E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA North Carolina woman says her child's father is the Air Force mechanic whose rabies-infected organs were transplanted into multiple recipients, including a Maryland man who died.
Alecia Mercer of Trenton, N.C., said Monday that military and state health officials told her last week that William Edward Small had died of rabies in September 2011. At the time of his death, Mercer says she was told that Small died of complications from a stomach virus.
Doctors in Florida didn't test the 20-year-old Small for rabies before he died. A Maryland man who received an infected kidney died. His heart, liver and other kidney went to recipients in Florida, Georgia and Illinois.
Small had been in the Air Force for 17 weeks before he died. He was in Florida to train as aviation mechanic.
The Department of Defense said last week that the donor whose organs went to four patients had been an Air Force recruit, originally from North Carolina, who died in Florida of unknown causes.
Mercer said she wasn't surprised to learn that Small had died of rabies, and not a stomach virus, because he liked to hunt and trap animals.
"He did a lot of trapping and hunting and stuff," she said. "He did the trapping, and he didn't care what the animal looked like. He just picked it up."
Small visited a clinic at the Pensacola Naval Air Station in August 2011 for abdominal pain and vomiting and was transferred to a civilian hospital four days later, a Defense Department spokeswoman said last week.
Mercer and her 3-year-old son hadn't seen Small since December 2010, several months before he joined the military.
Mercer said the state health officials asked if she had visited Small at the hospital, but she had not. The officials didn't suggest that Mercer or her son have any treatments, said Mercer, who is pregnant.
Leave a Comment:
And why do we care? Is she afraid that his foaming-at-the-mouth sperm passed the rabies virus to her child?
New Jersey, birthplace of stupid
Total loser. I mean TOTAL loser
What exactly does New Jersey have to do with it? Weren't they from North Carolina?
Here is a 20-year-old deceased father leaving behind a 3-year-old son, and his baby momma, whom he hadn't seen in more than two years, is pregnant. Such lovely people. Kinda makes you wish they were your neighbors.
@acb123, I kinda think s/he might be making reference to jerseyboi up at the top . . . Either that or s/he saw "Trenton" and stopped reading. It's a puzzle. ; )
There always seems to be a perfect sociopath and his Igor lurking in the dark--pity. Not everyone is as perfect as a soul-less sociopath.
Wow! This is even better than a soap opera.
Perhaps transplanting organs from someone who died of unknown causes is not such a good idea :(
It wasn't unknown, Mercer said she was told he died from complications of a stomach virus.
Rabies is pretty rare, and I am not sure all the different ways it can kill, but stuff like this does fall through the cracks occasionally. Tough balance between implanting needed organs before they die, and exhaustively testing for every disease known to man.
Point taken, Liberty - but I'm actually a little surprised that they accepted organs from someone who died of (any) virus. I though you pretty much had to be knocked off in a car accident or something - to avoid situations just like this.
(Although there's an smaller chance that you could have some horrible disease AND killed in an accident.)
Recall though that various viruses do not travel all throughout the body but are often concentrated in particular sections. The issue of needing an organ are often outweighed by the potential problems of a virus. Additionally the time taken to test for rare viruses can be lengthy and the organ may have deteriorated by the time the tests finish.
They are supposed to test for rabies now. In 2005, a month after my sister got a transplant in Dallas, there was donor who had rabies. He was a young boy from Paris, TX who they thought died of a virus. I remember feeling so bad for the families of the people who died from rabies after receiving their transplants. it could've been my sister. To have a new lease on life then to have it snatched away. I thought after that it was put into place that potential donors were to be tested for rabies...I guess not. Sad.
I would think that a "stomach virus" with complications so severe that they caused death would be a perfectly good reason to preclude use of organs. If the infection was bad enough to kill the host, it sure as he!! was not isolated to one spot in the corpse - it was systemic, and all organs were infected. Anything in the bloodstream has been spread to anyplace that blood goes.
The presence of any infectious (= contagious) disease should disqualify organs and other tissues from transplantation. And since rabies can be non-symptomatic for a time, all donors should be tested. AIDS/HIV is not very common either, and they test for that in all cases. It is difficult to interview a dead donor to ask about recent contact with mice, bats, squirrels, or stray cats.
Question - if pets can be vaccinated for rabies, why not humans? Someone like a hunter/trapper/animal trainer/veterinary/shelter worker etc. would be a good candidate.
