1 I just realized something. That Charlie Crist picture with Rubio hair looks almost exactly like Roger Sterling.

2 Transplant decisions should be based entirely on need and  the chance of success as determined by non-politicized science and medicine: a much higher bar than most people realize.   

3 Next on Fox: "The Lungs" reality TV!

4 I think I will throw up now.  Next season on ABC, America's Got Transplant!.

5 Illegal Immigrants only want to receive the transplanted organs Americans aren't willing to receive.

6 The old system may have been fair, but who are we to deny so many billable hours to so many attorneys?

7 Make  a  helluva  game  show!

8 Posted by: Beagle at June 15, 2013 11:20 AM (sOtz/)


The last thing we need is medical professionals making decisions, because bureaucratically developed rules and regulations always trump true expertise in Obama's America!

9 Obamacare will, as usual, be good legislation for lawyers!

10 Death Panels. I told you so.

11 I can't imagine (nor do I want) the responsibility that comes with writing transplant priority rules, but I'm pretty fucking sure that the courts are not the place to write them.

Life sucks.  Not everyone gets the transplant they need.  Bad things happen.  150 years ago, bringing one child in six to puberty was an accomplishment.  It's the never-ending sense of entitlement that just kills me.  News flash:  Not every single child is entitled to live to adulthood.  Some die, for myriad reasons.  Deal with it.

12 >>>>>2 Transplant decisions should be based entirely on need and the chance of success as determined by non-politicized science and medicine: a much higher bar than most people realize<<<<<
.

Agreed, nor should it be based on some zero tolerance rule, like age.

13 I would think any parent -- any decent one, that is -- would do anything for their child's life, and wouldn't worry about the liberal "children are starving in Korea" (or, in this case, "someone else won't get a transplant") bullshit. Good for them, I say.

Because we're Staunch Conservatives, we're supposed to let the little girl take a fall because we hate rules choosing who gets what?

Sorry, I ain't buying this as a Hill to Die On. Life isn't fair, and it's doubly unfair when Choom Boy and his ilk hold the reins. You have to fight for what's dear to you these days, and that's what the parents did.

14

So your point is, leaving these sorts of decisions up to politicians, lawyers and judges is a bad idea? 

 

Who made the rule that  this 11 year old could not receive a  set of adult lungs?

 

Yeah.  That's what I thought. 

15 *cough* *cough* It feels dry and breezy. I sense flame-war potential

16 I see nothing wrong with getting bumped up the list for a transplant.

17

Hey, just so you know, next time you want to choose to give a car to your son for a graduation present, I think the government should force you to give that car to my son instead, that should be the law.  Or rather, the government should make up a list of folks whose kids need cars upon graduation and rate it by their needs, then you should be forced to give that car to the person at the top of that list regardless of your desire.

 

PRICKS.

18 I'll defer judgement on this as a commenter here previously stated that they were the recipient of a kidney; I'd give their comment a lot more weight than mine.
 
I'm an organ donor. I highly recommend that you skip my liver; it's had a helluva workout. Thanks TFG. I don't care where my parts go. I hope someone(s) get good use out of them. Burn the rest of me.
 
I really think that the system is screwed up. There should be some sort of bidding process for available parts. If you want to increase the supply of something, put a profit motive on it.

19 Shit, I got a new liver even though I was still on the sauce.

20 Yeah the car analogy ain't doing it.

21 I'm not a lung transplant doctor and I don't know how she compared, health wise, to adults on the list. Too many unknowns. If there had been no age cutoff, would she be at top the list? Does anyone know this? I don't recall Sarah's family saying she was 'large enough' for adult size lungs. I'm sure her doctors would have informed them that adult lungs would have to be cut to fit her. Do 12 year olds also have to have the adult lungs cut to fit? Again, I don't have that info. But I'd be shocked if every 12 year old on the adult transplant list was able to have donor lungs without any size adjustment at all. Also, so what if the donor family designated the lungs to Sarah? Their donating the lungs from a loved one that died....if that gives them some small comfort, then so be it.

22 If so, someone else is going to die because they or their family didn't "go the extra mile" and turn what has been a somber and serious process into a popularity contest vying for the affections of the next judge and donor. I see a new reality TV show.

23 My buddy George had to fight the VA to get a heart transplant. Had to fight while he was three-quarters dead from heart failure. He won because he was a tough little bastard who wouldn't quit. He got a few more years of precious life. I always think of it as a metaphor for life.

24 Big Deal.

25 Welfare recipients should be required to irrevocably sign up as organ donors. Problem solved.

26 Thanks, krakatos. There are a lot of prideful fools who jumped on the "Save Sarah" bandwagon (glares at entire Fox News staff) in need of shaming.

27 Their = They're I hate when I do that.

28 So What.

29 22 OK, so I wasn't the First! to say that. Bite me.

30 The entire premise of the OP is wrong. No one can "designate" where their organs go under federal law. Priority is based on urgency and when you got on the list. Some people need the organ NOW, while some might be able to wait a few weeks or even months. The point of the suit was to get her on the list in the first place, not to jump ahead on it. Government regulations from 2004 did not reflect the state of medical science in 2013.

31 Matchorgan.com

I like late night strolls on the beach with my oxygen tank and cuddling up with a good book and a dialysis machine.

32 My Mother-in-law grew up on a tiny farm in NC in the 30's. She and her husband were bootstrap sorta kids and ultimately made out pretty well.

We were recently discussing this need our culture seems to have for EVERYONE to have healthcare,

She said to me, "You know, when I grew up, if you got sick, you died. That's it."

33

This article is rather confused and it relies on the author's own ignorance as supporting evidence. Never a good start.

1. At what point did the Murnaghans ever claim their daughter was NOT on the "childrens" transplant wait list?

That was not ever the point. The point was that there seemed to be an almost arbitrary cut off between allowing a 10 year old access to adult lungs.

Obviously adults die at a greater frequency than children, for all sorts of reasons. So there are MORE adult organs available for transplant.

THAT'S THE POINT. And that's what the whole case revolved around. Had the Medical profession said, sorry, but there's just no way we can transplant a fully formed adult's lungs into a 10 year old, then it's end of discussion. But they didn't. Quite the reverse....

The fact that Sarah was able to successfully be transplanted with ADULT lings sorta proves the whole "artitary" nature of a bureaucratic decision on when KIDS would be "allowed" access to a greater pool or transplant organs, right?

34 You have to fight for what's dear to you these days, and that's what the parents did.

I don't think krakatoa or anyone else is blaming the parents, as he acknowledged precisely the opposite.

It's everyone that let themselves be emotionally manipulated like an obamabot that's disappointing.

35 Just like the UFC reality show - have two captains (I'm thinking Greta and Nancy Grace) choose their transplant recipients and go head to head.

36 Our future immigrated citizens should be required to donate a kidney - immediately.

37 So... who wants to trade livers?!

38 If you want to increase the supply of something, put a profit motive on it.

Posted by: GnuBreed at June 15, 2013 11:29 AM (cHZB7)

Seriously? You equate the transplant situation with any other business? "Hey, we just got an order for a dozen lungs, ring up our people in China and 'em ship us some!"

Yea... no.

39 We here at That Guy Inc. feel that further media blitzes of this type will be less effective and it will die down. Kind of like the first guy that asked a celebrity to the prom over youtube - it worked for him (her?), but the rest - not so much.

40 This could breathe new life into the Survivor  reality show franchise.

41 *"have 'em ship us some"

ugh.

42 as determined by non-politicized science and medicine

In 5,000 years of recorded history, humans have never been able to produce that.

43 The issue is the transplant list. The criteria can exclude people, such as this young girl, who normally would be at the top of it. So it is not so simple. The bigger issue is, how do we get more organs available? We should give a funeral allowance (say $10,000) to any one who could be a potential donor and let families opt for it. There should only be a pre death opt out if you do not want to participate.

44 My wife declined a liver transplant, said she didn't want to be leashed to the hospital.  She lived life until she died and I hope when it is my turn, I can go with half as much grace as she did.

45 Who Wants to Be a Breathin-Air?

46 So, where's all this great funded science that was going to clone all our organs?

47 >>>This article is rather confused and it relies on the author's own ignorance as supporting evidence. Never a good start.

Get another cup of coffee. No need to bash the cobs here.

48 Who made the rule that this 11 year old could not receive a set of adult lungs?

Yeah. That's what I thought.
_______________________

Well, I think that part of Ace's OP, at least impliedly, is that rules - even if arbitrary - are more fair than an ad hoc system of special pleading.  That a football field is 100 yards is arbitrary - it could be 120 yards or 90 yards - and in any given game if you lengthened it or shortened it from 100 yards it could very well affect the outcome, but no one argues for that because we accept that the 100 yards is fair even though arbitrary.

49 25 Welfare recipients should be required to irrevocably sign up as organ donors. Problem solved. Posted by: scalpel at June 15, 2013 11:33 AM (eDs8F) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aclS1pGHp8o

50 Daily reminder: We are living under the tyranny of a criminal regime.

51 "I really think that the system is screwed up. There should be some sort of bidding process for available parts. If you want to increase the supply of something, put a profit motive on it."


I agree with this. Let the family sell the organs to the highest bidder. It would less morally reprehensible than the media-campaign strategy.

52 "That quote sounds like, perhaps, the donor family designated Sarah to be the donee."

No, that is what every family says when they get a donor organ that saves a life, the rest of your point aside.

53 Want to get in on the ground floor of something - Organlegger.

54 Meh, leave that shit on the black market, where it belongs.

55 Actually there are places in the world where the transplant business is a business. Story: The boy thought his grandmother was taking him to Disneyland, but Russian police say she had planned to sell her grandson so his organs could be used for transplants. Police in Ryazan, 125 miles southeast of Moscow, said today they arrested a woman after they were tipped off that she was trying to sell her grandson to a man who was going to take the boy to the West. There his organs were to be removed and sold, a Ryazan police duty officer said. After a surveillance operation, police moved in to arrest the woman Tuesday, capturing the event on a videotape that was released in part today. Police did not reveal the womanÂ’s name.

56 To speed up processing whether your life is worth saving, transplant applications will now include a "Political Affiliation" box. /Lois Lerner

57 Welfare recipients should be required to irrevocably sign up as organ donors.

Plagiarist.

