8mm
Posted on 03/10/2007 10:35:07 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The nation's organ-transplant network is preparing a major change in how it rations scarce kidneys that would favor young patients over old in an effort to wring more life out of donated organs.
Today, a donated kidney generally goes to the person who has been waiting longest in the region in which it becomes available, with exceptions made for certain medical factors. A kidney from a 25-year-old donor could be transplanted into a 75-year-old, who is likely to die years before the kidney would have stopped working.
The new policy is being developed by the United Network for Organ Sharing, the nonprofit body that develops organ-distribution policy under a government contract.
Surgeons and others leading the process expect the final proposal will rely significantly -- though not exclusively -- on the concept of "net benefit," which seeks to give kidneys first to those who will benefit most from them.
"Waiting time is arbitrary," said Alan Leichtman, a University of Michigan kidney doctor helping to craft the policy. "It seems like a real shame that we're not being better stewards of the organs."
The concept is gaining traction among transplant doctors but creating anxiety for some patients and surgeons who worry the new system won't be fair to all. "Is it correct or permissible for the system to say the five or six more years of life that a 60-year-old is going to get are less valuable, less important than the 15 more years of life the 30-year-old is going to get?" asked Richard Freeman, a transplant surgeon at Tufts-New England Medical Center in Boston.
The UNOS board has yet to receive a specific proposal, and any decision by the board must be approved by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
PING!
Of course the young deserve the donated organs - they have the most economic potential (read: taxation) for socialized medicine to benefit from. Plus, aging folks are so messy and needy - better to let them croak ASAP so we can all be happier and more prosperous.
It also depends on whether the person waiting for the kidney is a VIP or not
I agree. VIPS excluded.
This smacks of socialist or communistic views.
Warren Buffet or a 17 year old slacker ?
I think the organs should be in 3 categories.
1/3 to the highest bidder (if you have a lot of money, you probably did well for others and paid a bunch of taxes)
1/3 by lottery (let god decide)
1/3 by a point system with cash and lottery (you pay a set fee like 1000 dollars to get in this group, a govt. agency ranks you by criterion like military service, prison record, public service, AGE, other disease/medical condition, etc. and gives you a rank which gives you more or fewer ping pong balls or chances and then a lottery picks the winners. The ex felons might get 1 chance, a military might get 10, subtract 5 for age, etc.)
Ageism. Discrimination.
I think God decided when he created man--he gave each of us organs and didn't provide a zipper thus I do not believe his intent was to redistribute.
How about having the organs on the free market, with the option to donate left intact. The economic incentive should draw out more donors, and people who don't agree with this can still donate kidneys to those who cannot afford to buy them.
The old are good for nothing but to feed the others. They should simply CHOOSE to fold up and "Go Home."
I don't like the sound of this...
You can combine my comments and yours.
That is kidneys may be "donated" for 1000 in cash or no cash or to the highest bidder, but can be distributed by my 1/3 hybrid scheme.
A lot of people would be upset if they donated a kidney and it went to a rich person who paid a lot of money so they can put it in the other categories.
Then some just want some extra money and can put into the hybrid 1000 dollar group and get 1000 back or they can go into the highest bidder group and get the highest bid.
I think a marriage of your idea and mine would be excellent.
Or if internet rumors are true, you can just take your debit card, fly to China, and they kill a prisoner to order for $10,000.
Have to check Snopes...I do not want to believe that.
Hey thats a great idea. Your plan would ensure that some rich junkie rock star like McJagger or Kieth Richards who destroyed his liver through years of alcohol and drug abuse can get the liver my neighbors 2 year old son needs to have a healthy productive life.
I've never heard of a 75 year old getting a kidney transplant, or any kind of organ transplant for that matter (except maybe corneas or a skin graft).
So a 70-year old college professor named Albert Einstein would be passed over in favor of a 17-year old fast food employee?
Brilliant!
Here is the deal. The market with people of their own free will have decided that the rolling stones have provided more value than your neighbors 2 year old son.
Sorry if you don't like it, but it is true.
Now the 2 year old can enter the lottery (let god take care of it) or pay 1000 dollars and let men have some say or decide who should get more chances or provide a ton of free market goods and services throughout their life and get rewarded for that effort.
