The Use of Recycled Heart Devices
There are many controversial issues in the healthcare, and some of them seem so debatable that it is difficult to chose which side to support. One of such issues is the use of recycled heard devices – implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) that were previously used by people who could afford them and changed them to a new model or died. These devices are still in good condition and have some battery life remaining. Scientists like Pavri, Hasan, Ghanbari, Feldman, Rivas, and others suggest that these ICDs can be reused by those patients who cannot pay for them.
The issue has caused many arguments. Federal regulators and ICDs manufacturers in the United States prohibit the practice of such a reuse; however, it is allowed in India, where very few people can afford defibrillators. The use of recycled ICDs can be regarded as inferior treatment to the poor. People who cannot pay for the expensive devices still deserve the healthcare of the highest quality as any wealthy person. For this reason, other means of providing healthcare to poor people should be found as it is unethical to make them feel humiliated or deprived of medical aid guaranteed to them by the Declaration of Human Rights. Harvard medical experts claim: flagship projects must remain free of the taint of the secondhand, in part by making it clear when devices can safely be reused.
These scientists also doubt the safety of ICDs reuse. Despite the fact that all devices are carefully transported and sterilized, there is still a danger of infection transmission. The experts, for instance, claimed that three people died because of stroke, heart failure, and myocardial infarction. Though it is not proved to be caused by recycled ICDs, there is no evidence about the relevance of the reused devices to these deaths. It can be presumed that the failure of the defibrillator did not prevent the problem. In general, their findings prove that the alternative reuse of ICDs is a comparatively riskless life-saving practice.
There is another side of the problem as well. It is obvious that human life is sacred; it is given to one person only once, so it should be protected and preserved by all means (humanlike, of course) possible. If there cannot be another way out found, secondhand ICDs should be applied to patients who cannot pay for their treatment. If the world is not able to supply underprivileged patients with free devices, richer countries can, at least, share what they do not need anymore. One may draw a parallel between recycled defibrillators and secondhand clothes. There is nothing shameful about wearing things that were used by another person. Many organizations supply children in poor countries with garments in a good condition that richer people do not wear anymore. For the same reason, reused defibrillators in a proper state can be implanted to those patients who cannot afford new devices and will not be able to survive without them. Underprivileged patients in some developing countries receive alternative treatment of drug therapy, which, in this case, can be regarded as inferior method. Apparently, if to consider the situation from this viewpoint, recycled heart devices should be used as they allow saving people’s lives.
The use of recycled implantable cardioverter-defibrillators is illegal and risky as they are classified as single-use devices. Moreover, despite the fact that the results of researches on the topic proved to be positive, there were cases when some people with recycled ICDs died because of stroke, heart failure, or myocardial infarction. It is unethical to break the law, but at the same time, person’s life is more important. If there is no other possibility to save a person, this method must be applied.
The article was prepared by the qualified qriter Betty Bilton from https://papers-land.com/