58

43 -

 

I had someone very close to me die some years ago.  Otherwise healthy, with a non-operable brain tumor.  I watched this person die, with strong lungs breathing, strong heart pounding, and all other essential organs perfectly functioning... until the brain stopped sending the signal for them to keep working.

 

Did ANYONE ANYWHERE offer to make organ donation a possibility? 

 

No. 

 

So it did not happen.  You can leave it up to the family to make these decisions immediately before or after, but if they are too emotionally distraught to think clearly enough, it won't happen.

 

So viable organs get buried every day.  Something is wrong with the system.  That's where to start, if one wants to  begin fixing it. 

59 Well, screw all of you. My rings been jacked by a damn Soviet.

60 You equate the transplant situation with any other business? "Hey, we just got an order for a dozen lungs, ring up our people in China and 'em ship us some!"

How about - "yo convict, save this persons life by donating a kidney or lung and we'll knock 5 years off that sentence". 

No coercion, just make the offer.  They can take it or leave it.

We're already taking DNA samples of all prisoners, so the match data is available.

When they get out and they're minus a few parts, it may lead to a less risk prone lifestyle and less recidivism among donors.

61 Actually there are places in the world where the transplant business is a business.

Posted by: That Guy at June 15, 2013 11:42 AM (EMye6)

The human trafficking is a business in some places.

I think we gotta stay the hell away from that, and I disagree with that comment on transplants going to the highest bidder.

62 How about a free market in organs?

http://tinyurl.com/ls24xkl

63 55 I have her name:  Nancika Pelosovich

64 This has been going on for some time. Lucille Ball got an aorta from a 20 something when she had a dissection. Unfortunately she had another one soon after the transplant and died. She was 77 years old at the time and was an extremely heavy smoker her entire life...I think she smoked four or five packs a day. Did that make sense to give a 77 year old woman an aorta from a 20 year old? Not really but hey I WUV LUCY!

65 Never read a smear on this topic on why 70 year old VP Cheney got a new heart. Even if he had a helper pump, artificial heart and no pulse that situation could have last for years. It was not reported that it was immediate need for a heart or he could die in an few weeks without one. How can a 70 year old be on the top of a transplant list.

But then you think of the list. How far can they send a heart or lung from where it was donated. Their might have been a person in Florida more in need as they will die in a week but where Cheney was in Wyoming he was at the top of that list. They can not send it by plane to where it is needed fast enough to have it work and then lose the heart for anyone. How far within a geographical region can they send an organ.

As a side note hurry up and make organs in a lab. Custom made for the persons DNA.

66 PurpAv - Larry Niven, ARM, Organleggers.  IIRC in one story they were talking about making jaywalking a death penalty offense just to harvest good organs.

67 So how many transplants, major surgeries and other medical necessities could be funded with the money we'll be spending to send the Choom Fambly to Africa?

And to Ireland....

68 The problem with life is that it isn't "fair". Which works both ways in this story as there will always be winners and losers just like there is in every other aspect of life.

69 That was not ever the point. The point was that there seemed to be an almost arbitrary cut off between allowing a 10 year old access to adult lungs.

Does it seem likely to you that a six year old could take adult lungs? Three? Infant?

There's a line somewhere. How do you think it is better determined-A)Professionals with years of experience looking at succsess rate in previous attempts or B)Whoever can get the most media attention when a decision against the esatblished procedure must be made Right This Instant.

The fact that Sarah was able to successfully be transplanted

The transplant was this week. you would be wise to remain cautious on making conclusions over how successful it was until we see how long she actually lives.

In any case you've missed the point about the forgotten man who didn't get the lungs that were diverted to her. I intend to be shocked when medical privacy laws suddenly prevent us from identifying him.

70 This was on their FB page last night.


If you are over 12 it does NOT matter how long you have waited on the transplant list. What matters is your LAS score. This is a measure of the severity of your illness. So if you have been on the list one hour but you are the sickest you get the lungs if they are a match and in your region.

If you are under 12 it is the amount of time you have waited that matters. So if you are dying and have been on the list one hour you will NOT get the lungs.

The theory behind the over 12 LAS score is that when you treat the sickest person first fewer people die. I and almost every medical professional I have ever met agrees with this position.

In addition, the over 12 list produces about 2,000 gifts of life a year, while the under 12 produces 20.

We fought to have Sarah on the over 12 list because medically there was no difference between Sarah 12 year-old receiving adult lungs and Sarah a 10-year-old receiving adult lungs and because her illness was so severe she would have died if she had waited for pediatric lungs.

In the end UNOS agreed with US and has changed their policy for ALL kids so that children like Sarah can get on the over 12 list if their doctors deem it appropriate medically. UNOS themselves stated that 12 was arbitrary number and that children were dying at almost 3x the rate of adults due to the way the under 12 list functions.

Sarah got lungs quickly after going to the adult list because her LAS finally mattered and she was the sickest one on the list. She had an LAS of 91 out of 100 when transplanted. She did NOT get put to the top of the list she was there due to her severity as UNOS does for everyone over 12.

71 Who made the rule that this 11 year old could not receive a set of adult lungs?

Yeah. That's what I thought.

Posted by: BurtTC at June 15, 2013 11:26 AM (TOk1P)

These rules aren't made by politicians and lawyers.  They are made by doctors who sit on panels set up by OPTN and UNOS for that purpose.  They also typically take two years to complete a rule change because they solicit input from the medical community and other transplant scientists over those proposed rule changes.

I'll defer judgement on this as a commenter here previously stated that they were the recipient of a kidney; I'd give their comment a lot more weight than mine.

Posted by: GnuBreed at June 15, 2013 11:29 AM (cHZB7)

I am the commenter who receive a kidney last year.  I said from the beginning that this was an attempt by the family to manipulate the media into pleading their case before in public.  I will be curious to see how vigorously their lawyers argue the case this week when the hearing over the temporary injunction takes place.  This was also driven to an extent by doctors who believed they could make this work.  There are more doctors who feel otherwise because the success rates (measured in percentage still functioning after a given period) are lower in this type of procedure (granted that there is very limited data sine it hasn't happened often.).

72 38 >> Seriously? You equate the transplant situation with any other business?
 
Yeah really. You want to eliminate blood shortages? Put  a price on it. As it stands, the donor is the ONLY person not making a buck off of their donation. The collector does, the hospital does, the labs do too. Oh,and the recipient pays full retail for that 'donated' blood. So who gets fucked in this process?
 
I take it that you have no faith in the free market process KG.

73 60 Haha Purp look at your hash: is there something you'd like to confess?

74 This week media blitz/popularity contest. Next week gender. Then age, LBGT, race/ethnicity. It ends at only 2 places, who has $ and who has political clout. In any case, it ain't good.

75

48 -

 

Sorry, that's another bad analogy.  The system is arbitrary because there is no reason 11 year olds should not be eligible for lungs, based on their age. 

 

The problem is, bureaucrats make the rules, not doctors.  Not  transplant committees at hospitals.  Bureaucrats.  People for whom arbitrary exercises in power are what they do for a living. 

 

No thanks. 

76 Since you only need 1/5th of a liver to survive, where's the research into partitioning donor livers so pieces are viable and can cut down on the need list? Also, kidneys and lungs you would think are the next leap in the manufactured organ market, what with organic bladders now being lab-grown.

77 talking about making jaywalking a death penalty offense just to harvest good organs

We already make all sorts of non-crime things crimes to harvest fines and asset seizure proceeds from hapless victims.

3-felonies-a-day

78 If we don't have a free market in organs, then the only other possibility is centralized allocation of organs.  That's it. 

With a free market in organs, you will have people committing crimes in order to obtain the organs.  Much like what happens right now when people commit theft in order to steal things to be sold on the black market.  And yes organs will go to buyers based on ability to pay, rather than based on medical need.  (Although medical insurance will ameliorate that somewhat.)

With a centralized allocation of organs, you will have corrupt bureaucrats and bumbling judges deciding who gets organs.  Plus sob stories manipulating the public in order to be bumped up in front of the line.

So there is no perfect world in which only those who "deserve" an organ (in some karmic sense) get the organs, while everybody else doesn't.

79 No one can "designate" where their organs go under federal law. Priority is based on urgency and when you got on the list. Some people need the organ NOW, while some might be able to wait a few weeks or even months.

Posted by: I Work for Dick Jones at June 15, 2013 11:34 AM (MSrqi

Actually, that is not correct.  There is a thing known as a directed donation.  If the donor family knows that the organs would be a match based on prior testing, they can designate who gets them.

80 So viable organs get buried every day. Something is wrong with the system. That's where to start, if one wants to begin fixing it.

So our bodies belong to society? I though we were against communism around here.

81 there should be a market for organs. everyone would be an organ donor/seller, and his surviving family would be beneficiaries. of course there would be some moral hazard, but it's not like there isn't some today with life insurance and other assets.

82 "So viable organs get buried every day. Something is wrong with the system. That's where to start, if one wants to begin fixing it." Taking the Death Tax to the next level eh?

83

80 -

 

Did I say that?  Do you think twisting my words to fit your argument is a fair  way to debate?

 

You sound more communist than anyone else here, dude. 

84 Plagiarist.

Heh. If you are going to take from society, you should have to give something back to society. I'd settle for community service in lieu of organ donation for those welfare recipients with deep philosophical objections to the latter. Bottom line, as mentioned above is we need more organs.

85 So here is the way I see it.  If there are two potential organ recipients waiting for an organ, and I have no other idea about their medical necessity for such an organ (possibly not severe, who knows) and my only two criteria for deciding which person should get an organ are (a) ability to pay, and (b) ability to manipulate a bureaucracy, then I will choose (a).

86 Yeah really. You want to eliminate blood shortages? Put a price on it. As it stands, the donor is the ONLY person not making a buck off of their donation.

Heartland Blood Center gives me points for bling like grilling utensils and shit. During the summer, we get free quarts of ice cream from Oberweis, too.

87 You want to eliminate blood shortages? Put a price on it.

With unemployment this high, if they offered even $20/pint cash they'd have so much blood they'd be turning people away.