By the way, most people feel the alcholic Micky Mantle did not deserve a kidney transplant but he got one anyway and he died a year later anyway.
they are just useless eaters but if they have been productive during their lives, it seems to me, that they have earned their retirement.
sorry, it was a liver transplant, not kidney.
from wikipedia
Mantle's wife and sons all completed treatment for alcoholism, and told him he needed to do the same. He checked into the Betty Ford Clinic on January 7, 1994, after being told by a doctor that his liver was so badly damaged, "Your next drink could be your last." Also helping Mantle to make the decision to go to the Betty Ford Clinic was Pat Summerall, a sportscaster who had played for the New York Giants football team while they played at Yankee Stadium, and was now a recovering alcoholic and a member of the same Dallas-area country club as Mantle.
Shortly after completing treatment, his son Billy died on March 12, at age 36, of heart trouble, brought on by years of substance abuse. Despite the fears of those who knew him that this tragedy would send him back to drinking, he remained sober. Mickey Jr. died of liver cancer on December 20, 2000, at age 47. Danny later battled prostate cancer.
Mantle spoke with great remorse of his drinking in a "Sports Illustrated" article, "My Life In A Bottle." He said that he was telling the same old stories, and realizing how much of them involved himself and others being drunk, and he decided they weren't funny anymore. He admitted he had often been cruel and hurtful to family, friends and fans because of his alcoholism, and sought to make amends. He became a born-again Christian due to his former teammate Bobby Richardson, an ordained Baptist minister, sharing his faith with him. After the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, he joined with fellow Oklahoman and Yankee legend Bobby Murcer to raise money for the victims.
Mantle received a liver transplant at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, on June 8, 1995, after his liver had been damaged by years of chronic alcoholism, cirrhosis and hepatitis C. In July, he had recovered enough to deliver a press conference at Baylor, and noted that many fans had looked to him as a role model. "This is a role model: Don't be like me," he said. He also established the Mickey Mantle Foundation to raise awareness for organ donations. Soon, he was back in the hospital, where it was found that his liver cancer spread throughout his body.
Mickey Mantle died on August 13, 1995, at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas. He was 63 years old
Thanks for the ping...
They do not take organs from seniors...maybe they should...for other seniors??? Maybe they would all wear out together!!! LOL
I guess the bottom line is I don't know who should get the organ.
So I say let god or chance handle 1/3.
Then let men try to play god by meddling with random chance.
Then let the market (or whose got the most money) play god on the last 1/3.
I know I'm not comfortable with you playing god by deciding your neighbor's 2 year old (who could turn out to be a psycho killer) is more worthy than Mick Jagger or Micky Mantle.
Shades of Hillary-Care coming soon to a hospital near you. Health care will be rationed, "useless eaters" will be the last to receive any treatment. That means the oldsters- anyone over 60 (unless you are a member of Congress)- the poor and the infirm will be dropping like flies.
It works like this. All the liberal do-gooder groups sell living wills and organ donation like crazy. Hyper-selling begins at the hospital. Next of kin of potential donors are bullied into "pulling the plug" and donating the victim's organs. (I do not exaggerate. They get in your face and won't take "no" for an answer.) The hospital (recipient) will turn this into a five- or six-figure profit per organ when it charges for its services and surgeries. It is SO profitable that, along with the resident bully, the big hospitals all have surgical teams on call 24/7 to cannibalize any likely victim.
What's wrong with this picture? The same thing that's wrong with the Chinese shooting prisoners for organ harvest. It heavily tempts the hospital to kill and harvest organs for profit. The patient's rights are no longer paramount. Hospitals can and do shave ethical corners to carve up likely donors for spare parts. They rationalize it that, well, if this patient dies, so what? Others will live.
But it's still murder for profit.
Actually, they can harvest the transplanted kidneys out of the older patient and re-use them to transplant in another. With the newer drugs, transplants are lasting a lot longet then they used to, 20-30 years isn't too hard to do nowadays.
And just so you know, my kidneys failed 2 1/2 years ago and they keep pushing me to get on the transplant list. I've talked with the surgeons that perform the operations (University of Nebraska Medical Center), so I got my information from the 'horses mouth' (so to speak).
Warren Buffet or a 17 year old slacker ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.