Yep, I agree. It was Liew's choice to make, he made it, didn't end well, and the wife wants someone to blame. Sad, really.

The article says that no one knew she had cancer, until after the kidney had already been transplanted. So, really, Liew didn't know the donor had cancer. Something should have been done to help him once they found out she had it, instead of assuming he couldn't develop it. It really is a sad story!

Read the article. No one knew of the cancer until after the transplant.

Liew was told that the chances of a female cancer spreading to his body were slim since it came from a female reproductive organ. That is why he chose to keep it. He trusted his doctor. His doctor was wrong. Cancer cells that metastasizelose their outward markers and change their appearance in ways that make them "invisible" to other cells and the immune system. A metastasizing cancer, regardless of its origin, has a pretty good chance of getting a foothold in any body it is transplanted into - especially if the recipient is taking immunosuppressive drugs, which he certainly was after the procedure. How his doctor could have thought that a uterine origin cancer couldn't spread through a man's body is beyond me. It stopped being a uterine cell when it started being a cancer.

Multiplayer......I agree.....it also stated this:

"It would be extremely unusual for a man to get cancer of the uterus," Diflo testified he told Liew,

Now, I can understand why Mr Liew would allow the transplant....He trusted the Medical Staff, (not bieng one himself) with the 'extremely unusual' comment and as anxious as he was to get better.

When he began getting back pains.....he opted to get the kidney out but it was too late.....I'm sure he was going often to the Dr's for medical check-ups being a recipient.....Why was his condition not caught then or further test performed??

I hope Mrs. Liew gets her justice that she deserves.

Yes, the doctor truthfully told him tht it would be extremely unusual, and it is. The doctor then gave him the choice to remove it or not.

The doctor gave the truthful situation and the choice was the patients. It IS extremely unusual...

Just because some doctors act GOD-like, doesn't mean they are anywhere close.

"Some 23 transplant recipients in 2007 — out of about 28,000 recipients nationwide that year — were judged to have at least possibly contracted cancers, HIV, tuberculosis and other diseases from their donors, according to a 2009 article in the American Journal of Transplantation." That translates to 0.0821% of transplant patients in this country in 2007. In other words, the odds are EXTREMELY high in favor of positive outcomes to transplant surgery. However, the fact of the matter is that there ARE unusual circumstances for which no one can predict the outcome. This is one of those circumstances. Liew was informed of the situation as soon as it became apparent. It was his choice to refrain from having the kidney removed. The doctors and medical community can't be blamed for every unacceptable outcome from high risk procedures such as transplants in the first place. Exactly how many previous cases of a male patient receiving a transplant from a female patient with uterine cancer do you think exist in the literature on which a prognosis could be based? It's not as though there is a pile of data available.

I hope that Mrs. Liew doesn't get a dime. Lawsuits such as hers contribute to malpractice insurance premiums are so high. The high premiums are passed along to patients. Not only do the high premiums significantly increase medical costs in this country, they also contribute to doctors such as OB/GYN specialists closing their practices, which further hinder good medical care by increasing wait times for available appointments, etc. Medicine is not always an exact science. It’s time that people accept that happy endings are not always guaranteed.

Foley:

Yeah, because the guy just felt that the first transplant was only a dry run? You evidently haven't had a transplant, and don't know anyone who has.

Mmmm. That's a tough pill and my heart goes out to his family. But I just don't see malpractice in this case.

Radagast...thx for the explanation. Was trying to figure out the *how* about this article. Although the patient found out later, I'm curious to know whether the doctor consulted with a cancer specialist on the matter. After finding out the kidney was cancerous, if the particular medication given directly caused the metastasizing to occur, it would seem this unfortunate incident could be looked at similar to the way missed drug mixing can lead to fatal interactions. I doubt the patient would've been aware of that matter.

I agree with the original poster,Debbie. The man was told and decided to keep the kidney. What could the doctor do other than give him his best advice? Doctors are not GODs and I'm sure the doc gave his best advice due to the situation.

Yes, this widow is after money and yes, it is a sad situation. I have been thru the transplant deal as I donated a kidney and we both were told that death is one of the things that can happen. We, as I am sure he, signed many forms that gave permission to operate. We do what we can at the time. Sorry this man lost the game.