88 "Did I say that? Do you think twisting my words to fit your argument is a fair way to debate? You sound more communist than anyone else here, dude." He's not the only one that read you that way. Perhaps you should try clarifying your comment instead of blurting out "NO YOUR TEH COMMIE" in response.

89 I take it that you have no faith in the free market process KG.

Posted by: GnuBreed at June 15, 2013 11:46 AM (cHZB7)

Free market? Really? That's pretty disingenuous.

The product here is a human organ, which we cannot synthesize just yet, so it's gonna come from two sources: dead and living people. I don't mind the source being the former, but what about the latter? In the example of prisoners that PA gave, that's ok, if it is a choice, but what if it's not?

I'm just concerned it would make organ trafficking even bigger.

90 Charlie the Unicorn meets the Transplant Business: http://tinyurl.com/5pj375

91 That quote sounds like, perhaps, the donor family designated Sarah to be the donee. If so, someone else is going to die because they or their family didn't "go the extra mile" and turn what has been a somber and serious process into a popularity contest vying for the affections of the next judge and donor. So wait, if I die, I can't designate who gets my organs? Fuck that noise. Maybe we should divy up inheritance the same way? Give according to need? Why is Centralized Planning a bad idea for everything but organs?

92 Good news about a circular firing squad, chances of good harvestable organs is outstanding.

93 Once amnesty passes, I guess illegals can finally come out of the shadows and claim their fair share of organs. Like the taxes and welfare, their contributions to the transplant system will not offset their withdraws. Another way McCain and Rubio are screwing you over: the organ that could have saved your loved one going to someone that broke the law coming here.

94 Welcome to BitOrgans(TM)!!!! Tired of waiting around for a boring old analog liver or lung, heart, or kidney? Here at BitOrgans(TM) you can convert your hard cash for a new and improved Digital Internet Organ!!! It's easy. It's fun. And your shiny new organ will be ready when you are. Plus, BitOrgans(TM) are a fine investment instrument. And may be used as currency in all bars, restaurants, and hospital registered to accept BitOrgans(TM).*** So, get started today with- BitOrgans!!!! ***BitOrgans(TM) trading and use currently restricted to Mexico, the Phillipines, and North Korea. BitOrgans(TM) are a digital construct like online tentacleporn and may not replace the function of actual tissue-based organs. Consult your doctor to see if BitOrgans(TM) are right for you.

95 But as we've seen overwhelmingly in organizations that have been infected with the progressive mindset, these kinds of exceptions eventually swallow the rule and lead to a government by feelings, not by laws.

Exactly.  I would go even further - whenever one has central allocation of ANY resource, that central allocation machinery eventually gets corrupted into special favors and cronyism and manipulation by the mob, leading to an unjust result no matter how it is viewed.

96 huh what happened to the comment I responded to?  oh well.

97 How about - "yo convict, save this persons life by donating a kidney or lung and we'll knock 5 years off that sentence".

No coercion, just make the offer. They can take it or leave it.

We're already taking DNA samples of all prisoners, so the match data is available.

When they get out and they're minus a few parts, it may lead to a less risk prone lifestyle and less recidivism among donors.

Posted by: Purp at June 15, 2013 11:43 AM (/gHaE)

Purp, You're a smart guy and I love reading the stuff you write, but you missed the boat on a couple of things here.  While kidneys can be donated individually, lungs have to be donated in pairs.  Also, matches aren't made by DNA.  They are made by comparing anti-bodies.  When I started the transplant process and when I went in for the actual transplant, they took 15 vials of blood to do the matching.

98 Dave - Pretty sure I didn't say it was the family that said Sarah wouldn't also be on the pediatric list. That was an argument given by others in the comments on previous blog posts. And whether or not the transplant is successful isn't determined at the end of the surgery, or a few days after. The odds are diminished given that Sarah was extremely sick, still has cystic fibrosis, and got lungs that needed to be trimmed to fit. One would presume, all other things being equal, someone without those factors would have a better chance at long term transplant success. Travis: Yes, but there appears to be some open question about whether or not this was a targeted donation from the donor family. The odds that Sarah would have been the best match for these lungs are pretty slim otherwise. If she was the best match medically, well fine. Let's hear that. If not, what was the mechanism that got her the next available lungs? And what precedent does that set?

99 I'm just concerned it would make organ trafficking even bigger.

Actually, it probably wouldn't - because organs wouldn't be so scarce, the "price" of organs would fall, making it less worthwhile to commit gruesome crimes in order to obtain the organs.

100 Somehow, any  government involvement with such a decision strikes me as bad..., and I extend that to judges.

I have no idea what the alternative is. The suggestion that the 'best  fit' potential recipient seems logical, i.e., the best candidate for a successful transplant. But that raises other questions..., for instance, what the 'best ' candidate is blind, or deaf, or Downs, etc.? Is the object to select the child that will contribute most to society? It also has to be understood that the CF does not go away because of the transplant.

I have a friend who is a nurse that deals exclusively with CF patients. The stories are heart-breaking. I do not know how she sustains.

Consider this:
More than 10 million Americans are symptomless carriers of the defective CF gene. This blood test can help detect carriers, who could pass CF onto their children. To have cystic fibrosis, a child must inherit one copy of the defective CF gene from each parent.

Each time two carriers of the CF gene have a child, the chances are:

25% (1 in 4) the child will have CF;
50% (1 in 2) the child will carry the CF gene but not have CF; and
25% (1 in 4) the child will not carry the gene and not have CF

It is a simple blood test to detect the CF gene. Cf could be avoided altogether, but it assumes that mating couples are mature and thoughtful. Ha.


 

101 There's a line somewhere. How do you think it is better determined-A)Professionals with years of experience looking at succsess rate in previous attempts or B)Whoever can get the most media attention when a decision against the esatblished procedure must be made Right This Instant. Age is one of the fucking stupidest ways. Some 12 year-olds have a body closer to a normal 16 year-old while others closer to a 10 year-old. Some 77 year-olds, because of their overall health, are better transplant candidates than some 60 year-olds full of organs nearing failure. If the "Professionals" you refer to think an arbitrary age cut-off is good science then they missed their boat -- they should be climate change "scientists".

102 sock off

103 I have a close friend who is a heart transplant patient for over 12 years and is doing fine. The doctor told him when dies and the heart is in good shape they'll transplant it into another patient.

104 Exactly. I would go even further - whenever one has central allocation of ANY resource, that central allocation machinery eventually gets corrupted into special favors and cronyism and manipulation by the mob, leading to an unjust result no matter how it is viewed.

Posted by: chemjeff at June 15, 2013 11:56 AM (9GG/0)

Well, some commenters have been saying that the rules were created by doctors and scientists, not bureaucrats, and if so, the problem is the judiciary, et al, inserting themselves into a process in which they should not really have a part. 

As we've seen with other aspects of life here in America, once the courts decide to weigh in on something.... well, screw the rest of us, right?

105 Did I say that? Do you think twisting my words to fit your argument is a fair way to debate?

You lamented the waste of 'viable organs' being wasted because no one made a decision to steal them from the deceased. Last I checked, you had the opportunity to register as an organ donor while living, so you seemed to imply you were talking about the organs of people who did not make such a choice (which is the argument I hear from people in favor of an 'opt out' organ donation system).

You sound more communist than anyone else here, dude.

Citation, please.

106 78 With a free market in organs, you will have people committing crimes in order to obtain the organs. Much like what happens right now when people commit theft in order to steal things to be sold on the black market. Posted by: chemjeff at June 15, 2013 11:49 AM (9GG/0) Actually, a black market is what you get when you don't have a free market.

107 the rules were created by doctors and scientists, not bureaucrats,

The rules are created by doctors and scientists, but enforced by bureaucrats.

Plus, doctors and scientists are fallible human beings too, not Solomonic agents of wisdom.

108 if it is a choice, but what if it's not?

The more that are available by choice legally, the fewer the black market and forced extractions will provide.

There's huge potential untapped sources of organs who's availability could be incentivized various ways.  Not just prisoners. 

Want to take an early SS retirement at 60 rather than 65?  No problem, it'll only cost you a kidney.

Want to knock a year or two of college loans off the books?   Half a lung and its done.

109 Posted by: chemjeff at June 15, 2013 11:56 AM (9GG/0)


You mean Lord Acton's Rule might apply to the selection of organ recipients?  No, no, no, THIS bureaucracy will have only the best intentions!


 Although it might help if you contributed heavily to the Democratic Party recently!

110 Get Congress to designate that all illegal immigrants seeking amnesty must sign up for organ donation.

111 No transplants for prisoners with life, death, or sentences that are for all purposes are life/death sentences. No transplants for people who are philosophically or religiously opposed to being donors. There was a case not too long ago where an Israeli athlete had wanted to be a donor. Giving permission to be a donor is not enough. They still need the family's permission. Some crazy rabbi got to the family and they went against the young man's wishes. I would put in my will that any family member who interferes with my decision to be a donor is cut out of my will. They need to change the rules so that the family can not go against the donor's wishes. Also, I think if you have no family to give permission, they won't use you as a donor. That's ridiculous.

112 one day we will no longer have the option to be organ donors, we will be organ donors....

113 Actually, a black market is what you get when you don't have a free market.

Posted by: rickl at June 15, 2013 12:00 PM (sdi6R)

Well yeah, but we have a free market in TVs and gold jewelry, yet thieves still steal them and fence them in black markets.  Sure the same thing will happen with organs if there is a free market in organs.  But the point here is that there is no perfect system which avoids all bad results, so arguing that X method for allocating organs leads to Y bad result is pointless.  The real question is, which method best allocates the extremely scarce resource of human organs?  We already know the answer, it's the free market.  It is the best system for allocating any scarce resource.

114

Once the rules are made, poor people should be required to stick to them.

 

Of course, if it was my daughter, I would purchase a third world child (plus a backup) and have their lungs removed for transplant.

 

Everyone else can get on a list.

115 Zombie John Gotti, I knew a guy who had a kidney transplant and his wife was the donor. Is that freakishly rare or not? It happened before I met the couple, and always struck me as strange/serendipitous.

