4 ms·

Liver failure killed my mother. Cancer killed my father and grandmother. They're both ugly, ugly diseases. While I'm not thrilled at the way Jobs used his mo

Liver failure killed my mother. Cancer killed my father and grandmother. They're both ugly, ugly diseases. While I'm not thrilled at the way Jobs used his money to get himself on as many transplant lists as he could, it's still not anything I'd wish on anyone. Best of luck to him and his family.

yardie 16y ago
As many transplant lists? He got on one, Tennessee, by living there. He didn't live there long, but to be considered he had to be there, not California, Hawaii, and Texas. And I don't blame him. Cancer is a nasty disease and if you've got the money to beat than more power to him. We should all have the resources to fight any disease, but after the silly arguments made about HCR I can say that we don't really "want" that.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  I'm all for it, let's distribute the organs back to the same income bracket that generated them. I'm pretty sure there would be a substantial across the board wage increase.
  - yardie 16y ago
    Why have to redistribute donated organs at all. In an ideal world medical research wouldn't be impeded by a religious agenda. Think about how much research could have been accomplished if there wasn't an effective ban against stem-cell research? How many lives are lost because organ donation is double opt-in? You have to agree to it before death and your next of kin has to agree after your death. And how could preventive medicine allow people to diagnose a problem before organs were lost. Steve has the money to see the problem and take effective countermeasures. A lot of people don't and the way the current government is carrying on you would think some don't want the help.
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      That's a very US centric view of things. It's funny my original comment must have been modded down several times and then modded back up again, it's almost as though there is some misinterpretation going on there. If you disagree with it feel free to speak out :) The idea behind it is a simple one: If rich people can use their money to 'jump the line' and buy the organs of poorer people that have died but left with a donor-codicil in their name then it would be good to limit the distribution of those organs to people that are roughly in the same income bracket. By doing that there would be a drive for people that are wealthy to encourage research that would relieve the need for donor organs or there would be a push to reduce the income disparity so there would be more people available in the higher income brackets that could serve as donors. Both would be beneficial in the long run. Having the rich be overrepresented as the consumers of donated organs and under represented as the donors (in absolute terms) is not good for society at all.
      - yardie 16y ago
        That's a very US centric view of things. It's about a rich man in the US. If he was in another country than this would be a different conversation. Organ transplant is already hard enough, adding another layer doesn't improve anything. Jobs didn't jump the line, just found a shorter one. Since organ transplants are compatibility and location dependent wouldn't you also attempt to find where you had the best chance at advancing in the list and having a better match. It would make an interesting table if you could display organ phenotypes correlated by location. Maybe that is exactly what he has done that made him decide that Tennessee was the best place to be.
        ghaff 16y ago
        Liver is just by blood type. The main thing is that different regions of the country have longer or shorter waiting lists.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
  - AngryParsley 16y ago
