Transgender woman denied kidney transplant by Republicans at hospital

[Guest LizMarie]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/11/1254743/--That-is-when-the-Transplant-Coordinator-Nurse-told-me-that-they-are-Republicans

"However, this is when I told them that I identify as Mika and prefer female pronouns. Everything seemed to be okay, except for a little confusion. Until they asked me what I do in my free time and I told them that I volunteer with non-profits to work towards equality for the LGBTQIA (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and asexual) community and I volunteer on political campaigns and plan to help out on the Obama campaign. That is when the Transplant Coordinator Nurse told me that they are Republicans. Everything changed."

Because she's trans? And worked on the Obama campaign? Suddenly she and the donor need psychiatric evaluations?

Anyone who thinks we don't need laws like ENDA and even further legislation to prevent this sort of nonsense has their head in the clouds. No, laws don't stamp out bigotry, but a legal framework which can punish bigotry stops most of it from being acted upon and when it is acted upon, can result in fines and other penalties against those acting out such bigotry.

Meanwhile transgender people are denied housing, employment, medical care, and even service for basic things like food. And some people argue we don't need these laws?

[Carolyn Marie]

This being a blog, and none of it verified, I'm not going to assume its all true and exactly as described. If the patient's experience is true, there ought to be a patient advocate or others at the hospital she could complain to, especially if her treatment is being affected to the point that her health is endangered. It seems incredible that a nurse or doctor would tell a patient they were not going to get treatment because they are TG. Incredible claims require credible evidence. I'll withhold judgement until I see some.

Carolyn Marie

[Guest KimberlyF]

This is from Transplant living...

http://www.transplantliving.org/living-donation/being-a-living-donor/qualifications/

A good donor should also:

be willing to donate: No one should feel that they MUST donate.

be well informed: A good donor candidate has a solid grasp of the risks, benefits, and potential outcomes, both good and bad, for both the donor and recipient.

have good support: Significant others should support your decision.

have no alcohol or substance abuse problems.

have psychiatric diagnoses well controlled over an extended period of time.

This part is the norm. Digging a little more.

[Guest KimberlyF]

Here are some links dealing with patients across the country.

http://www.baylortransplant.com/kidney/kidneycandidates.html

"Some of the most common reasons you would not be eligible for renal transplant include the following:

-Psychiatric (Mental) disorders that are not controlled by treatment"

http://www.muschealth.com/transplant/programs/kidney-transplant/criteria.htm

" Being selected as a good kidney transplant candidate is based on a thorough review of a patients:

-Psychosocial history and evaluation"

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/transplant/learnabout/learn_eval_process.html

"You will be seen by a transplant social worker for a one-on-one psychosocial interview. "

Was the patient fat? Cause most hospitals have a 'no fatties' policy when it comes to transplants. There are a limited number of organs and they try to maximize the success rate.

I'm wondering how much research DailyKos did on this? They're usually right up there with just about every other biased source telling people the exact stories that will get them worked up.

[Drea]

I tend to agree with Carolyn, " Incredible claims require credible evidence".

This is however a perfect example of perpetuating an inflammatory and misleading assertion. One would get the impression that everyone who identifies as republican would act the same or as if the republican party itself intervened to stop the transplant.

To suggesting that somehow Mika was told of the need to have 6 months of counseling as a sudden change after Mika self identified as trans and the Transplant Coordinator Nurse identified herself as republican is flat out wrong.

By Mika's own blog (Search her name Mika Covington for full blog) this was something that came up months later. What changed was that Mika had found a live donor. That changed the situation significantly from the cadaver donor list which Mika had been approved for and had been put on (after knowing Mika was trans and all that so called republican nastiness). The live donor needed to be part of the process and get their own counseling.

There certainly seemed quite annoying list of things and ridiculous expectations (like making an appointment while in the ER) that happened with the medical stuff that led to the eventual denial, but I've seen people going for SRS end up getting roadblock after roadblock pulled up in their face in very similar ways for one reason or another. In many cases for things the surgeon's office should have brought up months earlier.

I think there were lots of unfortunate circumstances. I find the idea that it was some republican conspiracy to yank her around all that period just angling for a denial ridiculous..