116 Donate a kidney/lung -- step to the front of the line -- here's your new American passport and citizenship.

117 She said to me, "You know, when I grew up, if you got sick, you died. That's it."
Posted by: Tobacco Road
.................
Damn.. those were the good ole days!

118 " If not, what was the mechanism that got her the next available lungs?" Apparently her scored assessment of need.

119 Plus, doctors and scientists are fallible human beings too, not Solomonic agents of wisdom.

Posted by: chemjeff at June 15, 2013 12:01 PM (9GG/0)

Yes, I forgot to add that caveat. I can see your argument of why free market in organs could reduce trafficking. The issue I can see here is that gov't regulation of such would be unavoidable, if for no other reason than to fight organ trafficking, and as you said earlier, those regs could end up bringing us back to square one.

*sigh*

120
Want to take an early SS retirement at 60 rather than 65? No problem, it'll only cost you a kidney.

Want to knock a year or two of college loans off the books? Half a lung and its done.
Posted by: Purp
-------------------------

Hold it. Are you suggesting that taxpayers buy organs?

121 I heard on the radio yesterday that at least 30 other families of sick children have gone to court to get organs for their kids. Lawyers. Is there anything they can't do?

122 Annnnnnnd, here we go.

123 OT: Did you see that the asshole juror who was dismissed from the Zimmerman trial returned to the courthouse demanding to know how the defense posted on that leftard antiZimmerman website. Douchebag: ever hear of the internet? You used your own name and photo, moron. The fucker perjures himself, gets caught, and whines about it.

124 Cf could be avoided altogether, but it assumes that mating couples are mature and thoughtful. Ha.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at June 15, 2013 11:58 AM (aDwsi)

How? Pass a law that they can't have kids?

125 We already know the answer, it's the free market. It is the best system for allocating any scarce resource.
Posted by: chemjeff
............
Really?  are you fucking kidding me?

So, the rich ALWAYS will get the organs.

Blackhawks playoff tickets for tonight are on sale on the free market.. $3500 - $6000 will get you center ice.  Yeah.. pretty much the same as organs, huh?

126 The reason we don't offer financial incentives are because a) putting a price on human life turns it into a commodity which cheapens human dignity and b)it leads to the exploitation of the poor, similar to what we see with egg harvesting and surrogacy in India.

127 Lawyers. Is there anything they can't do?

Posted by: rickl at June 15, 2013 12:06 PM (sdi6R)

And make money while doing it!

128 Taxpayer funded organs? You'll put Hammond out of business! .......................oh, never mind.

129 Age is one of the fucking stupidest ways.

Sure. Size/Height would probably be better. Of course people would then complain that you're discriminating against any number of grievance groups with a height disadvantage.

130 what if you need your organ back? do you get dibs on the one you gave away?

131 Way too deep for a Saturday. I will lurk til next thread. BTW. I'm a donor but nobody would want my lungs nor liver. Eyes suck. Kidneys ought to be well flushed though.

132 I think that once we can synthesize organs, this whole issue will be largely moot, except for the price point, but then, the rich will always be able to get the best and latest. Everyone else has to wait.

133

Posted by: KG at June 15, 2013 12:04 PM (IPz9m)

well yeah, there will be government regulation of a free market in organs, just like there is government regulation of any free market, but *proper* government regulation ought to be directed towards keeping the market truly free (i.e., making it difficult to do things like commit fraud) as opposed to impeding the free flow of organs.

134 You kidnap someone, remove the parts you need, sew them back up and dump them on a park bench in Central Park so when two beat cops come along they will find him... What? It worked on Law & Order.

135 Well, some commenters have been saying that the rules were created by doctors and scientists, not bureaucrats, and if so, the problem is the judiciary, et al, inserting themselves into a process in which they should not really have a part.As we've seen with other aspects of life here in America, once the courts decide to weigh in on something.... well, screw the rest of us, right?

Posted by: KG at June 15, 2013 12:00 PM (IPz9m)

That was one of my problems with the initial discussion of this.  People here were accusing Sebelius of determining who lived and who died.  I was making the point that she may be a fool in most cases, but she was right on this.  She said she wasn't going to substitute her judgement for the judgement of the doctors and scientists who made these rules.

As for the issue of whether this was a directed donation.  I don't know that the family's statement implies that.  They could have been thanking the family for donating the organs in the first place.

136 I can't blame the parents, but I do blame the media, and the bureaucrats who allowed the media to game the system, and the politicians who let them do it. What next, affirmative action organ transplants? Say, remember that stupid snow-billy who talked about government death panels? Boy, was she out to lunch... they're MEDIA death panels!

137 Are you suggesting that taxpayers buy organs?

The govt already incentivizes and discourages thousands of things and activities.  This would be just another drop in a huge bucket.

138 Considering the comment upthread,  explaining the arbitrary rules,  the entire thing needs to be re-done.

1. In the adult list,  the determination is based partly on who is the sickest.

2. In the child list,  it is based on who has been on the list the longest.

3.  Why wasn't the decision made on size and weight, since there is a wide variation in those parameters for 10-year olds.

139 "I can't help but think we have just turned the transplant business into a popularity contest."

Cue the latest niche field of consulting/public relations/law:  -- how to best "position" yourself for a transplant.  Build the PR cost into the transplant cost.  Let some future Lois Lerner decide.

140 Really? are you fucking kidding me?

So, the rich ALWAYS will get the organs.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at June 15, 2013 12:07 PM (UTq/I)

Do you ever think before you comment?

chemjeff is correct. But your simplistic concept of the free market doesn't include the possibility that altruism is a huge part of it.

141 Posted by: KG at June 15, 2013 12:08 PM (IPz9m)


I think you meant the "rich and politically connected" will always be able to get the best and latest. Everyone else has to wait.

142 So, the rich ALWAYS will get the organs.

The rich will always get the organs no matter what system is in place.  If it is a centralized allocation system of organs, the rich will instead use their wealth and "pull" to manipulate the bureaucracy.

There is no ideal system here.

143 America's Got Organs

144 and the rich will always have a nicer car then you.....and house and vacation and clothing.....too bad.....

145 Posted by: Weimar Republican at June 15, 2013 12:10 PM (Cnqmv)

True.

And chemjeff, that's the crux of the matter, isn't it? That the regulations be *proper*, but with this gov't we have.....

146 Posted by: phoenixgirl@phxazgrl..back home at June 15, 2013 12:11 PM (8JJ6O)

But that's not fair!

147 "To speed up processing whether your life is worth saving, transplant applications will now include a "Political Affiliation" box.

/Lois Lerner

Posted by: Jack Nine"

No need! Just shoot me an email, bro!

148 Do you ever think before you comment?

chemjeff is correct. But your simplistic concept of the free market doesn't include the possibility that altruism is a huge part of it.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo
............
Do you?  Ever take Econ 101?

Supply/Demand.. look it up.

The very reason we do NOT put a price on organs  (other than the ancillary costs of harvesting/transplanting) is to keep them out of the "free" market where the price would naturally rise to a point where only the richest would EVER get a transplant.

149 116 Donate a kidney/lung -- step to the front of the line -- here's your new American passport and citizenship. Posted by: Purp at June 15, 2013 12:04 PM (/gHaE) If you donate your lungs, you won't need a passport and citizenship.

150 Zombie John Gotti, I knew a guy who had a kidney transplant and his wife was the donor. Is that freakishly rare or not? It happened before I met the couple, and always struck me as strange/serendipitous.

Posted by: lincolntf at June 15, 2013 12:04 PM (ZshNr)

That his wife was a match is an oddity.  It does happen more often than you would expect.  On a side note, there is a process known as paired donations.  That's a case when a potential living donor does not match the intended recipient but does match another AND that recipient has a donor who matches the other recipient.  In that case, all four operations are done simultaneously and the organs are exchanged. It is done simultaneously to prevent a donor from backing out after their friend gets a kidney. They have actually done that with as many as 11 pairs.  The logistics dictated that that could not do it simultaneously, so it was done over 2 days.

151 tami lol

152 Please tell me the Milagro and her son are not illegal immigrants.

And Marco expects us to believe we will not be funding the world with his new bill?

153 But your simplistic concept of the free market doesn't include the possibility that altruism is a huge part of it. Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at June 15, 2013 12:10 PM (WW8xK) Altruism is a huge part of an economic free market? Explain please.

154 I'm glad (but not surprised) to see that my free market argument is getting quite a bit of support here.
 
Her's a corollary issue -- some organs are 'lost' because the recipient doesn't religiously take their anti-rejection drugs/can't afford them for the rest of their lives. Wouldn't it be better, considering the limited availability, to select recipients based on their ability to ensure they can keep that organ healthy? Yes, that means those with the ability to buy their drugs on the open market if needed.

155 putting a price on human life turns it into a commodity which cheapens human dignity

I agree that this is a concern.  But I think you also have to look at it from the point of view of *both* the donor *and* the recipient.

156 Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at June 15, 2013 12:14 PM (UTq/I)

Charity.

Explain how your concept of the free market justifies Americans being the most generous people in the world.

157

Taxpayer funded organs? You'll put Hammond out of business! .......................oh, never mind.

 

I was in a band  who had a B3 player.   He had an old ambulance  which made it easy to  load and unload. Lights worked and everything. His business card had a picture of   the ambulance next to the phrase, "Vital organ   transport."

 

The drummer in that band had a retired  Crown Vic cop car with a spotlight. One night   we were unloading after a gig and got a big laugh  from all the people who'd  pull up, see those two vehicles,   then turn around to leave.

158
The entire health care debate in this country is one massive demonstration of the logical fallacy of argumentum ad passiones -- appeal to emotion.

There is no reason to think that is ever going to change.  This kid and her lungs are merely one particular application of it.

Just wait until the race card gets played in these cases.  whooo-eee!  Sick black kid, kidney, Rev. Al.  That'll make for some thoughtful reflection and dispassionate decision-making.

159 Posted by: chemjeff at June 15, 2013 11:53 AM (9GG/0)


Exactly. Ability to pay is clear cut, up front and unambiguous. Of the two choices -- and I agree that your two choices are the only available choices -- it is the most ethically proper of the two, and the least open to gaming by bureaucrats.

160 If we're going to grow organs, why not supersize me?  Hey Doc, how much more if I want some hybridized super organ that makes me god-like?

