) would actually DISQUALIFY YOU from being a donor (though not necessarily a recipient).

  7. Spork Witch says:

    As with so many things, Star Trek covered that one too. There’s an episode of Voyager where the doctor gets kidnapped and sold to an ultra-corporate hospital. The proles are dying of a preventable disease, while being denied the medicine that can save them so that it can instead be given to perfectly healthy “useful” because it also is a prophylactic against certain processes of aging (thus giving them longer lives).

  8. TuckR8 says:

    This is one of the most disgusting policies corporations and government are justifying using Covid-19.

  9. Some old guy in the UK says:

    Yes, kidney patients are more vulnerable and hospitals are probably great places to catch Covid, but no mention of antibodies is made. If tests on both parties show they have the necessary antibodies to protect them then there is no excuse not to proceed with the transplant; unless political reasoning beats scientific logic…

  10. PseudoSwede says:

    Yeah nobody ever talks about the Alfie Evans of socialized medicine (worth a non-Google web search for those unfamiliar).

    Government essentially determines who gets healthcare and who doesn’t based on cost-benefit analyses.

    Let’s just pretend that ideology does NOT inevitably factor into this purported “utopia,” government may then essentially decide (like Alfie Evans) who lives and dies.

    Why pay for a risky pancreatic cancer treatment on a 70 year old when they’ve only got so many tax paying years left?

    The 30 year old waste of space who groupthinks correctly and has a long life of tax paying ahead of them is more likely to get the treatment after such an analysis.

    Liz Wheeler covered this much better than I, but still, it’ll make you think twice about that which sounds too good to be true…

  11. PseudoSwede says:

    I noticed that Rep. Geitner didn’t say “Take this life-saving COVID vaccine or otherwise you will be denied a life-saving procedure.”

    CYA or coincidence?

  12. Maiafay says:

    This lady has a higher chance of dying in a car accident than covid. Are they going to demand she sell her car?

  13. JCMG says:

    Remember: Medical care is a human right… until it isn’t.

  14. DIVINE_GAMBIT says:

    I wonder if in a few years they find out people who give their organs that have been given the shot end up being dangerous and killing the new host due to the extreme genetic differences between the two parties.

  15. Plaguen says:

    Remember, “there is no such thing as death panels”.