I was surprised from the beginning of this story how this even occurred. I was absolutely dumbfounded to find out that donor organs can come from SICK people,,,to me if someone dies from sickness-that sickness is so bad it is in every part of that body.Why would you want to put that in someone else? I always believed that organ donors were reasonably healthy people who died abrupt traumatic deaths (such as fatal head injuries,crushing wounds,blunt force trauma,etc...) It doesn't seem medically ethical to take an organ from some who has died of a systemic illness and place it into someone who is already quite ill from organ failure and on immuno-suppressive therapy. Has this ever really been discussed at length by a Transplant Ethics committee.I believe this case should at least start a conversation. I have not disregarded the desperateness of the recipients either,but if you were a very ill recipient and this was your only choice (not aware of rabies but able to know the death status of your donor-that they lingered and died of an undiagnosed "stomach virus??) would you still accept that organ?? This is also not the first case of a disease infecting an organ recipient but certainly RABIES has gotten our attention.
Yes it was "unknown", RTFA:
The patient's original cause of death was encephalitis, not unknown. You would know this fact if you followed this case.
For mailman8. There is a vaccine for humans and it is given to groups in higher risk categories such as vets, sometimes lab workers, animal handlers etc. You can also get it if you are traveling to an area that has a high incidence. It's an extremely rare disease so it is not a recommended vaccine for the general public and not always a mandatory one for high risk groups. For someone that does a lot of hunting and tracking, if they request a vaccine, they can get it. But, if they don't, then it's not on the usual immunization list.
Also, again, even if a particular virus kills you, if it is concentrated in one part of the body, the rest of the body can be perfectly healthy.
For TX. I don't think you fully understand the current demand for organs vs. the supply available. Also, it's not a matter of taking a pick between several possible organs and getting one for your transplant. Often the situation is this. You lack a properly functioning vital organ and you're on a list of people awaiting a transplant. An organ becomes available. You have two choices. Accept the organ as is or reject it. Due to the shortage of available organs, a rejection on your part usually means you will die from complications before a new one is available. So, to simplify, you're choices are take the organ with the possibility that a very rare virus could be missed or take the near certainty or high probability of death before a new one is available (not too many heart of liver transplants can wait a long time).
Again, this is a matter of probability. The chance of a rare disease infecting an organ causing the death of the transplant recipient is very unlikely compared with the number of people that would die if you waited to transplant or you rejected more organs.
Hunting and trapping. An idea who's time has passed. Please enter the 21st century with most of the rest of us.
Oh lord engnenk, which of my hobbies, oh most holy of kings, do you deem acceptable for me to continue to enjoy - your eminences eminence! (much bowing and scraping)
Trapping is barbaric but he paid a high price for that raccoon.
engnenk - I agree. I would much rather see hundreds of starving deer with their ribs showing and disease spreading through their ranks running into traffic at every turn instead of letting hunters thin their numbers and harvest the meat for either their consumption or to donate to a food pantry. Hunting to maintain a healthy herd is barbaric and has no place in this world! Before humans no animal was ever hunted by anything and they all sang zip-bidi-do-dah and danced all the live long day. Stupid humans...
I'd say you are just the teeniest, tinyest bossy Sir Engnenk. Where did yu get the right to tell people what to do? Who,exactly, named you Hall Monitor of The World? Just askin'.
Who made you arbiter of the world, Engnenk? Last I heard, we're all free to pursue whatever hobby we desire. For all we know, this gentleman was an amateur taxidermy student.
MYOB.
Engnenk - hunting and trapping are part of being good stewards of the land. Culling is necessary to control population, as well as taking out the old and diseased. It also fills the freezer with minimal cost (unless you have to pay to have something processed by a professional, ie deer, elk, moose, etc)
Another unwed mother? Do women just have babies now with passers by like (rabid) dogs on the street?
Why yes, yes they do. Not unlike what men have done for eons.
Another unwed father. Do men just have babies with passers by like (rabid) dogs on the street?
Fawna, women don't reproduce asexually. Not every conception starts with an evil temptress poking holes in the chaste man's condom just because yours did.
It's simpler than having to put up with the guy. After all, men aren't forced into matrimony to get sex or kids, why should women be?
Besides, rabid dogs don't have sex. Too busy looking for thr next viral host.
Fawna,
Marriage is a man made institution. It is not required to procreate!
Ummm where does it say she is currently an unwed mother?
Would someone pass the 'possum, please? :-)
As it turns out not every phrase that comes out a woman's mouth is actually true.
if a person's gonna make a statement like this, it's worthwhile to do some checking first prior, to taking a woman seriously.
Aren't you just a cute little bag of bitter issues? Do your homework, Peanut. There are other girls in the seventh grade.
Whoops, looks like someone hit Tracy's sensitive nerve tonight. PMS honey, or did you catch your man looking at porn again?
The blame goes completely to to individuals who determined the cause of death.
It shows how one slip up can harm many and kill some.
When Mr.Small became ill,medical personnel asking the right questions could have treated him for rabies.This is tragic beyond words considering how advanced the medical world has become.