161 123 OT: Did you see that the asshole juror who was dismissed from the Zimmerman trial returned to the courthouse demanding to know how the defense posted on that leftard antiZimmerman website. Douchebag: ever hear of the internet? You used your own name and photo, moron. The fucker perjures himself, gets caught, and whines about it. Posted by: Waldo at June 15, 2013 12:07 PM (RZwdH) I heard that he was escorted out of the court house when he returned. I didn't read what the reason was. What an idiot! I guess the defense team knew over a year ago that he would end up in their jury pool, huh?

162 Cf could be avoided altogether, but it assumes that mating couples are mature and thoughtful. Ha.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at June 15, 2013 11:58 AM (aDwsi)

How? Pass a law that they can't have kids?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo
-----------------------------

Charlie--- You did see the words 'mature' and 'responsible' didn't you? The point is that if couples took a blood test before deciding to have children, they would know the odds of having a child with CF. For me, a 25% chance is way too high. Time to find another mate or adopt. I suppose the best way to deal with things would be to test everyone at a young age, so that they KNOW that they are CF carriers, before they reach sexual maturity.

163 The rich will always get the organs no matter what system is in place. If it is a centralized allocation system of organs, the rich will instead use their wealth and "pull" to manipulate the bureaucracy.

There is no ideal system here.
Posted by: chemjeff
..........
Patently false.  First, you are talking out of your ass about a "centralized allocation system".  They are regional because organs have a very short shelf life and often would not last a transcontinental airplane ride.

The current system disallows pricing of organs.  Some very rich manipulate the system by being able to move to a region with fewer needy recipients.  But that's about it.

It is as fair a system as you can get given the intricacies.

164 Wealth is already considered as a factor in one's position on the organ recipient list. Anti-rejection meds are expensive, so transplants in poor patients are more likely to fail. Medicare only pays for anti-rejection meds for 3 years, and Medicaid only pays for 3 meds/month.

165 Altruism is a huge part of an economic free market? Explain please.

I would say, that if you have a truly free market, it must include the liberty to dispense with your property as you see fit; and so if you wish, you may choose to give your organs to whomever you wish regardless of price.  But that can only happen in the context of having the freedom to do so.

166 And this is why people should be allowed to sell organs.

167 150
Zombie John Gotti, I knew a guy who had a kidney transplant and his wife
was the donor. Is that freakishly rare or not? It happened before I met
the couple, and always struck me as strange/serendipitous.

Posted by: lincolntf at June 15, 2013 12:04 PM (ZshNr)

That his wife was a match is an oddity. It does happen more often than you would expect. On a side note, there is a process known as paired donations. That's a case when a potential living donor does not match the intended recipient but does match another AND that recipient has a donor who matches the other recipient. In that case, all four operations are done simultaneously and the organs are exchanged. It is done simultaneously to prevent a donor from backing out after their friend gets a kidney. They have actually done that with as many as 11 pairs. The logistics dictated that that could not do it simultaneously, so it was done over 2 days.

Posted by: Zombie John Gotti at June 15, 2013 12:14 PM (1hekh)

 

I think its more common now that the anti-rejection drugs are a lot better.  ie you don't need to be as close a match as you were in the past to donate a kidney.  Racist asshole "comedian" George Lopez got a kidney from his wife.  Before they got divorced of course.

168 Altruism is a huge part of an economic free market? Explain please.

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at June 15, 2013 12:15 PM (GEICT)

The free market unleashes people from the constraints of government. They are free to use their wealth in whatever way they choose.

Many will spend on themselves. Many will spend very little, and many will spend on others.

Andrew Carnegie. John D. Rockefeller.

169 Explain how your concept of the free market justifies Americans being the most generous people in the world.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo
.............
Oh stop.  WTF does one have to do with another?

We are talking about keeping organs off the free market.  That has nothing to do with American generosity.

You are somehow equating organ transplant rules - defained by committees of doctors - with government control or something.. or whatever.. DEATH PANELS!

Jeebus.

And, it's not MY concept of the free market.  That's how the free market works, and that is why organs should not be on the free market.

170 Agreed, nor should it be based on some zero tolerance rule, like age.

Posted by: Javems at June 15, 2013 11:25 AM (c8xU9)

 

 

 

 

Especially when the age preference seems reversed  in addition  to  being   arbitrary  and  behind the  medical  state of the art.  Nothing personal 55 year old awaiting lungs.

 

Who did make  a rule based entirely on age and not  potential success anyway?  I don't actually know.   

 

 

Ultimately someone  with  less  PR  was   denied  a transplant.   Bad precedent  in one  way  but a  great step   for  children   in  another.      

 

 

171 I agree, ChemJeff. It's definitely a complex question. I'm on the bone marrow registry, but don't list myself as a organ donor on my license because I want my husband to have discretion if something happens to me, even though I am supportive of organ donation. That means that if we get killed together, my organs might go to waste. That's unfortunate, but I'd rather maintain control. I'm sure a lot of people feel that way. The current system is definitely far from perfect, but reforming it always has drawbacks too.

172 But that can only happen in the context of having the freedom to do so.

Posted by: chemjeff at June 15, 2013 12:18 PM (9GG/0)

I owe you a beer. You seem to be the only other person who understands this.

173

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at June 15, 2013 12:17 PM (UTq/I)

Having the system centralized by region does not make it any less centralized in a conceptual sense, especially when compared to a free market.

And federal lawsuits ain't cheap, you know.  The poor starving orphan who needs a liver will always be at the back of the line compared to the rich and connected.  The difference is, if individuals have the freedom to dispense with their organs as they see fit, the poor starving orphan may be the recipient of a charitable donation, as opposed to now, when that poor starving orphan is just screwed no matter what.

174 Altruism is a huge part of an economic free market? Explain please. Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at June 15, 2013 12:15 PM (GEICT) Ever hear of something called "charity", dumbass?

175 Tami at June 15, 2013 12:17 PM (X6akg) My comment didn't make much sense. He wanted to know how the defense knew he posted on the website. I suspect you figured out what I meant on your own. Here's the link: http://goo.gl/2RB9G

176 And, it's not MY concept of the free market. That's how the free market works, and that is why organs should not be on the free market.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at June 15, 2013 12:21 PM (UTq/I)

You might be even dumber than O'Reilly when it comes to economic issues.

177 Every post I see on this subject assumes organ donation is a zero-sum game: Sarah gets a lung, and someone else dies because she got promoted to the head of the line.

I'd like to question that assumption.  Suppose Sarah's case - and the publicity - generates more interest in becoming a donor.  That is, suppose her case actually ends up saving MORE lives because she was an activist and people started thinking about donating (or - for the capitalists out there - selling) their organs.

Just sayin'.

178 I owe you a beer. You seem to be the only other person who understands this.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at June 15, 2013 12:22 PM (WW8xK)

Thanks   but I'm not going back to New Jersey to claim it.  You'll have to come out here to Missour-ah.

179 Sorry chemjeff, I misinterpreted your earlier comment. I absolutely agree that the free market is the best way to allocate scarce resources. The rich always get the best of everything. They can afford champagne and caviar, while the poor have to make do with beer and hot dogs. So what? They both eat. Before Henry Ford came along, early automobiles were hand-built and were only affordable to the rich. Likewise, I'm excited about the prospects for private spaceflight, even though there is no way in hell I can afford it. But future generations will be able to, because it won't be as scarce as it is now. The profit motive means that there will be more to go around than there would be without it.

180 Interesting.

181 The poor starving orphan is on Medicare who is willing to pay.

The orphan lives a cleaner life than the rich fuck who drinks a fifth of hooch each day and smokes a pack of Camels.

You are completely ignoring all other factors to allow price to dominate. Foolish.  I'm glad doctors are deciding these things rather than free-market-at-any-cost blog commenters.

182 Posted by: I Work for Dick Jones at June 15, 2013 11:34 AM (MSrqi) False. Directed donation is legal.

183 Then there is "transplant tourism" to places like the PRC. Where your execution date - and means of death - may depend on the availability of a paying transplant candidate. Don't shoot a cornea "donor" in the head, as hydrostatic shock might damage the eyes.

184 My comment didn't make much sense. He wanted to know how the defense knew he posted on the website. I suspect you figured out what I meant on your own. Here's the link: http://goo.gl/2RB9G Posted by: Waldo at June 15, 2013 12:23 PM (RZwdH) Ah.....still.....idiot.

185

Of course organs should be on the free market.

 

Once the supply is opened up with the market, the demand will be easily met and prices will fall dramatically.  Poor families can use the organs of their dead relatives to pay for their funerals and even have a little left over.

 

Ideally, with a free market on organs, doctors could pick and choose among dozens or hundreds of organs to find the perfect match.  People who would have died previously would live and people who are already dead won't miss their kidneys.

 

Sure seems logical.

186 Ever hear of something called "charity", dumbass? Posted by: Ed Anger at June 15, 2013 12:22 PM (tOkJB) I'm sorry, was I talking to you motherfucker? Charity, you fuckstick, is a result of free market, not part and parcel of it.

187 I don't know what to think about the issue.

I'll wait until a gainsaying, sub-literate better comes along to tell us we have it all wrong and to talk about himself.

188 One of my favorite authors, Erma Bombeck,  decided not to let her fame and money put her at the top of a transplant list.  She died waiting.  David Crosby, Crosby, Stills and Nash, got a liver transplant and reportedly still drinks.  At least this is new territory with the possibility of better medicine as an outcome along with this child's life extension.  What you really want to do is check into organ donations, it isn't as easy as you think!  You would be amazed at the disqualifiers to be donors. 

189 Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at June 15, 2013 12:07 PM (UTq/I)


So?

190 Thanks but I'm not going back to New Jersey to claim it. You'll have to come out here to Missour-ah.

Posted by: chemjeff at June 15, 2013 12:24 PM (9GG/0)

I prefer paved roads and indoor plumbing....but I appreciate the invitation.

191 Sorry, that's another bad analogy. The system is arbitrary because there is no reason 11 year olds should not be eligible for lungs, based on their age.

The problem is, bureaucrats make the rules, not doctors. Not transplant committees at hospitals. Bureaucrats. People for whom arbitrary exercises in power are what they do for a living.