    There are a lot of problems with this idea. You've created a perverse incentive structure. Poor people won't be able to get the organs of rich people. This will favor people at the top of each income bracket, since they will have more money to move to where the waiting list is shortest. Or if you want to let people buy and sell organs, they'll have more money than their competitors. Rich people can use financial instruments to change their income. Since most people accumulate wealth over life, organ donors will usually be young and poor. Recipients will be older and richer. This disparity is large enough to ensure that some organs will go to waste. Oh and this will never happen because politicians are rich and old and need organ transplants. It's weird how people suddenly care what you do with your corpse when it can directly help others. Buried? Fine. Cremated? Sure. Donated to research? Go for it. Frozen in liquid nitrogen? Whatever floats your boat. Sold to the highest bidder so you can provide for your family after death? Eh, not so much.
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      It probably would be good to note here that there are far fewer wealthy people than there are poorer people. So this will not favor those at the top of the income brackets because waiting lists are typically on a compatibility and first-come-first-served basis. Right now for instance there is a big flap going between the Netherlands and Belgium, the dutch have voluntary codicis, the Belgians have mandatory ones. Because EuroTransplant matches up donors and organs from both countries the Dutch benefit from this arrangement disproportionally. > Since most people accumulate wealth over life, organ donors will usually be young and poor. Recipients will be older and richer. Yes, that's the current situation, pretty much. Poor people in need of organs that are older are not getting any because rich people in need of organs get to use their money to 'jump the line'. > Oh and this will never happen because politicians are rich and old and need organ transplants. Yes, I realize that, it underscores my point I think.
Mz 16y ago
While I'm not thrilled at the way Jobs used his money to get himself on as many transplant lists as he could, it's still not anything I'd wish on anyone. I have cystic fibrosis, which accounts for a really high percentage of lung transplants in the U.S. (something like 1/3 of adult and 1/2 of pediatric lung transplants, IIRC) and people with CF sometimes get other organ transplants as well. Transplant itself is really hard on the body and then you take anti-rejection drugs for the rest of your life. Sometimes it doesn't go well and people die after transplant. The stories are pretty heart-wrenching. I can't help but feel it is Frankensteinian and I wish there was more research into preventing and reversing organ degeneration/failure. My feeling is transplant is kind of "glamorous" and glitzy for the medical world whereas preventive medicine is boring -- if you avert crisis, there isn't any real "news" to report: "These people didn't get gruesomely ill and didn't suffer horribly. Film at 11". It just doesn't sell. I don't envy anyone facing transplant, money or no money.
- grammaton 16y ago
  Trust me, neither do I. Being on "the list" is a long and taxing and heart wrenching process. I just don't like the fact that having money increases your odds.
  - Mz 16y ago
    There is a whole lot wrong with conventional medicine. I wish there were more and better alternatives altogether.
    - stcredzero 16y ago
      What's wrong with conventional medicine in the US is small compared to what's wrong with how we finance it.
      - Mz 16y ago
        I think how we finance it is a very, very big part of the problem and the two probably can't really be separated. I think it actively encourages bad solutions.
laujen 16y ago
I don't know Jobs' specific circumstances regarding paying or not, but I do believe you get liver priority if you are not an alcoholic. Since most liver failure issues are alcohol related, those patients usually have to wait to even be put on a list. In Oregon it is six months of sobriety.
- grammaton 16y ago
  You get priority based on the severity of your illness. And you'd be surprised how many liver failure issues have nothing to do with alchohol.