Actually I've always heard that once the symptoms of rabies appear, it's too late to treat and the survival rate is very low.
you are correct. However there was a case in Mexico (where rabies is very common due to the street dog population) where a man was bitten by a rabid dog and went on to develop the classic symptoms.It was 100% fatal anyway so they decided to try a last ditch experiment.Most of the actual rabies virus ends up localizing in one particular part of the brain.They operated on this man and actually scooped out all the infected affected tissue they could see.This man survived the surgery.They followed up with some antibody therapy and he lived. He is incapacitated to a fair extent but he is alive and is cognizant.IT is the only time this daring procedure has been performed and so he is the only known patient and survivor. Most people do die of rabies before they are diagnosed unfortunately. Its so much more common in Mexico they recognize it.
No, there have been at least three or four survivors counting this guy you recognize. A young American woman survived a few years ago after they put her into an artificial coma for a long period and gave her giant doses of antiviral drugs. Not clear to what extent she wound up handicapped but surely less so than if she'd had parts of her brain hacked out.
Several years ago one of our dogs became very ill with symptoms such as seizures, foaming at the mouth and others. We took him to our vet and was placed in quarantine - my husband visited the office several times a day as our dog was so upset and hard to comfort. Only my husband and one of the vets cared for our dog - they gave him so many days - either he would be showing improvement or he would die. If he had been found to have rabies the vet, my husband and perhaps the staff and our family would have faced rabies shots. Everyone was certain he had rabies - rare, but happens in vaccinated animals. Fortunately our dog survived but really went through some horrible neurological problems and continued to have scary seizures the rest of his life. We never really knew if he had rabies or not - he certainly had symptoms that would have suggested that - he survived but did have severe neurological problems. Rabies is a very scary and difficult disease to understand.
Although she was drooling profusely and shied away from poured water.
Maybe if he hadn't liked to play mine is bigger than yours with wildlife he would still be alive. Guess theirs were bigger.
When I worked in nursing we had to call the medical examiner in addition to a transplant co-coordinator when a patient died, these calls had to be made before the body could be removed. For elderly, ill patients who were expected to die, these calls were just a formality. Then, suddenly, around 2007 the protocol seemed to change for the organ donor part of the notification ritual.
An elderly man died. He was riddled with cancer, the death was expected and peaceful. I called the medical examiners office; "check" for that routine call, "thank you for notifying us, have a nice night". Then I called the transplant services rep. In a case like this elderly man this phone call was also just a formality. After I would describe a condition like this patient was in at the time of death, the polite organ donor I generally would speak with would say a version of the the same thing, "thank you for notifying us, he doesn't sound like a candidate for donation, have a nice night".
I guess that when enough money enters the picture the rules change. The organ donation woman I spoke with that night told me to get the next of kin, she wanted to speak with them. I explained again the age and diagnosis of this deceased patient. The transplant coordinator was getting impatient with me, "you must not have understood me, I told you to get the next of kin on the phone, you can't proceed with removal of that body until I give you the go-ahead, do you understand me" (or words to that effect- this was NOT a very nice person to have a conversation with). I went into the patients room, the elderly widow was sitting next to her husbands body. I asked her to come to the nurses station, she needed to speak with the transplant co-coordinator. This elderly Hispanic lady did not really understand what I was talking about, after I (sort) of explained she told me she was not interested in something like that. I went back and told the transplant co-coordinator what the widow had said. Now the transplant co-coordinator became really vicious (if you were ever in the Army picture being put in your place by an O6). I went back to the deceased room and got the old, grieving woman to come to the phone at the nurses station.
The widow told the transplant person that she was not interested. That should have been the end of the matter, IMHO, but that transplant woman kept that poor old widow on the phone at least half an hour trying to get an eyeball, a scrap of skin, ANYTHING, from that dead man. Totally disgusting, but a perfect example of HOW CORPORATE the medical field has gotten in this country.
While I agree it's wrong to harass the deceased's family, I have to say I think the disgusting one in your story is the woman who'd rather let the stuff rot than have any of it be used to help someone else. My understanding from being briefly involved with the organ donation charities (my brother was a donor), is that they really need more hispanic donors (while we may try to act like race doesn't matter, unfortunately for genetic matching purposes it sometimes does), so this may have been a motivating factor for the transfer coordinator. Again, I don't condone the behavior of harassing the deceased's family. Also, my understanding is they still have to be able to be kept "alive" (as in machines running their heart/breathing) to be a donor, so I guess I don't fully understand what happened in your story.
While the rabies story is scary, it is rare and it sounds like the other recipients at least survived and his donation was able to help a few.
".02cents", sorry about your brother.
Let me be a little more clear. You are talking only about 'organ donation', and I agree, that is what we, the public, have in our minds when we hear about this subject. A brain dead body with machines keeping the tissue saturated with oxygen, and therefore 'viable' for transplant. And yes, I know about the problem with the scarcity of Hispanic donors, (even though percentage-wise they 'use' more organs than they 'donate').