I understand the urgency of a transplant when the list is a mile long and you're waiting for a potential donor, and every minute counts. However, aren't/shouldn't these organs be tested for viability before a transplant, and wouldn't such testing reveal cancer or any other disease? I'm sure it's not that simple, perhaps someone can enlighten me. I can't blame the man for choosing to keep the kidney, even with the possibility of cancer; would he not surely have died a miserable death if no kidney had been available to replace the first one? Or if he had not had a transplant at all? I wonder what the doctor told him what the outcome would be if the kidney had been removed? Not knowing all the facts, I don't believe the wife has a right to sue; the kidney was a "gift" that they chose to accept, and they were made aware of the risks when they were known. After all, there's no guarantee a healthy organ will result in a successful transplant, that's why you sign your life away before any surgery.

This is an unfortunate accident. Since there were other organ donations from the donor, I wonder how the others fared.

This man was already undergoing dialysis 3 times a week. That is not good for your body either. His body, unfortunately, was not strong enough to accept the organ and reject the disease. Stuff happens.

His wife is mourning and I always try and understand. It is my sincere hope that she gets grievance counseling so that she can mourn. Right now she is in the anger stage of grief and is placing blame.

Hopefully, she gets help.

However, aren't/shouldn't these organs be tested for viability before a transplant, and wouldn't such testing reveal cancer or any other disease?

I am not a doctor but my understanding is that there is literally no time to waste. After a certain amount of time after a person's death, there is a limited short window as to harvesting that organ and giving it to someone else.

That is why many brain dead people are kept alive artificially until their organs can be harvested.

They are supposed to find out about issues from the donor way in advance.

Thanks, Karen. I guess that's why I'm confused...you say "they are supposed to find out about issues from the donor way in advance." But, how can that be done? For example, my driver's license shows that I'm an organ donor. If I drop dead in the next 30 seconds, who would know of any issues about my organs? My husband would certainly know of anything I'm aware of, but what if I didn't even know I had cancer (or whatever)? Even if you fill out paperwork when you sign up to be a donor (which I don't remember doing, just checking a box at DMV), that still wouldn't account for any issues that may arise later in life. I believe that as a potential organ transplant receiver, that's just the chance you take, and I would imagine, if you're that sick, it's a chance you're gladly willing to take, if you're even fortunate enough to get the opportunity.

Let's play 'what if' because that's what attorneys do. What if the patient had opted to remove the kidney once it was discovered that the donor had cancer... and what if in the process of receiving another kidney he developed kidney failure or an infection and died? How many doctors would be happy to testify against the transplant surgeon that the original kidney had a 'slim' chance of transmitting and developing cancer to the recipient and should have been left alone? A few, including radagast, I bet. So, there is no way to definitely determine what the right path should have been but we have to stop the mindset that we have developed, which is, that we have the technology to live forever and if we don't then someone made a mistake and should pay. We can't all be born the same day nor can we all die the same day and if we knew our finite time to live we would not appreciate our individual lifetimes for what it is.....a blink of time.

This is a risk people take. People that need transplants are often quite ill and many will die anyway so it's literally a crapshoot. There isn't time to do all kinds of tests, unless there are known medical issues most people are just happy to have a chance at an organ as they're not easy to get. How many people die on waiting lists? Far more people are willing to take then to donate. I'm so sorry for Mrs Lieu but Mr Lieu gambled and lost. I might have done the same thing, but I just don't see malpractice here. I know she is grieving but lawsuits like this are what drive up our medical costs. I wonder if this had happened in Singapore if she would be able to sue like this. Just wondering.

The cancer was found days after the donors death of Feb. 25. It was not reported to Lieu's surgeon til April 17th. Don't you ask yourself why? I'm sure this had everything to do with the judges decision. This was not a "frivolous" lawsuit!

Suing Mickey D's over hot coffee is ridiculous and all having to pay higher insurance rates because of it is wrong. Passing judgement on this poor widow is just as wrong. There was clearly negligence in this inexcusable delay no matter what the almighty Glenn Beck tells you.

