Organ donors

Remove all ads!

The phone call listings with are more opt in as the system allows the company phoning you after signing up can be sued or fined

 

Whoo Hooo. I just got a call from my cousin and last night my Aunt got a call that another liver match was found. She is out of the OR and in ICU. Fingers crossed that recovery goes smoothly.

It seems like such a massive thing to take out an organ and put in another one.

 

Yeah, organ transplants are pretty major things. Congrats on the new liver, though, and we'll be praying for her recovery.

 

NOG: I suppose you mean praying in the widest sense of the word, accounting for anything between pagan sacrificial rituals and altruistic wishes of well-being.

 

Actually, I meant 'we' as in my wife and I. I can see the confusion, though.

 

Glad to hear it, Snook. I hope that all goes well for your aunt.

Yeah, though I have to wonder if the really massive thing is actually finding the compatible organ in the first place. One never knows if you'll actually ever succeed at finding a compatible organ, plus the factor of finding one in time.

 

I have heard from my aunt and she is doing much better. Although I'm slightly depressed now as they found out the liver came from a 13 year old girl. It makes me want to cry as Teen Snook is 13 for another couple of days. I can't imagine the horror that family is going through which is offsetting the euphoria of our family.

 

Yes, Snook, it is the tragic reality that in many (most?) cases, for one person to get a donor organ and live, another will die.

 

That's true, Crucis, but it's especially sad when it's a child.

 

I would go beyond most and say nearly all. Unless you're talking about a kidney or something that can be donated by a family member, for someone to get an organ donation, it is necessary that someone else has died. The only upside is that in many situations the death of a single organ donor can save the life of many other individuals.

 

I think kidneys and livers are the only ones. You have two kidneys and only really need one, and the liver can be partially transplanted and then grow back (in both individuals). You also have two lungs, but you kind of need them both, so I don't really think you can give one up for someone, and you've only got one of all the other major organs.

 

I'm resurrecting an older thread because I just read This

Spoiler

The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) – the nation’s organ-transplant network – is considering a change in its policy by giving younger, healthier patients preference versus older, sicker people, The Washington Post reported.

Currently, UNOS gives kidneys, which is the most sought-after organ, to patients who have been on the waiting list the longest amount of time, but a new policy would match recipients and organs based on age and health.

“We’re trying to best utilize the gift of the donated organ, said Kenneth Andreoni, an associate professor of surgery at Ohio State University, who chairs the committee that is reviewing the system for UNOS, which is a non-profit based in Richmond, Va. “It’s an effort to get the most out of a scarce resource.”

The possible changes are being welcomed by some bioethicists and transplant surgeons; however, others worry it would distort the pool of existing organs by modifying the model of people who make living donations. It could also discriminate against middle-aged or elderly patients.

“The best kidneys are from young adults under age 35 years. Nobody over the age of 50 will ever see one of those," said Lainie Friedman Ross, a University of Chicago bioethicist and physician. "There are a lot of people in their 50s and 60s who, with a properly functioning kidney, could have 20 or more years of life. We're making it harder for them to get a kidney that will function for that length of time. It's age discrimination."

There are more than 110,000 Americans on the transplant waiting list. Of those, 87,000 need kidneys – and each year, only 17,000 Americans get a kidney transplant. More than 4,600 people die because they did not receive a kidney in enough time.

The public can send in their comments to UNOS until April 1. A decision could be made by June 2012.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. My aunt got her liver from a 13 year old and was doing quite well until recently. Now she has been diagnosed with cancer and has had surgery and is just starting chemotherapy.

Under these new rules she would have never gotten the liver as she is in her 60s. If she manages to survive the cancer (and God knows what else) hopefully she will live until her 80s (her mother died at 86). Without the liver she would have been dead already.

However, the practical side of me wonders if she dies in the next year or two who else could have gotten the liver? Could it have gone to a twenty year old in much better health who could have lived 60 years with it? I'm way to close to this to make an honest assessment. I'm turning 44 in March and the thought that I'm getting close to the ages where they would decide I'm not worthy of an organ transplant is also disturbing to me.

 

Can't they just learn how to manufacture the little buggers and this would be a non issue and I wouldn't have to feel like a selfish prick because I have an irrational attachement to my organs even after death.

 

I agree with Tal. With limited resources, it's hard to say whether they should be assigned based on past evidence (i.e. having survived to 70 years old) or future potential (i.e. being only 20 now). Beyond the strict logic, which doesn't favor either side, the emotions are similar, just more heated (as is often the case). Are you going to let grandma die, or that nice young man training to be a doctor?

All in all, I think just a consistent rule is best, whichever side it may take.

And joacqin, they're working hard on it. They have been for a long time.

 

One day of life is still life; all life is equal (e.g., it's just as illegal to muder a 99 year old as it is a 1 year old, as insensitive as that sounds). I don't think age should be a limiting factor.

That said, I'd like to think that if I was 65 years old and needed a kidney, and they told me I could have one but I could also let little 8 year old Jimmy have it, I'd have the integrity and determination to pass it on to little Jimmy. I've never worn the shoes though.

 

All life is of equal value, but not all life is equal. Inequalities are what make us unique. Unfortunately, when you just don't have enough resources to save everyone, those inequalities can become judgement criteria. I won't even say that's wrong, so long as there's some excuse for a rational basis to them (i.e. not letting all the atheists die while saving all the Christians).

 

I missed the original debate, so i'll say first:
I'm a registered organ donor, anything they need they can take. It's unlikely that i'll ever save a life whine i'm alive, but maybe when i'm gone I can save a few

As for the new development..
I'm stuck on this one really. I'm pretty sure that certain conditions have to be met before a transplant can take place, particularly for self inflicted damage (liver damage from alcohol, for example). However, should age factor into transplants?

I'm leaning towards no, I think. I'm not sure, though.

 

I'd donate organs. They'd be no use to me anymore, would they?

One thing I can't do though, is give blood...