The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
Never-ending kidney donation
abclocal.go.com — Dr. Mike Rees calls it, "the gift that keeps on giving." Using a computer algorithm that matches kidney donors with recipients, the Alliance for Paired Donation is increasing the number of patients able to receive life-saving organs by using altruistic donors to kick off a chain of transplants.
conniereece- 329 diggs
- digg it
- LaurieReece, on 12/08/2007, -2/+13Thanks for Digging this story! I work with the Alliance for Paired Donation, the organization that facilitated the transplants mentioned in this ABC News story. If you would like more information about kidney paired donation, please visit our Web site at www.paireddonation.org.
- jquig99, on 12/08/2007, -2/+0Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Take care.
- Nudar, on 12/08/2007, -0/+4Although kidney donation can be a good thing, let's not pretend that there are not serious inherent risks to the donor including death during the operation. This isn't like removing a mole. You can lose significant amounts of blood. Some major blood vessels are in close proximity to and supply the kidneys.
- ms2guy, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1Yes, there are risks inherent to donation, but patients who undergo kidney transplant live longer and have a much better lifestyle than those who stay on dialysis. I speak from some expertise: I am a third year medical student at The University of Toledo who has personally worked with Dr. Rees in the OR.
On a related note, I feel I should clarify something about Dr. Rees' program. The program began when one Toledo man donated a kidney out of pure altruism. However, the patient that received his kidney had to agree to have one of his/her friends or family members donate a kidney. Then, when that second donated kidney is matched up with a compatible recipient, that patient must arrange for kidney donation from one of their loved ones, and so on. It would be more appropriated to call these 'linked donations', rather than 'paired donations'. - sjbdallas, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1It's much safer these days. Especially for the donor because they can do it via laporscopic tools. I gave my dad a kidney 6 years ago and he's been doing great and I had no real issues. I was back to work in a few weeks.
- Nudar, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1I work in the OR every single day on the anesthesia side. Another complication that is not spoken of is the possibility of chronic debilitating pain resulting from the operation. So if you're going to donate your kidney, at least know the risks first. If you go ahead anyway, then God bless you.
- ms2guy, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1Yes, there are risks inherent to donation, but patients who undergo kidney transplant live longer and have a much better lifestyle than those who stay on dialysis. I speak from some expertise: I am a third year medical student at The University of Toledo who has personally worked with Dr. Rees in the OR.
- Amadeus2490, on 12/08/2007, -3/+3I know this'll be at probably -94 diggs within the hour, but:
Kidney transplants suck; they require you to be on immunosuppressive drugs and you die within a few years anyways. You should work on some sort of way to get peoples bodies to accept transplants, otherwise it's a waste of a 250,000-dollar procedure.- coopa, on 12/08/2007, -0/+10I'm a 25 year old kidney transplant patient and what you're saying is completely untrue. I had my transplant almost 6 years ago and believe me, this is much better than the alternatives of dialysis or slowly dying.
You do not 'die within a few years' - the average tranplanted organ lasts for 10 - 15 years, i personally know people who's have last far longer. Once a kidney 'dies' you end up back on dialysis - still preferable to dying. We're lucky enough to be able to survive on alternative treatment. Liver, heart, lung patients have no such luck, once their organ dies they have almost zero chance of survival. - adwarereport, on 12/08/2007, -0/+2Kidneys are one thing, but hearts are another. The average heart transplant patient lives 10 years, not 15. There is no backup plan and the chance of getting a 2nd heart are next to nil. Researching ways to extend this period would help a lot more people than just the kidney recipients.
- toomanyhandles, on 12/08/2007, -0/+0Who says no one is researching it?
- sjbdallas, on 12/08/2007, -0/+2My dad's been fine for 6 years since I gave him one of mine. He's been able to taper back on many of the immuno drugs he had to take initially.
- toomanyhandles, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1Keeping in mind the diggers posting here are some of the same audience who didn't understand why super antibiotic resistant bacteria in organic chickens wasn't a big deal as "you eat chicken cooked"....:
Immunosupressive regimens now are much much less overtly suppressive; even comparatively few years ago bacterial infections were a big problem and now it's not a major concern for most.
Steroid use post-transplant can be as minimal as those taken by many people with asthma.
Now that a U.K. pre-transplant "treatment" is finally beginning to be available in the USA (GO US medical system GO, TRY to catch up) steroids can be totally removed from the drug regimen for many (if you got the new "pre-treatment") and those steroids are often the most problematic medication post-transplant in terms of overall impact.
Oh and that "way to get people's bodies to accept" thing you asked for; that's the pre-treatment that's been available overseas for years. Even without it things are light years better than even 10 years ago.
Hope that helps.
- coopa, on 12/08/2007, -0/+10I'm a 25 year old kidney transplant patient and what you're saying is completely untrue. I had my transplant almost 6 years ago and believe me, this is much better than the alternatives of dialysis or slowly dying.
- Dukeye, on 12/08/2007, -1/+3While this is a beautiful story of altruism and compassion, I also feel that the medical/research industry needs to focus on health and prevention, instead of maximizing profits from surgeries and drugs.
- toomanyhandles, on 12/08/2007, -0/+0Actually companies make an enormous profit on dialysis, and most of the medications post-transplant aren't that expensive (just one or two are non-generic).