I guess the point of my story is that "organ/and or tissue" 'donation' is no longer in the realm of "charity". It is a business, and a big business. Big money businesses use big business tactics; if this involves smiling and sympathetically nodding, and empathizing, when it will get them what they want, they do that; if the transaction involves 'strong arming' anyone who they perceive is blocking their goal, they do that.
This is the nature of transactions in the business world, not condoning or condemning, this is just the way it is.
That said, this deceased Hispanic gentleman was way up in his eighties, and his 'stuff' was basically rotted by cancer. I think that for bone, and some tissues, some kind of pasteurization process is used, so any old dead persons 'stuff' is OK.
By the way, I didn't say that the transplant coordinator 'harassed' that woman. There is no doubt in my mind that the 'donor-seeker' turned on the sympathies charm and dribbled it all over that woman. The point I was trying to make is that 'previously' (before around 2005), the fact that the elderly person died from cancer would have been sufficient to keep the 'donor seeker' wolves at bay. Now, like true hyenas, they want ANYTHING. They will decide after they get it if it is marketable or not. You see, these 'first-contact' people are NOT trained scientists. Think more along the lines of a "catalog order taker" who works from their home.
I am not saying that this is good or bad. It is business in the American Corporate sense. Its just that that 'aura' of 'saintliness' and 'goodness' that 'organ donation' has cloaked itself with are subjective values under which it does 'business'. (I could tell you some stories about the continuing lifestyles of some of the 'organ donor recipients', but these would be for another type of story.) I AM happy for all good people that have another 'chance' because someone was generous enough to donate their organs.
The point I wanted to make is that, sort of like the "do not call list", when a person says "no", it means "no", and to me taking advantage of the "moment", (and what a moment death IS, even when it is "expected") to wheedle and conduct business needs more thoughtfulness and, perhaps, that dreaded word, "regulation" than what it has, now that huge amounts of money are involved.
0.02cents - while I see where your sentiments are coming from - the choice to donate organs is with the deceased and the deceaseds family, calling someone who chooses not to donate disgusting is an issue with me. People have thier belief systems and we should respect them. I personally find it disgusting that I can have a signed donor card and in some states it doesn't hold water as it would be my surviving families call to go along with my wishes or not. There have been cases where a person has a signed donor card and a parent or loved one thinks donoation ia a violation and they overrode the directive.
Cancer patients' organs cannot be used as donations. Cancer can spread from one patient to another just as rabies spread in this case... Just FYI.
They are supposed to test for rabies now. In 2005, a month after my sister got a transplant in Dallas, there was donor who had rabies. He was a young boy from Paris, TX who they thought died of a virus. I remember feeling so bad for the families of the people who died from rabies after receiving their transplants. it could've been my sister. To have a new lease on life then to have it snatched away. I thought after that it was put into place that potential donors were to be tested for rabies...I guess not. Sad.
Rabies is a virus, and the testing is expensive so they're not going to make it a standard test because it is such a rare occurrence in humans.
I still want to know why they would harvest the organs of someone without knowing what they died from? A virus normally infects more part of the body than just the one that hurts. If they thought he died of a virus they should have tested the organs or just declared them invalid for transplants. Sounds like a complete break-down in the transplant and organ harvesting chain.
I am confused by the timeline. If Mr. Small died in 2011, his organs must have been "harvested" at that time. For someone to die in 2013, it seems like an awfully long time between removal of his organs, and the death of the receipiant. I always thought rabies killed in a few months at most, and the Maryland man must have just died recently, otherwise, why is the story News now? It is truly horrible that this new lease on life actually killed one of the receipiants, and hopefully they will save the others.
rabies infected people can go 3 months without showin symptoms and live up to 2 years after infection. Once symtoms show there is little to no chance of a cure.
Does this mean that her baby will turn into a fly larva, like in that movie? No, sorry, terrible tragedy, sorry for your loss, etc. But still . . . I see an Enquirer headline.
That means a lot to me!!!!Means, they do not check donors, and add sick body parts to the others. This is aufull!! is like you will die twice!!!
What the heck did I just read? This article is poorly presented. It just runs on but doesnt seem to have a point of end.
Is the women infected? Is her baby? Is she claiming improper medical treatment was given to her "baby daddy"? Im not sure what to make of this story. At first I thought some lady got rabie infected sperm via sperm donor!
Bad misleading title to say the least!
The writer would have been much wiser to represent the infected organ receivers. maybe title like this would have caught viewers. "Fatal Gift of Life when donated organs go bad" Or "Rabie infected Organs prove fatal"
Prayers go out to the families who lost loved ones. The editor should have in the very least honored them in this article.