Yes it's metastatic, but they named it for the tissue origin of the cancer and from the organ that it ends up in.

I agree, with Angie. If I need a transplant and there are no other options, I will take it. What is there to gain by suing? I would hope my family would be grateful for any time left and then move on.

I really hope the courts decide with the doctor and hospital for the very reasons you have stated. I feel horrible for the widow, but how is suing going to help anyone but the lawyers?

You can't catch lupus in the way you can catch a cold, it doesn't work like that. It is an auto immune disorder, which means that your immune system attacks your body. If you donated your organs or blood, you would be transferring your immune system cells as well since they are everywhere inside you. Those cells and other components of your immune system would transfer that autoimmunity to the recipient and could trigger their own immune cells to attack their body as well. Lupus is only transmissible through transplant.

lupus transfered thru blood donation also i think.

let's get together and screw since we are so screwed up

This isn't greed or a lack of checks and balances. It is a simple mistake made by a doctor in a situation that has no clear correct path. All they could go on was risk assesment. Until you actually understand the science of medicine you cannot begin to appreciate the difficult tasks that doctors perform everyday.

America has functioned pretty much the same way since the beginning, we are in no way worse off today than we were 100 years ago. In fact back then all of these organ recipients wouldn't have even had a chance to live, nor would this guy have had a chance to live on dialysis. Don't make the mistake of assuming that there once existed some magical American utopia that we have strayed from. That is ridiculous.

Auzzie - Medicine is not an exact science which is why it is called "practicing medicine". Doctors are not gods and don't have all the answers. I don't think this was a case of greed on anyone's part except maybe the wife and definitely her lawyer.

The advancements in medicine are amazing but you can't expect there to be no mistakes - that's how we all learn.

I agree with Karen and radagast. Medicine isn't an exact science, and mistakes happen. There are absolutely cases of medical malpractice where it is entirely appropriate for a patient (or the patient's family) to expect compensation, at least in my opinion. But this case just doesn't seem to be one of them. Our overly litigious society has caused so many problems for all of us - and generally, the only people such lawsuits help are the lawyers.

Yes greed in the world is bad but ignorance and arrogance is worse. In my experience many physicians do not refer patient when they do not have the answers. they often cannot read and comprehende the written or spoken english language. How they got a medical liscense without english comprehension i do not know. Many physicians are too specialized they may know about a bladder but nothing else that can affect it like lupus,cancer or ecoli. I agree with the wife. Any cancer or infection would kill this man because of the immune system reduced from the drugs the transplant doctor gave him. not only did they give him cancer but they gave him low immunity no way to stop the spread. He could have lived twenty plus yrs with dialisis. I hope she wins the law suit. The donor died at 50 her family should sue what a travesty she had cancer was tired went to the doctor and was ignored as usual. For her to have a stroke her blood had clotted a simple test of blood by primary care would have alerted the doctor to her on coming death. The test is for blood clots d-dimmer request one at your next physical it may save your life.

When it was found out that the donor had unknown cancer, the doctor offered to remove the kidney. The patient decided to keep it - hoping that it would not cause cancer. The doctor couldn't force him to have his kidney removed. This is a case where is was no one's fault. When we lose a loved one, we want to blame someone. If she must place blame it would be her husband who chose to take the risk. I believe I would have made the same decision as he did. Dialysis three times a week is not much of a life. For months he found the freedom from dialysis and he simply did not want to go back to it.

I have to agree with Radagast & Karen, there are always elements of chance and the unknown in medicine. this was an oddball case that went horribly wrong for the patient, but I put this under the heading of "sh*t happens", a terrible loss to the family but I am sure the Doctor's involved are no less disheartened.

And for all it's vagueries and imprecision I still go to Doctors, still have surgery when necessary and I am still an organ donor in the small hope that some bit's of me may serve to help save some ones life when I am gone.

I have to object with characterizing this as a "mistake" by the doctor. The doctor presented the fact that whether or not cancer could spread through a transplanted organ was unknown, but not considered likely and offered to remove the organ to be on the safe side and the patient declined. As another poster mentioned, this is called risk assessment and it is considered unlikely for cancer to spread from a transplanted organ, particularly since the organ was not the infected organ to begin with. The patient made his choice, played the odds and lost. But that, in my mind, is very different then the doctor making a mistake and screwing up.

