Posted on 02/21/2005 10:28:06 AM PST by LarkNeelie
His case had been reviewed, the letter said. ``In addition, we have reviewed your personal Web site.''The American Society of Transplant Surgeons and LifeLink are ``strongly opposed to the solicitation of organs or organ donors by recipients or their agents through Web sites,'' the letter continued.
``After careful deliberation, we will not consider any living donor for you.''
Crionas was stunned by the decision.
``I was dumbfounded ... I'm, like, are you serious?''
The LifeLink letter said he could be put back on the national list to wait for a ``deceased'' kidney of someone who had made provisions to be an organ donor upon death. But Crionas, now 28, fears that wait might be as long as five to 10 years, due to factors such as his age and blood type.
Most of the 87,000 people on national waiting lists for organ transplants are waiting for kidneys.
Web Sites And Billboards
Like Crionas, hundreds of others seeking organ transplants have decided to quit relying solely on the nation's organ distribution system to find them hearts, lungs and kidneys.
They have set up Web sites and bought advertising space on billboards to make direct pleas for organ donors.
The system - put in place through the 1984 National Organ Transplant Act - may not be ready for them.
In November, after the first kidney transplant involving people who met through a Web site, www.Ma tchingDonors.com, the transplant surgeons' society issued a statement against personal or commercial Web sites that solicit organs.
The surgeons group urged centers not to accept patients who found living donors through Web sites.
(Excerpt) Read more at info.mgnetwork.com ...
The only problem with that idea is that many patients who need transplanted organs have systemic syndromes and illnesses which degrade/erode their otherwise functioning organs.
Would you want a transplant from a long term drug abuser/alcoholic?
I really hope that was a joke, albeit one in pretty bad taste. I have only one kidney, compliments of a bout with kidney cancer a year ago. Obviously any kidney malfunction is a serious issue for me. But, I'll tell you, I'd rather spend the rest of my life on dialysis than put one cell of one of those those cowardly SOBs inside my body.
One of the scariest films I have ever seen involved a man who met a woman in a bar. She drugged him and he woke up naked and bloody a few days later in a bath-tub full of ice with a ringing phone next to him. When he answered the phone the female voice on the other end said, "Call 911". It's made obvious through a rapid sequence of scenes that he had just donated his kidney to a group of opportunistic doctors. While fiction, it makes the case convincingly.
I've refused to sign an organ donors card in protest of it being against the law to sell organs.
However, were it legal to sell, I would be willing to have my organs donated (as in given away for free) my organs, on my death.
I don't give blood (except once in the wake of 9/11) for the same reason.
The "free market" is just what the AFTS and LifeLink are engaged in. They claim to be exercising their right, under an unregulated free market situation, to provide neither product nor services to anyone attempting to engage other suppliers. This case is a good example of the logical limits to a libertarian free market, devoid of any regulation.
--Boot Hill
This is the second time I've phrased it badly.
Everyone who thinks they might _ever_ want a transplant signs up voluntarily. That's most of us, probably. A few would hold out on religious grounds and some from inertia, but I think most people would sign up.
That means when most of us die our organs are automatically put into the "who needs this organ" pool. Sould we ever need one, we are eligible to get one.
There would be a timing factor. Maybe this is where I'm not being clear. When the program is put into existance there would be a period of time for adults to sign up. When young people reach 18 they would be expeccted to sign up.
Not signing up at the earliest possible opportunity puts you lower on the potential recipient list.
Does that clarify? I'm under the weather today and not as car as I'd like to be.
In a free market, a "buyer" would be someone who needs a kidney. A "seller" would be someone, presumably with two (or more--I know of one individual who had three kidneys) healthy, compatible kidneys, one of which he was willing to sell. . They would agree on a price and presumably contract with a hospital and qualified physician, who for a fee, would do the transplant.
It would be the responsibility of the buyer and seller to do the medical followup necessary for the transplant to be successful. No governmental or other complications would be necessary.
The idea of requiring someone to sign up as a donor in order to receive or be higher up on the donor list would rule out those with systemic, lifelong or catastrophic illnesses, in other words, those who have marginally healthy yet still functioning "other" organs.
Why would you deny them the right to sign up?
Corneas, skin for grafts, all sorts of things even if organs are damaged.
If they were not signed up...last on the list
If they had pre-existing conditions... no problem.
I'm being terse because I'm trying to stick to what I can be clear about. No real problem, I have a post traumatic seizure condition and the meds aren't doing their thing today.
Please assume that my posts are congenial, not hostile, whatever they sound like. Thanks
Which is a non-issue in the present case, as neither side is contesting the issue of price, but rather the issue is one of who brokered the deal.
--Boot Hill
No hostility intended and thanks for the explanation. God Bless you and hope you have some good days coming soon. Take care. :)
Oh that it were so...p.d avoids some of the negative side effects of hemodialysis. As a current p.d. patient, awaiting a transplant, I can say that we develop a completely different, yet even more debilitating, constellation of side effects. If I had to choose again, I'm not certain which way I would go. I never thought I'd get to the place where I thought hemodialysis looks good. It's not that I'm unthankful for this life-saving process. We have a good and gracious G-d, who I know will see me through.
Can you please be more specific, either here or via private reply?
We have yet to experience any side effects with him. If it's simply a matter of you being on longer than him, I'd like to know ahead of time about potential upcoming problems.
In any event, I will be praying for you. Whether hemo or P.D., it's a helluva burden.
Doesn't sound too appealing to me but maybe I should consider it. Sucks having to drive there three times a week.
It's definitley not a silver bullet, and you're right; it is more time intensive.
The poster's original point was that hemodialysis is not a static existence that can last indefinitely-- there are definite long-term side-effects that will most likely do you in. ...before you receive a transplant.
My only point was that, comparitively, P.D. is a more homeostatic option.
Another poster mentioned a different set of side-effects, though. I'd like to hear some feedback from her as well. Especially if it's something we haven't taken into account yet, but might end up seeing with my grandfather.
I'll be praying for you and your family as well. Dialysis sucks, regardless of the route taken. Beats the alternative, though.
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.