No thanks.

Posted by: BurtTC at June 15, 2013 11:47 AM (TOk1P)

______________________________________

My point that arbitrary can be the most fair.   If the science is out of date, and the cutoff moved for a good reason, it should be moved - but there should be an objective set of rules, and not one set of rules for cute kids who can mount an effective media and legal campaign, and another set of rules for those who can't.  That is effectively what happened in this case - all you've done is exchange one set of bureaucrats for another set of equally capricious actors - viz, the media, et al.

To further the analogy, if there was reason to believe that changing the rules of football to make the field 90 or 120 yards because it would make the game better/more exciting/safer, then it should be changed but changed at once and for all games in a season - not in the event of one game where it would favor one team and its skill set.

192 I can understand people being horrified by the idea of buying and selling organs.  It does sound gruesome and tawdry and "unbecoming of civilized people".

But if you aren't willing to apply free-market principles to resources that are exceptionally scarce, like organs, then what is the basis for your support for free markets in general?  Because it delivers cheap shit from China?

193 I'd like to question that assumption. Suppose Sarah's case - and the publicity - generates more interest in becoming a donor. That is, suppose her case actually ends up saving MORE lives because she was an activist and people started thinking about donating (or - for the capitalists out there - selling) their organs. Just sayin'. Posted by: A One-Eyed Cat Peepin' in the Seafood Store at June 15, 2013 12:24 PM (eMtQ2) I'll do you one better: What if Sarah's new lungs let her live long enough to invent a way to create new lab-lungs that can be transplanted to anyone with a 100% success rate. Just think of the possibilities! Oh wait. What if it was one of the other people on her wait list that was going to invent that? Shit!

194 Anyway, all this will be moot in another decade or two, because replacement organs will be 3D printed on demand. People are already working on it. They will probably use your own cells and DNA, so rejection will be unlikely.

195 OT about the woman looking for a walrus in the sidebar. I don't call myself WalrusRex because I look like a unicorn. But that part about the costume fitting normal-sized people is a deal breaker for the same reason I call my self WalrusRex. Our love was not meant to be.

196

*Waves frantically*

Over here!  Hey Over Here!

I might have something say about this.

Wait Art Caplan's booked an interview on all four cable news networks, quotes in every major newspaper and has already rendered his decision?

Oh well case closed.  I mean it's not like the man has ever totally screwed the pooch before (Jesse Gellsinger could not be reached for comment.)

Google it.

In any case, I'm totally fine with redoing the criteria, but people aren't going to like the way it turns out.  Lung transplants will likely be based on the relative size of the patient to the lungs themselves.

Outcome: This girl probably doesn't get the lungs.  The adult system really wasn't capable of handling this case yet (hence the rules).  Just because her doctors are arrogant twats doesn't mean they were necessarily right (and we're unlikely to find out because if the organ fails, the story will be old news by then.)

Oh, and then there's the issue of domino transplants.  Her chances of long term survival are better with a domino transplant of the heart and lungs (then giving the heart to another person since it's healthy.)

Except, you can't do those in this case because the heart can't be shaped.

Yeah, no one ever talked about that.

197 Posted by: jwest at June 15, 2013 12:28 PM (u2a4R)

Right on!

198 I'm glad doctors are deciding these things rather than free-market-at-any-cost blog commenters.

Me too!

199 Want to 'level the playing field'? Fine, just outlaw all transplants. Make it a capital offense. Because that is the only way it is going to be 'fair'....., to the extent that life is fair. Next best deal would be a straight-up lottery, without regard to likely success. Everything after that involves 'judgement'.

200 Posted by: Mike Hammer at June 15, 2013 12:17 PM (aDwsi) Those at risk can use genetic testing, and a woman can opt to end a cf pregnancy in the first trimester. Many do.

201

Given medical realities as  I  perhaps  dimly  perceive  them, I don't see how organs   or  the  skill  to  transplant  them   fit neatly into any economic model.    Have we reached the one-size-fits-all point of transplantation?  Tissue type  is still a real thing right?

 

This is not fungible natural gas  you  can  pipe  all  over  the  country.  

 

Nor can  anyone have  a  right  to  the  skill  or  organs  of  another  person.    

202 I'm sure in 5 years we won't know what happend to Sarah one way or the other.  In my own world, I have been a designated donor for years.  O-care has me rethinking my decision.

203 rickl, that would be/will be pretty fucking huge in the history of medical science. A world changer.

204 The person on the bottom of the adult list was the LEAST sick. He didn't die because the kid got the lungs, because he WASN'T as sick as she was. Ten years ago, the two list system made medical sense because doctors couldn't use adult lungs in children. Medicine advanced, but the system didn't. (Big surprise.) The current state of medicine today, only children can use children's lungs, but adults and some children can use adult lungs. If medicine advances to where children's lungs can be used on adults, then offering children's lungs only to children would be wrong. And it will no doubt take a highly publicized media event to change the protocol so the bureaucratic practice matches the medical practice. Bureaucracies only change when forced to do so.

205 I can say that as an organ donor, I feel sorry for the S.O.B that gets my liver.
 
"It's 2 pm and my liver is aching. What's wrong with it. doc?"
 
"Give it a shot of single malt scotch."
 
A couple of days later --
 
"How the hell did you know that would solve the problem?"
 
"I got the other half of that donor's liver."

206

Posted by: SarahW at June 15, 2013 12:34 PM (LYwCh)

 

Yes..yesssssss..embrace the eugenics.

207 Posted by: Mike Hammer at June 15, 2013 12:17 PM (aDwsi)

Mature and thoughtful people with the CF gene will sometimes roll the dice and have kids.

208 Posted by: krakatoa at June 15, 2013 12:31 PM (eCtnP)

I'm thinking you missed my point.  Just went straight back to the zero-sum game thing: "It's either you or me."   Come on - it just isn't necessarily so.

209 The poor starving orphan is on Medicare who is willing to pay.

Actually, that is Medicaid.  And it is willing to pay due to the system of socialized medicine we have established in this country.  Three cheers for centralized planning!

The orphan lives a cleaner life than the rich fuck who drinks a fifth of hooch each day and smokes a pack of Camels.

Really now.  What is the basis for this claim?

You are completely ignoring all other factors to allow price to dominate. Foolish. I'm glad doctors are deciding these things rather than free-market-at-any-cost blog commenters.

Actually, my overriding concern is liberty to control the direction of my life and my possessions.  It just so happens that centralized control over my organs doesn't let me decide what happens to them.

Jerry, would you object to a system in which individuals got to decide how their organs were donated, independent of any sort of price associated with them?

210
What if it was one of the other people on her wait list that was going to invent that?

Shit! Posted by: krakatoa

Catch-22

211 I think its more common now that the anti-rejection drugs are a lot better. ie you don't need to be as close a match as you were in the past to donate a kidney. Racist asshole "comedian" George Lopez got a kidney from his wife. Before they got divorced of course.

Posted by: buzzion at June 15, 2013 12:20 PM (LI48c)

That may be somewhat of a factor, but one of my immunosuppressant drugs was invented in 1984 and one is from 1955.

Personally, I will listen to free market arguments on organ allocation only from those people who are either on a transplant waiting list or have loved ones who are.  Everyone else is just making noise about something they know absolutely nothing about.

212

105 -

 

You did it again, nitwit.  I never said anything about anyone stealing anything.  Your reading problems are not my responsibility.  What I said, and let me use small words so you can understand, was: when people are  dying, it would be a GOOD THING if medical personnel suggested to family members that organ donations are  a  GOOD IDEA.

 

Not mandatory.  An option.

 

Are we clear?   

 

Now, try  your argument again, genius. 

213 Some also choose to use in vitro and screen before implantation.

214 If you donate your lungs, you won't need a passport and citizenship.

Posted by: Tami at June 15, 2013 12:14 PM (X6akg)

I like it!

215

Posted by: VKI at June 15, 2013 12:34 PM (TKoA3)

 

Bullshit.

The system advanced. Liver and Kidney rules changed.  Lung rules didn't.

Nifty fact, livers are far easier to trim than any other solid organ and kidneys aren't transplanted in the same place as the recipients old organ (meaning size isn't as much of an issue.

The "System is old and needs to be updated" argument forgets quite a few facts.

216 The solution is so obvious, you ninnies. We just take anyone compatible whose name shows up on our Tea Party or other Enemies lists, and put them on the forced donor list. Resistance is Futile.

217 Want to 'level the playing field'? Fine, just outlaw all transplants.

In Soviet Russia....

218 Mature and thoughtful people with the CF gene will sometimes roll the dice and have kids.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo
-----------------

Probably...., but if they have made that decision, then my help is forfeit, as surely as if they made a decision to shoot themselves in the foot.

219

Frankly I'm OK with an "Opt-Out" system provided opting out is easy as hell.

The organ procurement teams are already fairly well separated from any care teams, so that doesn't concern me as much.

It'd probably be more honest than what we have now which is people making uninformed decisions at the DMV which states are straightening to be fairly irrevocable by the family.

220 In my America, hotheads will not be eligible for transplants.

221 And no more old ladies winning the lottery!

222 Posted by: Mike Hammer at June 15, 2013 12:38 PM (aDwsi)

Yes.

"Man plans and God laughs."

223 Posted by: A One-Eyed Cat Peepin' in the Seafood Store at June 15, 2013 12:35 PM (eMtQ2) I think you are missing my point -- projecting hypotheticals like this is fun, but not terribly helpful in a debate about who lives and dies on a wait-list. You can keep saying that it's not a zero-sum game, but it most certainly is: Many people on a wait list are going to die waiting for a transplant. Adding her to the adult wait-list has taken a transplant from the person she bumped. Ultimately, one set of adult lungs is off the "market".

224

I lost a kidney last month and was philosophically curious about this issue so I got in touch with Virginia Postrel, who has donated a kidney to her friend Dr. Sally Satel ( an amazing act, in anyones book and one thant saved her friend's life) because of her libertarian views on organ donation. She thinks that the donors families should be recompensed.

I agree with her 100%. I don't need a donation (my other kidney is fabulous) but many thousnads of people do. we need to greatly expand the donation pool.

