Are you an organ donor?

[JanS]

I go through the Swedish Transplant Clinic here in Seattle. I know that the level of testing is great, for both me, and for donors. DBP, your point # 2 would presume that these donors would be going through intensive testing, including psychological and financial discussions. It’s what happens now. The question of compensation is…who pays? Do the organs go to the highest bidder, and us folks with little money go by the wayside? Does the gov’t. pay? I’m sure some would have a problem with that. Does insurance pay? Seriously? We all know how they just LOVE to pay for things. Compensation brings up many many questions. And lots of problems. Kootch says he wouldn’t mind having an “inheritance” for his daughter in exchange for an organ. How much money does one person want for an organ? Who’s the decider? Kootch brings up altruism. Here I am coming to the blog forum. I’m just putting out information. I was even hesitant to do that, as I figured it would be intrusive. But that’s me. I don’t know any other way to put the word out there that there are organs needed desperately. Sure, I have an ulterior motive. And I’ve only been on the national transplant list for three months. There are many who have waited much, much longer than that. But, how do we “advertise”? I post on Facebook, talk about it, share info. If I can get an organ for one person, even if not me, it will be worth it. I will admit…before I was dx with failed kidneys, I didn’t ever seriously consider a live donation. Maybe I just needed to be asked. So..here I am asking :)

Share This

[JoB]

the problem with paying for organs is that not everyone can afford them.

we already live in a society where your checkbook determines whether you will receive anything but emergency medical care… let alone experimental care for life threatening conditions.

monetizing medical care has clearly not worked out well for us as a nation.

we need to reverse the trend.. not exacerbate it.

money is not always the answer

Share This

[DBP]

I commend your courage, Jan.

And I’m GLAD you started this thread.

This is an important topic, but without your participation many of us would feel shy talking about it here.

Share This

[kootchman]

“monetizing medical care has clearly now worked” oh? transplant is possible because of a monetized healthcare system. The technology, the surgical teams, the hospital… all results of a monetized system. Eliminating the “underground and illegal” transplant destinations, Iran, India, China etc… the USA has the highest transplant rate in the world… 22 per million. Socialist medicine countries, .ie France.. 4 per 1 million, Italy 2 per million… Sweden..has only 14 registered donors (donors, not actual transpalnts) per million. Lowest transplant rate in Europe.

Job, methinks there is at a minimum, a short sighted view, to condemn a monetized system. Reverse the “trend” and the shortage grows more critical. Maybe the “right” combination is insurance paying less to the current industry… allowing access to offshore hospitals, with compensation to donors for that lowered cost? Is the transplant “industry”, surgeons, hospitals, … all those now benefitting from the status perpetuating a system where critical donor shortage means they can maintain their margins and not have to share revenue with a donor?

Share This

[JanS]

22 per million..why do I not like those odds? For you, Kootch, money in your pocket, no matter how it’s gotten, is always the answer, isn’t it? I don’t want to go to an “offshore” hospital. I want to stay right here and go to Swedish. Is that OK with you? Is your last sentence a question? If so, could you rephrase it? ‘Cause I don’t understand what you’re asking…

Share This

[JoB]

kootch…

sure.. i hear the justifications too

the truth is that the American taxpayer subsidizes new procedures and drugs that are then sold at a discount in other countries…

yes, people from our neighbor to the north travel to America for procedures they would have to wait for in their own country…

or for experimental procedures…

but people from America travel to other countries to replace a hip.. or get a transplant… or for experimental procedures that are either rationed through their insurance company.. or unavailable.. or unaffordable here.

so if our “monetized” system is such a great deal for Americans

why are medical vacations to other countries for necessary surgeries such a hot ticket?

Share This

[JoB]

kootch…

you speak of increased availability for organs…

but just how available do you think organs would be for people without the ability to pay?

because here is the ugly truth…

failed organs much pretty make people unemployable

and the longer they live with failure the less likely they are to be employed

thus making them un-insurable in the standard employer driven market.

do you really think organs for sale are going to increase availability in a market with high demand but no purchasing power?

my business sense says no.

Share This

[DBP]

kootch-math:

Socialist medicine countries, .ie France.. 4 per 1 million, Italy 2 per million… Sweden..has only 14 registered donors (donors, not actual transpalnts) per million. Lowest transplant rate in Europe.

For our edification, where did you get those numbers? My sources show that Sweden actually had 15.1 cadaveric transplants per million in 2007 and 14.4 live donations per million in 2006.

That’s not “registered donors,” kootch, that’s actual transplants. From live donors.

Source: Council of Europe, Directorate General for Health and Consumers

Link to downloadable source PDF document: http://tinyurl.com/7j23557

Share This

[JanS]

again, DBP, don’t let facts get in the way of a good story ;-)

Share This

[DBP]

Well, if kootch can either cite his source or give us a retraction, I’ll be happy. I suspect he’s a little confused about his numbers, though.

Either that, or he’s just lazy.

( Time for the remedial statistics class at Evergreen College? )

************************************************************************************

According to the source I listed in my previous post:

France: 23.4 cadaveric donors per million, per year (4 live)

Spain: 33.6 (2.3)

UK: 12.9 (11.1)

Belgium: 27.1 (3.9)

Depending on what you’re calling “Europe,” Romania (not France) actually has the lowest rate, at 1 cadaveric donation per million people, per year.

In countries where they have automatic cadaveric donation, it figures that you would have a lower rate of live donors, since people from those countries may assume that there are enough cadaveric donations to meet demand – even though such is not the case.

(Please note that when I say transplants or organ donations, I’m talking primarily about kidneys.)

