Turning One Kidney Into Ten(freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com)
freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com
Turning One Kidney Into Ten
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/turning-one-kidney-into-ten/
7 comments
What I find disturbing in this piece is the seemingly massive false equivalency being perpetrated. Donating a kidney is not like giving blood. This is a major operation and carries with it an assortment of long-term health risks to both the donor and recipient (though, obviously, the recipient has essentially nothing to lose; long-term followup studies of live donors are still pretty small and not that informative)...yet the entire article seems predicated on "you'd be a monster not to give up at least one of your kidneys!" Where's that attitude coming from, exactly? Why not just toss a lung into the mix as well?
They assume existence of donors already willing to donate, there is no call for extra donations. It's just about how to do more efficient matching.
In this case "altruistic donor" could mean, for example, a mother with a sick kid, which she wants to save by donating her kidney, but it doesn't help because they are not a good match.
So she just gives her kidney to some random kid, with a hope that others in a similar situations would do the same, which would eventually lead to her kid getting a matching kidney.
Altruistic, because it's not guaranteed that her kid will get the right kidney in time (only that there will be some donated kidney left at the end). But if the "chain of trust" keeps going on, chances are high everybody would get the matching kidney.
In this case "altruistic donor" could mean, for example, a mother with a sick kid, which she wants to save by donating her kidney, but it doesn't help because they are not a good match.
So she just gives her kidney to some random kid, with a hope that others in a similar situations would do the same, which would eventually lead to her kid getting a matching kidney.
Altruistic, because it's not guaranteed that her kid will get the right kidney in time (only that there will be some donated kidney left at the end). But if the "chain of trust" keeps going on, chances are high everybody would get the matching kidney.
[deleted]
We couldn't get the study to prove his brain death until morning, and he was bleeding like a sieve. In 15 years of being a ER/ICU nurse, I've never given one single person more blood products. There was a team of 5 or 6 of us giving him massive transfusions, all to keep this young man's organs alive the rest of the night.
In this ICU, we also took care of patients that had just received kidney transplants. They are some of the most patient, long-suffering and most grateful people you'll ever meet. Why? Because for the previous three to five years, these people's lives have been consumed by having to go to dialysis three times a week for four hours a session. They can't live any other way, and a transplant gives them a new lease on life.
We were able to get the study to prove brain death the following morning, and the organ donation team harvested his organs.
Two weeks later, our ICU received a letter from the organ bank, giving us a brief update on each of the _24 people_ that received organs from this young man. It was one of the most rewarding experiences I've ever had as a nurse.
All that to say, when organ donation happens, it's a truly beautiful thing, and one of those things that renews my hope in humanity. I've had the donor box checked on my driver's license for years. I'd encourage people to do the same.