225 Probably...., but if they have made that decision, then my help is forfeit, as surely as if they made a decision to shoot themselves in the foot.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at June 15, 2013 12:38 PM (aDwsi)

 

?!

I understand the sentiment here.  But I'm curious what you mean by "my help."  I don't like the outcome in this case exactly, but it doesn't mean I want to exclude CF kids from getting any organ transplants ever.

I just don't want them to become a special case.

Or should we roll to the other extreme and go all GATTACA on this: "well there's a test for that and you opted not to have it (embrace the eugenics!) so no healthcare for you!"

226

191 -

 

Agreed.  Bureaucrats being part of the process is a problem.  What would happen though, if we had a system where medical experts made these decisions, free from the arbitrary meddling of politicians and lawyers, would most likely include guidelines and standards, but not necessarily absolute cut-offs. 

 

I realize we don't have anything of the sort right now, but  instead we had a situation where a member of the Obama administration revealed herself to be part of the problem, and now we seem to have people around here who want to carry her water for her, by making this about how unfair it was for this little girl to have gotten a lung.

 

That makes absolutely no sense to me. 

227 I suppose the best way to deal with things would be to test everyone at a young age, so that they KNOW that they are CF carriers, before they reach sexual maturity.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at June 15, 2013 12:17 PM (aDwsi)

Yes, DNA and other medical compatibility testing should be done on all children and adults and added to our database.

228

Posted by: krakatoa at June 15, 2013 12:42 PM (eCtnP)

 

Krakatoa,

I just had a discussion with a fellow classmate about this.  And perhaps the better way of looking at it is "is our concern with the organ, or with the person in need."

The outcomes are fascinatingly different.  My concern is usually with the organ, they're a rare thing and I want them to go where they have the greatest probability of a successful transplant that lasts a long time (usually, I was just reading about some cool cases where you take a diseased liver from a patient getting a liver transplant and give it to an older patient for whom the disease spreading time is not really a problem, thus making a "damaged" organ useful again.)

Anyway, that's a side case.  Point is, Organs, greatest usefulness possible.

Or our concern can be with the potential recipient (as it was here) whereby we wanted this particular patient to get an organ, regardless of the potential that the organ may not last as long.

229 211 >> Personally, I will listen to free market arguments on organ allocation only from those people who are either on a transplant waiting list or have loved ones who are. Everyone else is just making noise about something they know absolutely nothing about.
 
Really, ZJG? hmmmm, perhaps I should remove myself from the donor list then, since MY opinion means shit.
 
Then I don't have to worry about what my opinion means. I deferred to you earlier, but this stance of yours is making me take a second look.

230 Posted by: TexasJew at June 15, 2013 12:42 PM (1LOv

Ideally, there would be a system that combines the natural altruistic tendencies of Americans with a free-market approach to the remaining need.

Charitable donations directed to people who are willing to sell their kidneys is a beginning.

231

Posted by: BurtTC at June 15, 2013 12:43 PM (TOk1P)

 

We're so close to this now actually.

UNOS (and the affiliated OPTNs) are separate entities from the government.

The Organ transplant laws were never changed from the 80s though to sever the original connection that authorized setting them up (and gave the Secretary of HHS power to tweak the contract.)

Given that in 30 years no one has dethroned UNOS (and as Krakatoa points out, the system works well the vast majority of the time) perhaps it's time to sever HHS's connection to UNOS and let it stand without HHS oversight.

Minor tweak to the law, solves many of the problems.

232 I've got a rule that will not only satisfy a bunch of posters here, but also almost everybody on the left: THE CLEANER THE LIFE YOU LEAD, THE HIGHER YOU GO ON THE TRANSPLANT LIST. Ever smoke? Sorry, no kidney for you. You've never smoked or drank alcoholic beverages? Sounds good, but that other guy hasn't either -- plus, unlike you, he jogs two miles every day. So get in line behind him. I see that you're a healthy 30 year-old. Other than the organ that you need you are in stellar health. You have no bad health habits. But let's see here...both sides of your family are predisposed to developing senile dementia? Well, you can step out of line. Because we're not going to give a heart, liver, kidney or lung to anybody who is going to spend their last 10 years of their life babbling, drooling and shitting the bed. These are the kinds of rules the super smart doctors (aka bioethicists) like to dream up. Yeah -- let's let those doctors write the rules. Doctors like Rahm Emanuel's brother Ezekiel. What could possibly go wrong?

233 Yes..yesssssss..embrace the eugenics. Posted by: Marget Sanger at June 15, 2013 12:35 PM (GaqMa) Of course you would also approve of demanding defective or carrier parents never conceive and only adopt if they want children.

234 You can keep saying that it's not a zero-sum game, but it most certainly is:

. . . 

Posted by: krakatoa at June 15, 2013 12:42 PM (eCtnP)

Yeah - if you say so; must be true.  Prove it.

235 Ultimately, one set of adult lungs is off the "market".

Posted by: krakatoa at June 15, 2013 12:42 PM (eCtnP)

Agreed.

The only question is whether the guidelines should be modified because of advances in transplant technique, technology and pharmacology.

But they should be modified based on scientific analysis of the issue, not by an hysterical media and a cute white kid wearing an oxygen mask.

236 Most states test all kids for CF at birth these days. Lung transplants have major issues with chronic rejection. five years is a typical run. Re transplant? Or once only? CF patients get two lungs because of chronic infections. Some other diseases can get by with one. What's fair? I know of a case where two lungs were split--one recipient still alive. The other got cancer in the donor lung. Died from it. The business is complex enough without a "free market".

237 Really, ZJG? hmmmm, perhaps I should remove myself from the donor list then, since MY opinion means shit. Then I don't have to worry about what my opinion means. I deferred to you earlier, but this stance of yours is making me take a second look. Posted by: GnuBreed at June 15, 2013 12:47 PM (cHZB7) ------------------ Yep. Sarah's story inspired me to become a donor, which I've always resisted, as I don't want my donor status to factor in any potential treatment. Well, fuck that. Now I'm taking my organs with me, pharaoh-style. Happy now? You just killed somebody, pal. How's that feel?

238 Prove it.

Posted by: A One-Eyed Cat Peepin' in the Seafood Store at June 15, 2013 12:50 PM (eMtQ2)

He just did.

239

Organs have tremedous value. It is a critical thing and can be tremendously traumatic for the donors family, especailly when the donor is flown in a vegetative state and taken off life support on situ to donate the organ,

Let the donor's families get recompense for this.

The real ghoulishness is letting people die unneccessarily for lack of organs.

240

When I die, my body becomes the property of my family. If they want to part me out and sell the organs they should be allowed the profit.

 

Even if they sell me to a dog food manufacturer, that'd be starting the next food cycle higher than I'd be as worm food in a grave. Free markets make the world a better place.

241 Agreed. Bureaucrats being part of the process is a problem. What would happen though, if we had a system where medical experts made these decisions, free from the arbitrary meddling of politicians and lawyers, would most likely include guidelines and standards, but not necessarily absolute cut-offs.

I realize we don't have anything of the sort right now, but instead we had a situation where a member of the Obama administration revealed herself to be part of the problem, and now we seem to have people around here who want to carry her water for her, by making this about how unfair it was for this little girl to have gotten a lung.

That makes absolutely no sense to me.

________________________________________


What I'm saying is that I don't think it is more fair for the media to decide who gets a set of lungs than it is for an unresponsive bureaucracy with an arbitrary cutoff.  Both situations are an argument for going to a different system of allocating organs entirely, but it the former is definitely not preferable to the latter, and probably more prone to abuse and capriciousness taken in totality. 

And I anticipate that making decisions on a case-by-case basis and on the recommendations of doctors would yield more lawyering of the system, not less. 

Finally, I don't think anyone is begrudging the girl her set of lungs, only commenting that the person who would have been the recipient is now waiting longer for the next set of lungs to come along, and may never get a set of lungs in time to save his or her life.  That person simply didn't have the media/political/legal juice that this girl's family was able to muster, and that is a fairly shitty reason to die.



 

 

242

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at June 15, 2013 12:48 PM (WW8xK)

 

I still have substantial fears about the commodification of the human body on this issue though.

If I can sell my Kidney, can I sell my heart? How about while I'm still alive?

Also what do we do about the fact that organ sales would pretty much create an underclass of people selling their organs and skew the distribution of "donors" (for lack of a better term, hence the scare quotes) towards the poor, while likely skewing the recipients towards the rich.

We'd not even come close to "solving" a problem while creating several more.

Better to probably find ways to increase general donorship.  (Also, I don't think we're too long from growing kidneys.  Those will be the first organ rendered moot I think.)

243 are elated this day has come, but we also know our good news is another family's tragedy," they wrote. "That family made the decision to give Sarah the gift of life -- and they are the true heroes today." That quote sounds like, perhaps, the donor family designated Sarah to be the donee. ***** Ummmm, no. That is actually a very common sentiment expressed by transplant recipient families. It is acknowledging that the donor died and the donor's family experienced a loss. No way that the donor directed the donation to a specific recipient. There is a lot of uninformed opinion being expressed on this thread.

244

224 -

 

Amen.  And the point I tried  to make earlier, before I got accused of being a communist, is that  it would be nice if people who are in a position to make this decsion, to facilitate organ donation, would be better informed about it at the time a potential donor is dying. 

 

All you would have to do is ask the question.  Americans can be remarkably generous when they are given the opportunity to help people in need. 

245 This is all due to the influence of Television in our daily lives. 

Television has been the greatest enabler of shallow-thinking, evil-consoling, and style-before-substance in the 20th century, with no signs of its influence waning.

246 The business is complex enough without a "free market".

Posted by: Lurking lung doctor at June 15, 2013 12:51 PM (WnGDS)

Let's say you had a particularly good year amputating limbs and fleecing the health care industry*. Then you get a diagnosis of some nasty lung cancer.

And I am the only perfect match, but I want $500,000 for one lung. You have the cash, and I have the lung.

What do you do?