Sorry Auzziegirl but that statement of yours is just plain stupid. I wonder what the rest of the world would do without this nation. It is true that we are in a down time now since 53million people voted in a communist but we will recover. This nation has given the world a lot more than we have gotten from hateful people like you. Stange how people like you say such vile things about this nation when if not for us you would be speaking Japanese.

No, BigArch-594423, I would be speaking English! We won the war, remember?

BTW, you are breaking the Newsvine Code of Honor by attacking my comments.

I have the right to express my views of the subject at hand. You do not have the right to attack my comments. Please keep your comments on topic.

And... since you labeled my comment as 'stupid' .... we are even - since your comment about a communist leader was MORE 'stupid'.

Wow, you have some anger pent up inside of you. We need to hook up so that I may pound it out of you sexually.

And why would you guess that? Jesus, people, does EVERYTHING need to be about politics?

Yeah, way off topic and a little paranoid.

Only a little? That's tinfoil hat time going on there.

Odds are that since he had a good job, he had insurance or the means to cover it himself. In the end, though, he's dead and the mechanism of his death is the focus here.

Mash- try his insurance company paid for it.If his wife has sued- she ought to take some time moving forward- money will not bring him back, and would he want that- or would she be better having entered the suit, which protected statute of limitations, simply to advise all parties she needs some time, and go get some counseling.

It is very sad. We don't even know everything there is about cancer. The Drs are only human using their best judgement. Is sueing really going to change anything given the same circumstances? Everything in hindsight.

yes a law suit brings out the facts and puts them in writing. The more the better to improve the system. I hope more care and thought is used when obtaining organs and in medical care in general. If the donor had a great physician instead of her poor one she may still be alive. and the many people who recieved her organs would still be alive or on the transplant waiting list. physicians should think about the cause of death and really explore options prior to harvesting organs. Physicians should listen to patients and do due diligence in troubleshooting the cause of those symptoms and have a backbone to admit when they are unable to figure out the problem admit defeat and referr the patient to a team of diagnostic physicians. I have had shortness of breath since 1989 and still waiting to discover the cause. I Hope it is not latent/dormant tuberculosis i have donated blood often. The physicians i have seen are unconcerned.

Hit the nail on the head!

I imagine that they told him that the immunosuppressant drugs meant that the cancer, if malignant would keep growing, and if metastatic would spread throughout his body. He may have hoped for a malignant growth that could be removed surgically, but didn't get lucky.

In general if your donor is old then the probability they have cancer is very high. Donors ought to be screened more carefully for cancer as well as viral/bacterial infections as they do for blood donors. I mean, if one is not careful with screening you could get AIDS from a transplant just as easily as you could catch someone's cancer cells.

Since when is 50 old?

exactly 50 is young to me. she should be alive. the doctors gave him the wrong information. They told him he could not get uterine cancer because he was a man. another instance of physicians being so specialized in the field they practise they are ignorrant about all the other fields of medicine. Using common sense no longer is done. We need more physicians trained with many fields of study. none should be liscenced with just one field of knowledge. Lack of knowledge causes many deaths. All should have hematology, orthopedics and dermatology degrees then go to fourth field of choice like neurology,nephrology,cardiology, etc.. If they do not know the human body they make mistakes like this one. Many people failed : his transplant team, her doctors, the insurance company employees who see all that goes on and keep silent,etc.. They are compliant in the outcomes to this man who died and the woman donor who died and the many people who got her other organs thru transplant.

They told him he could not get uterine cancer because he was a man.

That's not what they told him. They told him the risk was low and offered to remove the kidney. He refused the removal of the kidney.

Absolutely.

Sneaking in politics, no better than post #8 above. Tort reform would shave about a half of one percent off of the skyrocketing costs of health care.