yardie 16y ago

As many transplant lists? He got on one, Tennessee, by living there. He didn't live there long, but to be considered he had to be there, not California, Hawaii, and Texas. And I don't blame him. Cancer is a nasty disease and if you've got the money to beat than more power to him. We should all have the resources to fight any disease, but after the silly arguments made about HCR I can say that we don't really "want" that.

jacquesm 16y ago
I'm all for it, let's distribute the organs back to the same income bracket that generated them. I'm pretty sure there would be a substantial across the board wage increase.
- yardie 16y ago
  Why have to redistribute donated organs at all. In an ideal world medical research wouldn't be impeded by a religious agenda. Think about how much research could have been accomplished if there wasn't an effective ban against stem-cell research? How many lives are lost because organ donation is double opt-in? You have to agree to it before death and your next of kin has to agree after your death. And how could preventive medicine allow people to diagnose a problem before organs were lost. Steve has the money to see the problem and take effective countermeasures. A lot of people don't and the way the current government is carrying on you would think some don't want the help.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    That's a very US centric view of things. It's funny my original comment must have been modded down several times and then modded back up again, it's almost as though there is some misinterpretation going on there. If you disagree with it feel free to speak out :) The idea behind it is a simple one: If rich people can use their money to 'jump the line' and buy the organs of poorer people that have died but left with a donor-codicil in their name then it would be good to limit the distribution of those organs to people that are roughly in the same income bracket. By doing that there would be a drive for people that are wealthy to encourage research that would relieve the need for donor organs or there would be a push to reduce the income disparity so there would be more people available in the higher income brackets that could serve as donors. Both would be beneficial in the long run. Having the rich be overrepresented as the consumers of donated organs and under represented as the donors (in absolute terms) is not good for society at all.
    - yardie 16y ago
      That's a very US centric view of things. It's about a rich man in the US. If he was in another country than this would be a different conversation. Organ transplant is already hard enough, adding another layer doesn't improve anything. Jobs didn't jump the line, just found a shorter one. Since organ transplants are compatibility and location dependent wouldn't you also attempt to find where you had the best chance at advancing in the list and having a better match. It would make an interesting table if you could display organ phenotypes correlated by location. Maybe that is exactly what he has done that made him decide that Tennessee was the best place to be.
      - ghaff 16y ago
        Liver is just by blood type. The main thing is that different regions of the country have longer or shorter waiting lists.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- AngryParsley 16y ago
  There are a lot of problems with this idea. You've created a perverse incentive structure. Poor people won't be able to get the organs of rich people. This will favor people at the top of each income bracket, since they will have more money to move to where the waiting list is shortest. Or if you want to let people buy and sell organs, they'll have more money than their competitors. Rich people can use financial instruments to change their income. Since most people accumulate wealth over life, organ donors will usually be young and poor. Recipients will be older and richer. This disparity is large enough to ensure that some organs will go to waste. Oh and this will never happen because politicians are rich and old and need organ transplants. It's weird how people suddenly care what you do with your corpse when it can directly help others. Buried? Fine. Cremated? Sure. Donated to research? Go for it. Frozen in liquid nitrogen? Whatever floats your boat. Sold to the highest bidder so you can provide for your family after death? Eh, not so much.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    It probably would be good to note here that there are far fewer wealthy people than there are poorer people. So this will not favor those at the top of the income brackets because waiting lists are typically on a compatibility and first-come-first-served basis. Right now for instance there is a big flap going between the Netherlands and Belgium, the dutch have voluntary codicis, the Belgians have mandatory ones. Because EuroTransplant matches up donors and organs from both countries the Dutch benefit from this arrangement disproportionally. > Since most people accumulate wealth over life, organ donors will usually be young and poor. Recipients will be older and richer. Yes, that's the current situation, pretty much. Poor people in need of organs that are older are not getting any because rich people in need of organs get to use their money to 'jump the line'. > Oh and this will never happen because politicians are rich and old and need organ transplants. Yes, I realize that, it underscores my point I think.

Mz 16y ago

While I'm not thrilled at the way Jobs used his money to get himself on as many transplant lists as he could, it's still not anything I'd wish on anyone. I have cystic fibrosis, which accounts for a really high percentage of lung transplants in the U.S. (something like 1/3 of adult and 1/2 of pediatric lung transplants, IIRC) and people with CF sometimes get other organ transplants as well. Transplant itself is really hard on the body and then you take anti-rejection drugs for the rest of your life. Sometimes it doesn't go well and people die after transplant. The stories are pretty heart-wrenching. I can't help but feel it is Frankensteinian and I wish there was more research into preventing and reversing organ degeneration/failure. My feeling is transplant is kind of "glamorous" and glitzy for the medical world whereas preventive medicine is boring -- if you avert crisis, there isn't any real "news" to report: "These people didn't get gruesomely ill and didn't suffer horribly. Film at 11". It just doesn't sell. I don't envy anyone facing transplant, money or no money.

grammaton 16y ago
Trust me, neither do I. Being on "the list" is a long and taxing and heart wrenching process. I just don't like the fact that having money increases your odds.
- Mz 16y ago
  There is a whole lot wrong with conventional medicine. I wish there were more and better alternatives altogether.
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    What's wrong with conventional medicine in the US is small compared to what's wrong with how we finance it.
    - Mz 16y ago
      I think how we finance it is a very, very big part of the problem and the two probably can't really be separated. I think it actively encourages bad solutions.

laujen 16y ago

I don't know Jobs' specific circumstances regarding paying or not, but I do believe you get liver priority if you are not an alcoholic. Since most liver failure issues are alcohol related, those patients usually have to wait to even be put on a list. In Oregon it is six months of sobriety.

grammaton 16y ago
You get priority based on the severity of your illness. And you'd be surprised how many liver failure issues have nothing to do with alchohol.