3 ms·
>These two numbers, "1" and "4000" have no obvious relation to the value one places on one's life compared to the lives of others. If you think donating a kidn
by jefftk 4y ago
>These two numbers, "1" and "4000" have no obvious relation to the value one places on one's life compared to the lives of others.
If you think donating a kidney has a 1:4000 chance of killing you, and a 1:1 chance of saving someone else's life, then I do think deciding not to do it is saying that you value your continued existence 4000x someone else's. We can argue about the specific numbers, and about whether this is the best way to apply your life to helping others, but I don't think the interpretation is wrong.
> For example, "4000" is not the number of others lives saved by donating one kidney.
I don't think see anyone claiming that?
> By donating one kidney one can "save" one other person's life at most
Often you're able to save more than one: it is reasonably common for altruistic donors to be able to facilitate donation chains that would not otherwise happen. The situation is that there are many people who are willing to give a kidney to help a specific person they know, but who are not compatible donors. One way that can work out is that I give my kidney to your friend, and you give your kidney to my friend: no altruistic donor needed. But often this doesn't quite work out in terms of compatibility, and having an altruistic donor can make multiple transplants happen that wouldn't otherwise.
>it's not really "saving" as it is delaying the inevitable
That's right. Especially considering that even post transplant the recipient is going to be on immunosuppressive drugs and is not likely to have the same duration or quality of life as the typical person. Often when talking about this, people use the concept of a QALY: how many quality-adjusted life years is it?
> Equally dodgy is the calculation of "1/3,000 risk of death in surgery is like sacrificing yourself to save 3,000 people" earlier in the article.
Why is this calculation dodgy?
(While I strongly admire people who have donated kidneys, I don't think it is a very good trade-off of cost to yourself versus benefit to others, and personally I still have both kidneys)
- cheese_goddess 4y ago> "4000" is not the number of others lives saved by donating one kidney. Why did you leave out the "For example" preceding that sentence in my comment? Leaving "For example" out completely changes the meaning of my comment. It doesn't look like you're interested in a honest conversation. > (While I strongly admire people who have donated kidneys, I don't think it is a very good trade-off of cost to yourself versus benefit to others, and personally I still have both kidneys) I don't, and I suggest you keep both of yours because you are going to need them.
- jefftk 4y ago> Why did you leave out the "For example" preceding that sentence in my comment? Leaving "For example" out completely changes the meaning of my comment. I interpreted your use of "for example" as indicating that what followed was a specific claim that backed up the more general claim in the previous sentence? I didn't include it in my quote, because I was responding to your two claims separately. While it's still not clear to me how you see it changing the meaning of your comment, I've edited mine now to include it.