"Tort reform would shave about a half of one percent off of the skyrocketing costs of health care"...and you get the statistics that you quote from which source?

scales, all costs related to malpractice are roughly 1% of total medical costs. Even with tort reform there will still be malpractice insurance and court awards due to malpractice. Estimates are that at best tort reform will have little direct impact on costs (less than 0.5%), but might have a slightly larger impact on costs related to defensive medicine. In reality very few people sue even when the doctor is clearly at fault. That's why the tort reform issue is a red herring, and really rather ignorant.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_39/b4148030880703.htm

Does he have to take a large amount of different drugs? I have read that people with transplants have to take 20-30 pills a day,if that is true I can imagine the side effects would cause some problems down the road.

He is on a variety of different drugs - has been since the transplant. The drugs and the dosages have changed over the years. He is currently on 14 different medications but not all are taken daily and not all are taken my mouth. (One is monthly and two are every two weeks and another is three times a week.) None of the dosages are large amounts.

Medications are tailored to a patient's needs and all patients are different. Yes, there are side affects to the meds and this is what caused his renal failure. Like I said, we had no idea this was going to happen until after the transplant. We had to take a class before he could be discharged on the do's and don'ts and what to expect and this is when we found out.

Should we sue the hospital that saved his life because we were not informed of this risk beforehand??? Absolutely not. Would he be alive today if he had not taken the chance on the surgery??? Absolutely not.

I cannot comment on Mrs. Liew's decision to take legal action since I do not think that all of the facts are presented here in this short article. I can only imagine her anguish and maybe this is what is driving her. And, I can only imagine the anguish that the doctors and the rest of the staff are feeling, as well.

Well he couldn't pick his liver but at least he found someone like you to help him through all this:).

Thank you very much, Goll. You're very kind.

And 100% of people who have ever drunk water DIE!

Dorothy - you are an idiot. Exactly what does your statement have to do with the tpoic of discussion?

too much protein raises uric acid level in the blood so does beer. chronically high uric acid in the blood damages the kidneys. the source of protein not the problem the quantity is. if everyone had uric acid tested with yearly physicals this problem would be caught prior to damage being done. request uric acid blood test at your yearly physicals you may save your kidneys from damage.

wrong not an informed decision the oncologist would have advised different if given the option to consult. when the transplant team is ignorrant the information is wrong and the patient does not know the information is wrong and obviously the transplant team did not know they were wrong until he died. but the lack of knowledge on the part of the transplant team does not remove the responsibility they have in his death. manslaughter 1 i think. if more ignorrant doctors were prosecuted by our judicial system higher standards would be set in the schooling of the new doctors and they would not be able to continue burying the patients they killed. tort reform would stifle any facts and knowledge needed to improve the medical society and they would continue to hide the mistakes they make by burying the dead. autopsy is great but should always be done to improve the knowledge in the medical community. I do feel sorrow for all involved. except for the grace of god go I.

Native American, how do you know Mr. Liew was not given the option to consult an oncologist?

I'm a bit curious about that, as well.

I would think that any organs donated for transplantation would be tested since the doctors were aware of your wife's illness. It could well be that any chance is better than no chance. So many people that are on the organ lists waiting do not get that second chance at life. The need is so great. I would also hope that any possible recipient would be informed first.

I'm very sorry for your loss, sir.

Not all organ donation is for transplant. For someone who died of cancer I would think it highly likely that the organs would be used for reasearch.

I have opted for organ donation as part of my state's program through the Department of Licensing, and it shows this on my drivers license. Here is an entry from the FAQ about being an organ doner:

What does it mean when I say “yes” to organ and tissue donation and put the heart on my driver license?

When you say “yes” to organ and tissue donation on your driver license or ID, you give your legal consent to donate all organs and tissues for both transplant and research. Consideration is given first to lifesaving or enhancing transplants, but if no compatible recipient is found, organs and tissues may also be provided for research.

Research and medical training also save lives, so I am all for it.

This would only work if the losing attorney had to bear the same portion of cost (ie. 30%) that he was prepared to take out of proceeds. That way he has a stake in giving better advice to the client about it being frivolous.

This might also help things settle, when the defendent is advised that they are not likely to win and the cost will go up by court costs.

In case of settlement - each party bears their own costs.