Organ donors

Remove all ads!

I'm shocked that 87,000 out of 110,000 people on the list need kidneys. You'd think that we'd have them in excess (compared to other organs), as one organ donor could provide a kidney to two people. It's a two for one deal. Do kidneys just stop working more often than other organs?

Not to single Snook out here, but since he brought it up, it seems like if you're on the list for anything other than a kidney, you'll probably get one when a match comes up, which isn't what I'd expect. I'd think it would be harder to get a liver, as that's one liver per one person.

They said that there were 17,000 kidney transplants last year, meaning (I guess) that there were about 8,500 people who donated their kidneys when they died. Given that non-kidney transplant candidates make up only the remaining 23,000 people on the list, it sounds like you have decent odds, provided a match is found.

I mean, if there's 8,500 donors per year (and that number seems impossibly small, but I guess organ donation is not done as often as I think), unless over 8,500 of the remaining 23,000 non-kidney candidates need the organ in question, it seems like getting a match would be the limiting criteria.

 

Another thought is that dialysis can keep people with kidney failure alive for quite some time. When other things go, it could be fatal much quicker.

 

Once a person is no longer in need of an organ, then comes the tricky part of deciding who gets the aforementioned organ. No matter what criteria you use, some people are not going to like it. It's a fact of life.

 

And I think that is the exact reason that the list of people needing kidneys is so long... you can be kept alive on dialysis for an extended period of time. For other donations, if you don't get the organ fairly quickly, you're dead.

 

I don't know what to think, really. I couldn't say when a transplantation is not "worth" it. Imagine being someone being told your not worth the trouble. And how is that defined? By how much tax you pay? By how many people have said they love you? Google hits on your name?

I can't imagine you'd qualify for an organ if you're 97 years old, have diabetes, lymph node cancer and crohn's disease (all of these together), but where do you draw the line, if there's any?

I find this very difficult... Good thing I'm not a doctor.

 

I guess that is one of the problems I have. Being a CPA I feel like I should be able to audit everything. However, these decisions seem to be made by doctors and I'm not quite sure what criteria they are using. I understand the logic in giving organs to young healthy people as opposed to sick elderly people. I just want to make sure I'm in the first category for a really long time.

 

Exactly. I don't want someone telling me I'm too old for saving. I still consider myself young and have a lot of years left.

 

noone is saying that your too old for saving.........

 

Don't get married.

 

Valid point, the person who makes my medical decisions if I'm incapicated also is the beneficiary of my life insurance

 

You tend to get considered old at 50. At least here in the UK. You just get bumped down the list until it's too late It's awful.

 

You might as well put a hit out on yourself. Don't eat anything she cooks for you...

 

Health, religion or it's just too morbid to think about?


I don't remember clearly but I think I am a registered donor. Not sure if it was a particular organ or just about anything that can be salvaged from my corpse. I do donate blood whenever I can.

As for the new law giving the young better chances. I really don't know whether to agree or disagree. One view would say that it is logical to let the young live longer. They are the future of the world. But then, everyday I see people in their 50s to late 60s still working to support young people. Makes me think that the law may not really be the best answer at all. At least not for a 3rd world nation.

 

There needs to be some logical judgement of a person's value to society. In terms of human value, everyone is equal, so that whole thing cancels itself out. Everyone has families and loved ones who will say that the person is valuable. So get rid of that, it's a moot point.

How long will a person likely live with the new organ? Fair question. The longer the better. it's not anti-age, it's cost / benefit analysis, and while I understand that people love their elderly relatives, the relatives of the young person in need love their young relative just as much.

What does this person contribute to the community? Is the person employed? Does he* have a criminal record? Is he a drug user?

I know it's not nice, but IMHO these should be factors when making such a crucial decision. People who have done the most, or who are statistically more likely to contribute to society in a positive way, deserve the organ transplant more than cocaine addicted rapists (forgive the hyperbole, but you get the point) What other criteria is there that should be used in making the decision?

Or should it just be random? THAT doesn't seem fair or in the best interests of society.

*switched to he for ease of use.

 

Well, it's not random now. It's based on the list initially, but how badly you need to organ also factors in as well. If someone is on the list that is also a match ahead of you can live another 6 months without a transplant, but you'll likely die in 3 months without one, you get to move ahead of him.