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.
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.