3 ms·
While there is a short fall of viable organs for donation, the issue the author raises here is one of long term risk. This is what gets brushed aside when the
by Lordarminius 10y ago
While there is a short fall of viable organs for donation, the issue the author raises here is one of long term risk.
This is what gets brushed aside when the organ donation process is activated. Only now do we have results from long term study of donors and some of them as pointed out by the author are not good at all.
This problem is not confined to kidney donations for instance, is a growing body of evidence that points to long term complications from another medical procedure - laser surgery (lasix). Here many patients suffer degenerative vitreo-reinal changes over time (if you can, avoid it).
It is not actually the case that donors do not benefit from the current process. Outside the US in the largest market for kidney surgeries India, they are paid; as well as in the Thailand and the middle east.
End stage renal disease is one of the worst conditions to die from, and everyone involved with an afflicted patient is desperate for a solution since they suffer almost as much as him/her.
So,No. Paying for organs will not solve this particular problem. But neither will doing nothing.
One solution that can improve the number of donor organs is to make it mandatory that organs from qualified people who die violent or accidental deaths be immediately considered for transplant to those who need them. But you can guess this proposal would be (illogically imo) opposed in many countries.
Edit: On a related note, I have been mulling over an idea for a while for a startup to reduce the cost of dialysis for patients with renal disease. At present, it is prohibitively expensive and some patients require 2 sessions a week. If anyone is interested in joining me, reach out. My email address is in my profile.
- mcjon77 10y agoWow! I had no idea that there were any links to long term problems with lasix. I have been considering the procedure for over 15 years, but never pulled the trigger. If there are long term risks, I think that I will just stick to glasses.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- WalterBright 10y ago> illogically The ethical problem there is how hard the hospital works to save a patient as opposed to letting them die so they can harvest the organs.
- Lordarminius 10y agoWell there's that of course. But a huge problem also is that many relatives will baulk at the idea of their loved ones being harvested and also some religions have injunctions against this
- Broken_Hippo 10y agoYou know, I hear those stories - that hospitals won't work as hard for you if they know you are a donor. Yet I've not seen any numbers on this. The same folks usually state things about an open casket and other such things. I'm guessing it happens, but I'm also guessing that most times, this isn't on the Doctor's and Nurses's minds in an emergency. Besides that, one can have some policies that help negate this: For example, no financial kickbacks. I suspect that if organ donation is widespread, it becomes much more normal, and this would cease to be an issue/rumor at all. And I do think the OP is correct - the bigger problem is families and religious views more than folks simply letting people die.
- WalterBright 10y agoI am a donor myself, so I'm not too worried about it. But perverse incentives should always be checked for.
- AstralStorm 10y ago"Lasix" is not one technology or surgery. If you meant the oldest variant of LASIK or LASEK, the complications are known, it is quite major eye surgery. Newer variants have lower rate of both short and long term complications. (femto-LASIK, the Epi-LASIK and more modern no-touch variants) Also there are a few big studies comparing long term quality of life. Pretty favourable for surgery. This easily trumps "we found changes in cornea".
- Lordarminius 10y agoYou are right and I appreciate the correction. I meant to write LASIK (the surgery) not lasix (the drug, furosemide)