Certainly in Mika's words there was a feeling that it was because of Mika's trans status with the statement "things changed". Mika is also clearly an activist so would be pre-disposed to seeing a political connection.

I also find it odd that the assertion of the Nurse being republican is connected to trans when the statement was, and understandable normal to mention in response to their own self identification as democrat.

[Guest Always Good]

Yikes. Anyone know anyone who can create fake identities? Because that might be the safe thing to do in this world.

[Guest DianeATL]

Agree with a lot of the comments here. I hate it when someone picks an extreme example left or right and then applies that person's characteristics to a broad group. The vast majority of us are mixed, left on some issues, right on others mostly middle.

Regarding ENDA, been thinking about this and have to say something that might be taken the wrong way but I think needs to be said. First please read this, discrimination for any reason, sex, race, religion, sexual preference, hair color, whatever, is wrong and needs to be stopped. The problem I have is the belief that a ENDA law will be a magic bullet. In some ways it may codify the steps that an employer must take to make sure that they can't be sued for discrimination. Let's face it, on any hiring or firing decision, and I have been part of many in my career, I can make a whole list of why I want one candidate over another or why I want to fire one over another. As long as I don't have smoking bullets outlining discrimination I can stand behind business logic and discriminate behind the scenes.

Look at a recent example of legislation that was supposed to make our lives better. I forget which one it was, but the law that mandated certain benefits for full time employees was hailed as something that would benefit workers. What happened in reality? Ask all of my friends who were working 40 hours a week and now can't get over 35. Instead of getting benefits added, they got income reduced. The law defined what an employer had to do to not provide benefits and they are doing that to the detriment of a lot of workers who would love to get 10% more hours and pay even without benefits but they can't. Now over time as the job market improves, the best workers will seek out jobs where they can get both the hours and the benefits and as the supply of talent dwindles, it will force employers to up the ante to get viable candidates.

I am starting a job search and the first thing I did was to search the HRC index of employers to see who hit 100%. That will be my target list to begin my search.

Laws are useful such as the civil rights act of 1964, but the real change came from the market. If an employer or business has no diversity, it becomes obvious and the word gets around and people will take their business elsewhere. That, not new laws will have a greater effect on change. This does not mean I am against ENDA, obviously I support equality. But don't be fooled into to thinking that this legislation will fix it. It may have some negative impact before the positive change from the market occurs. Having positive Transgendered role models playing normal roles in society and bringing the topic up for public education and awareness will help more than anything in my opinion.

Just my 2 cents - and worth everything you paid for it. ;-)

Hugs,

Diane

[Guest KimberlyF]

The plot thickens. Because as these women who did the coordination interview found out about this Trans Democrat and began pulling strings on every other worker at this GOP stronghold, others were (prior to denying the transplant) making the very same hospital the first in it's state to reach out to numerous LGBT groups including a few TG specific groups just to throw people off the scent!

http://www.unmc.edu/publichealth/docs/Midlands_LGBT_Community_Report_-_with_links.pdf

(Pay no attention to the smokescreen paper done the previous year detailing how to better treat the LGBT community at UNMC. Grab a steaming cup of outrage!)

Yes, telling an intake nurse anything that upsets them at UNMC explains everything that happens ever from that point forward. It makes 100% complete sense.

[Guest KimberlyF]

This story seems to keep crumbling.

Planettransgender has pulled it as has the orig blog from the patient for 'legal reasons'.

And Advocate says HRC this year named this hospital one of the most LGBT friendly in the country. Now based on the unsubstantiated claims of a blogger, many in the community were ready to just torch the place. Why should a hospital bother to reach out to a community that does zero research and just acts in anger more often than not with a huge chip on its shoulder?

http://www.advocate.com/health/2013/07/11/these-are-most-lgbt-friendly-hospitals-nation?page=0,27

[JJ]

Frankly a few vocal reactionary activists don't actually represent my community or me and perhaps the hospital is savvy enough not to label the whole community for the reactions of a few

Johnny

[Guest Melissa~]

I for one hope every transplant patient is given a strict individual scrutiny, it's not like there is enough organs to go around. This in effect means GLBT has nothing whatsoever to do with the review process. Why would a patient even bring it up?