- AveryDeDog, on 12/08/2007, -0/+4The whole concept of "donating" organs or blood is truly perverted. No, not perverted like THAT. Perverse in that the donor is truly giving a gift of life and is not compensated. Everyone else that is involved in the donation right down the line until it reaches the final recipient makes money! The Red Cross makes a huge income off donated blood. So do the hospitals that charge insurance companies for those pints of life saving blood. As does the doctor that orders the blood and the nurses that administer it.
Organ transplants? There's gold in them thar organs! Check with your local transplant center and ask what the install costs! Then, tally up what was billed trying to keep the patient alive long enough to get a heart / lung / liver / kidney or whatever. I think you'll not be finding a whole lot of altruism there.
Let's make it legal to sell our organs. Maybe all those morons that financed their houses with the balloon mortgages could sell a couple of nice fresh organs and get out from under the outrageous rates they signed up for!- joot2112, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1How much should a person be paid for giving a "gift" of life? If you start paying people to sell organs, what you would get is a bunch of desperate poor people selling their body parts. Low-income people would become the "harvest class".
- ms2guy, on 12/08/2007, -0/+2That is the problem with monetary payment for organ donation. Dr. Rees' Paired Donation program is a wise alternative, because a rich patient can not buy into the program. Every potential recipient is seem as equal. The only eligibility requirement is that you have a loved one willing to donate one of their kidneys in order to keep the chain going.
- thermus, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1It's a noble idea, but not without potential abuser. Consider a wealthy recipient who can afford to hire a "friend" to donate.
- war6986, on 12/08/2007, -1/+1You know what the problem is with not being able to sell your organs? The thousands of people who die each year because very few people are willing to part with organs without some form of compensation. Having blood on your hands isn't quite so noble is it?
- thermus, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1It's a noble idea, but not without potential abuser. Consider a wealthy recipient who can afford to hire a "friend" to donate.
- war6986, on 12/08/2007, -1/+0Who are you to tell poor people that they can not sell a part of their own bodies? My organs are my own god damn possession and I shouldn't need your permission to do with them as I see fit.
- ms2guy, on 12/08/2007, -0/+2That is the problem with monetary payment for organ donation. Dr. Rees' Paired Donation program is a wise alternative, because a rich patient can not buy into the program. Every potential recipient is seem as equal. The only eligibility requirement is that you have a loved one willing to donate one of their kidneys in order to keep the chain going.
- MatthewBlack, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1I think I understand what you are saying:
- You imply that it is wrong to charge for the gift of life, ie not to be altruistic,
- So you suggest that people sell their organs as a solution?
- The most obvious flaw with allowing people to sell organs you point to at the end. It would likely exploit the most financially vulnerable.
If you believe that allowing people to profit from 'the gift of life' is wrong, maybe it would be better to only allow non-profit organisations to deal in organs/blood?
- joot2112, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1How much should a person be paid for giving a "gift" of life? If you start paying people to sell organs, what you would get is a bunch of desperate poor people selling their body parts. Low-income people would become the "harvest class".
- Lowrads, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1Hmm, if there was a registry for spare organ donation, sufficiently encrypted to be disguised from insurance corporations, with standardized, escalating type screening, and a number of firms had access to the data for inventory sorting and statistical data, then perhaps states could encourage participation with income tax breaks.
It's really one of those things that works better when there is a critical mass of participants. Improve technology, and processes enough and it might even approach the level of basic public health infrastructure. Sadly, it's even less plausible than simple preventive care programmes. - war6986, on 12/08/2007, -0/+3"In 2006, Iran became the only country to allow individuals to sell their kidneys, and the market price is US$2,000 to US$4,000. The Economist[15], and the Ayn Rand Institute[16] approve, and advocated a legal market elsewhere. They argued that if 0.06% of Americans between 19 and 65 were to sell one kidney, the national waiting list would disappear (which, the Economist wrote, happened in Iran). The Economist argued that donating kidneys is no more risky than surrogate motherhood, which can be done legally for pay in most countries."
Every single person in Iran who needs a kidney, gets a kidney. Now tell me which is more compassionate:
a) Setting up a system that saves thousands of lives a year, or
b) Protecting poor people from themselves by limiting their control over their own bodies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_transplant- MaxPayne3476, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1$2000 - $4000
pft, black market prices are currently over $100,000. Let me tell you how much I want for my kidney :)
- MaxPayne3476, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1$2000 - $4000
- dumky, on 12/10/2007, -0/+0If you're interested in this story, you'll probably want to find out more details about the design of the kidney market, including the never-ending donation chain. Al Roth made a presentation on the topic. It is available at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8717497583 ...
Two interesting examples:
* job market for gastroenterologists is so competitive that it destroys itself. Solution is to create a clearinghouse and create an industry charter that makes job offers outside of the clearinghouse less interesting (it is not binding to the candidate).
* kidney market would greatly improve chances of finding a good match. He explains the design a system that creates the maximum benefits, fits the constraints of what hospitals can do and also provides the right incentives for hospitals to open their information. - lolo2007, on 01/22/2008, -0/+0
It's really one of those things that works better when there is a critical mass of participants. Improve technology, and processes enough and it might even approach the level of basic public health infrastructure. Sadly, it's even less plausible than simple preventive care programmes.
http://game.paramegsoft.com/
http://download.paramegsoft.com/ - healthplus, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1always believed all things happen for a reason and because of this terrible turn of events.We will be forever grateful.
see more Interesting Health Site http://www.healthplusnow.com/
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is