Share This

[kootchman]

Huh? An offshore hospital option has improved access. Affordability seems to the major criteria . It seems to be a solution that is growing. The more options, the more access, I would guess is better than the alternative. Is is ok with me? I don’t what that means.

Share This

[JoB]

kootch..

perhaps you should re-read what you posted.

Share This

[kootchman]

DBP… sorry I didn’t source it.. I wasn’t in defending thesis mode..rather the general discussion a “monetized” system entered they discussion…but I can find the absolute number of transplants … Eurotransplant… it did not differentiate between live and cadaver transplants for kidneys. But.. money IS the name of the medicine game. I found this interesting for Ms. Job… actuarial data… it is now cheaper to receive a transplant then dialysis… varies by age, other conditions etc… but.. the costs of surgery have dropped…hence the acceptance of insurance of transplants as an alternate therapy to dilaysis. Now… that being the case… if that savings is so substantial, IF kidney/organ costs are lower than dialysis AND it was legal… donor compensation would probably be covered by insurance. As Jan stated, live donor procurement is even less expensive as a therapy.. soooo…because of lower stays, oral vs intravenous drugs, the least expensive therapy would be a live donor. The difference in that cost is large… if an insurer was to pay for live donor compensation, and transplant costs, it would cost less than 4 years of dialysis. Make sense? Given a choice…which would an insurer do? “Bottom Line”… thank god for a monetized health system JoB that has reduced those costs eh? Seriously…instead of general service ads… imagine the insurance industry with a Madison Avenue approach to cost savings.. actively promoting transplant options…and donor compensation being a component. I believe the donor pool would expand. Jan would not be putting it out there by herself..her insurance company would also be putting it out there too. Maybe? Donor compensation might be part of the solution. I am done with the issue… just some thoughts..interpreted widely as they are.

http://www.umm.edu/news/releases/kidcost.htm

Share This

[JanS]

I didn’t say”live donor procurement is even less expensive as a therapy”. Live donors give better outcomes than cadaveric donors…that’s a fact…

and the drugs that you take for the rest of your life are not cheap, whether a live donor or a dead one…right now Medicare will pay for some of that…but in the future? who the hell knows…lolol…”my insurance company” is the government…and we all know how you feel about their spending..just saying…

Share This

[JanS]

and..insurance companies already have a Madison Ave. approach…

Share This

[kootchman]

You didn’t… I messed up my editing track… you did say…”live donation is preferable”…and the article concurred…saying less complications… less expense. Poor editing, my bad. I have a WFA issue with Medicare… and… the government is not active as far as I can tell seeking the least cost (and in this case, best?) method because as it currently stands… it can’t solicit… As I would interpret the article, your preferred solution is the most cost effective.

Share This

[JoB]

kootch…

there are two fatal flaws in this argument…

“if an insurer was to pay for live donor compensation, and transplant costs, it would cost less than 4 years of dialysis. Make sense? Given a choice…which would an insurer do? “

you left out the option of the patient dieing before the costs of the dialysis exceed the costs of transplant

and .. if those who require transplants become unemployed as a result of their kidney failure and can no longer afford insurance…

the insurance company doesn’t foot the bill

the taxpayer does.

either way it’s cheaper for insurance companies to pay for limited dialysis.

As for the feds..

an option that returned taxpayers to gainful employment would be more cost effective for the government…

live transplants stand the best chance of doing that.. for both participants.

Share This

[DBP]

How did this thread ever get so discombobulated?

Jan and kootch, you shouldn’t even be arguing, because you agree on the main question, which is whether to allow the selling of organs. You are both in favor, right?

I, like JoB, have strong reservations about the idea. However, I’m not willing to let those reservations stand in the way of Jan’s survival or the survival of thousands of other Americans currently waiting for organ transplants.

As a compromise, perhaps we could agree to drop the ban on selling for, say, 10 years and then review the situation . . .

Share This

[JanS]

Kootch..re:your post 41….my preferred solution is always a live donor, whenever that happens, because as an older person, I want what has the best outcome right now.If a deceased donor comes along, I damned well am not going to turn it down. And my preference would be, sooner than later , for whatever kidney I may get. Money is not the important deciding factor here. Getting a transplant is. And that’s why I started this thread..to get the info out that I, and many other, need kidneys…from , preferably, live donors. It’s Christmas…give the gift that’s much more important than that iPad…the gift of life.

Share This

[JanS]

DBP…I am on the fence about compensation for kidneys,other organs. I prefer to not call it selling. While I understand that it may bring in more donors, altho that’s not a given, I also understand why it might not be such a good idea. Just a Mugwump here…..

Share This

[JanS]

a success story :)

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Facebook-Kidney-Transplant-135625443.html

maybe there’s hope for me , too :)

Share This

[JoB]

JanS..

there is always hope for you :)

Share This

[2 Much Whine]

Hey Kootch, if I am on a ventilator and am brain dead I would gladly let them “harvest” my heart and donate it to you at no charge if it would help improve your quality of life. Unfortunately, I fear your body would reject the heart of a democrat. . . . .

Share This

[miws]

Ya know, a few weeks ago Jan started this thread on a topic that is very important to her personally, (and knowing Jan, even if it didn’t hit so close to home for her, she’d still be nearly as passionate about it), in the interest of raising awareness for the critical need for organ donors.

W(hy)TF did this have to turn in to a controversy?

Of all of the threads currently being discussed on these forums, W(hy)TF couldn’t this have remained on a positive note, to educate and inspire others to become organ donors, and to get involved in other ways to help Jan and others who are on long waiting lists.

I won’t say what’s really on my mind here regarding the negative comments, but would like to put out the reminder; ‘Tis the Season…..

Mike

Share This

[JanS]

thanks, Mike..

Share This

[Author]

Posts