*sarcasm

247 We haven't beat this subject to death yet?

248 Want to 'level the playing field'? Fine, just outlaw all transplants.

In Soviet Russia....
Posted by: chemjeff
-----------------

I did not imply that it was a good solution..., if 'solution' is the right word. It merely takes all of the questions/conflict off the table. It seems the next 'fairest' answer is simply to allow people to do what they wish with their own resources. The objection is then raised that only the 'rich' will benefit. Well..., so be it. The rich benefit in many, many ways where material things are concerned, and this issue is just one of them. It would be a short step to complain that the rich enjoy more comfort (Not fair!), better food (Not fair!), etc. etc.

I will reiterate that CF specifically, is 100% avoidable, if the parents assume responsibility.

Perhaps the 'printing' of organs will indeed come about. I hope so, and hasten the day.

249

Posted by: SarahW at June 15, 2013 12:50 PM (LYwCh)

 

Clearly you need a better understanding of Sanger.

I doubt she'd support adoption at all.

She was determined to eliminate the "unwanted poor."  I suspect were she alive today she'd be a disciple of Peter Singer suggesting we off any unwanted babies after they're born.

250 Doctor: "Good news! We found a donor heart for you." Patient: "Yay" Doctor: "Bad news, the guy was 107 years old."

251 When I moved to NC and got a license, the clerk asked me if I wanted to be an organ donor ( I was one on my Massachusetts license). The way she asked, loudly and holding a pen in her hand jarred me, so I blurted "No". Just the bureaucratic setting and the personal nature of the question together kind of curdled in my mind. When I renew I'll probably check the box.

252

231 -

 

Sounds good to me.  And at the same time, take a shot at educating Americans on the notion that some things in this country work better WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT/INTERVENTION.

 

So... win/win. 

253

Posted by: tsrblke at June 15, 2013 12:53 PM (GaqMa)

Believe me, in cadaver labs in med schools, there's no such thing as a rich cadaver.

The important thing is the availability of organs to save lives.

The PC bullshit is over. Besides, what about blood banks?

254

Posted by: Mike Hammer at June 15, 2013 12:55 PM (aDwsi)

 

Having a girl baby is 100% avoidable as well.

Thus the end to teen pregnancy.

You have to get support for abortion before you statement makes any sense.  So it's far from even being reasonable given the current makeup of this country.

255 He just did.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at June 15, 2013 12:52 PM (WW8xK)

Persuasive son-of-a-gun; give him that.

256 We haven't beat this subject to death yet?
Posted by: Vic
--------------
He's dead, Jim! Grab his tricorder. I'll get his wallet!

257 O?T.  Drudge is reporting that Ahmadinnerjacket has lost the election in Iran.

258 The PC bullshit is over. Besides, what about blood banks?

Posted by: TexasJew at June 15, 2013 12:57 PM (1LOv

 

If memory serves the vast majority of blood banks that give blood to hospitals don't pay for it actually.

The places that pay for it use it for research purposes.

I don't really consider this "PC" it's a legitimate concern I have, and I'm the farthest thing there is from PC.

259 Let me put everyone some information about how the transplant process works.  That may help people understand things better.  Kidneys are slightly different because of dialysis, but the overall process is the same.


When you become ill enough to need a transplant, your doctor will make an initial determination on whether you would be a good candidate.  Age, general health, and lifestyle all come into play.  He then refers you to a transplant center.  You are contacted and an initial assessment is made.  During it, a number of tests are performed and you consult with a number of different doctors involved with the process.  In my case, I underwent a large number of blood tests to be used to enter me into the registry, a nuclear stress test, and echocardiogram, and a sonogram of my old kidneys (to determine if there was room for a new kidney.)  I consulted two different nephrologists, a surgeon, and a cardiologist.  My case was then referred to the transplant committee (a panel of doctors)  who determined if I was a good.


The committee reviewed my results and determined that they wanted me checked for brain aneurysms as the likelihood is increased due to my particular disease.  Since thee was no evidence of one, I was deemed an excellent candidate (because my disease is genetic and cannot affect the new organ) and added to the list.  Monthly after that, I underwent a Panel Reactive Antibody (PRA) test.  This gives a rough estimate of the odds that there could be an immediate rejection in a transplant.


When an organ comes available, the hospital that harvests the organ conducts blood test and examines the organ for possible problems.  In my case, they found a spot that concerned them, so they biopsied it.  It was negative.  (My hospital did the same thing to be sure.)  They then pass those results to the regional registry.  The registry generates a list of potential recipients.  If there is one, the recipient hospital is notified and they notify the patient and potential backups.  If there is not a close enough match, the organ is passed to the national registry if it can remain viable long enough.  With kidneys, viability has been inreased somewhat because they can put them on a pump that circulates blood through them while the process is ongoing.


Potential recipients are given a blood test to use for a cross match to determine how hard their bodies might fight the new organ.  The top person on this list gets first crack at the organ.  If they fail the cross match, it moves down the list.  In my case, I was #2 on the list.


As I said, kidneys are unique because of dialysis.  Basically, blood type, body size and length of time on the list determine your spot.  Other organs have criteria based on how sick the patient is.  They get a score and the highest score that matches gets the organ.  That's why this girl moved to the top.

260 I hate socialism. If my family can't profit from selling my organs, I'm taking them with me.

261 Posted by: tsrblke at June 15, 2013 12:53 PM (GaqMa)

Valid points, but a free market would operate side-by-side with an altruistic system. That has been demonstrated in this country with many things.

Yes, the poor would probably be disproportionately represented in the donor ranks, but would also be the recipients of a disproportionate number of charity organs, some of which would be purchased for them on the open market!

262 Having a girl baby is 100% avoidable as well.
Thus the end to teen pregnancy.
You have to get support for abortion before you statement makes any sense. So it's far from even being reasonable given the current makeup of this country. Posted by: tsrblke
-----------------

You do understand that *both* parents most carry the CF gene for their child to have CF, and that the gene can be detected by a blood test. How that conflates to abortion, I do not understand.

263 Posted by: Vic at June 15, 2013 12:55 PM (lZvxr)

Isn't there a rocking chair and a bottle of bourbon on the porch?

264 I hate socialism. If my family can't profit from selling my organs, I'm taking them with me. Posted by: Ook
----------------

Now you're just being petulant. Go with my plan..., i.e., compost the body and spread it on the tomato plants.

265 211 Personally, I will listen to free market arguments on organ allocation only from those people who are either on a transplant waiting list or have loved ones who are. Everyone else is just making noise about something they know absolutely nothing about. Posted by: Zombie John Gotti at June 15, 2013 12:36 PM (1hekh) I buy food in a supermarket, rather than waiting in line at a government office while some bureaucrat determines whether I "need" it or not. The free market works fine for food.

266

Posted by: Mike Hammer at June 15, 2013 01:00 PM (aDwsi)

 

Really?

OK I forsee 3 basic options.

either a) I can't marry a person with CF if I have CF, EVER.

or

b) we could never have kids of our own (keeping in mind it's a 1/4 chance, not a 4/4 chance, I could see people willing to roll the dice)

or

c) selective termination (abortion.)

Unless you're going to make the claim that invitro and PGD aren't actually abortion.  But you'd have to defend that claim, and frankly I think it rests on pretty shaky ground.

 

See how I got there or do I need to draw you a better chart.  There are effectively only 2 ways to control eugenics: On the front end (selective breeding) and on the back end (abortion.)

267 I buy food in a supermarket, rather than waiting in line at a government office while some bureaucrat determines whether I "need" it or not.

The free market works fine for food. Posted by: rickl
-------------------------

We're working on that.

268

We need OrganHarmony.com.

 

I have the lung you need, and you have the money I need. We agree on a price, you put the money in trust with OrganHarmony and we meet up in China or India where they will be happy to do this thing.

269

265 -

 

Oddly enough too, farmers are more likely to plant the plants that result in foods when you pay them to do it.  Which tends to mean, crazy as it sounds, more food for everybody!

270 Isn't there a rocking chair and a bottle of bourbon on the porch?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at June 15, 2013 01:01 PM (WW8xK)

Did that yesterday

271 At last, a new one

272

The market for those needing organ transplants is so tiny compared to what the potential donation population would be if you offered to either cover burial expenses or cut a $6000 check to the family and cremate, it would be hard to maintain that level of payment.

 

Organs are only valuable now because of a misplaced moral code.

273 Posted by: tsrblke at June 15, 2013 01:04 PM (GaqMa)

Pick me! Pick me!

I know the answer!

274 There are effectively only 2 ways to control eugenics: On the front end (selective breeding) and on the back end (abortion.)

Posted by: tsrblke at June 15, 2013 01:04 PM (GaqMa)

Isn't that the essence of eugenics, except that if you get really progressive, you extend the "abortion option" to very late post-delivery abortion (aka selective euthanasia)?

275 Now you're just being petulant. Go with my plan..., i.e., compost the body and spread it on the tomato plants.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at June 15, 2013 01:02 PM (aDwsi)

 

If elected in 2016, that is my plan for liberals.

 

276 Organs are only valuable now because of a misplaced moral code.

Posted by: jwest at June 15, 2013 01:06 PM (u2a4R)

Wow. You really are as stupid as you seem.

Amazing.

277 >> If so, someone else is going to die because they or their family didn't "go the extra mile" and turn what has been a somber and serious process into a popularity contest vying for the affections of the next judge and donor.

>> I wonder if the Murnaghans will have anything to say to the family of the next wait-list fatality.

This contradicts mightily with your earlier statements: "I completely understand Janet and Francis Murnaghan's campaign to get their daughter, Sarah, a lung transplant at any cost. They are parents. Their primary function is the continued existence of their daughter, and I doubt many parents in their situation and with their means would do less."

Without weighing in on the fairness of a *system* that adjusted to accommodate these circumstances, I observe only that you are not thinking your argument through for internal consistency. Why should the parents second-guess what they did, if any parent would do the same, and this is the "primary function" of the parent? And if other parents don't similarly scrap, then why should the Murnaghans feel bad that they did?

The premise of your argument is one must die for one to live. Assuming that is true--the girl literally took the lungs out of another eligible person's chest--there is no way of avoiding that. (If the girl had lost, should the person who received the lungs feel guilty then?) You can argue this was not the most fair or the most efficient allocation of organ resources, but you cannot fault the Murnaghans for working the refs (at least not when you say it's the obligation of parents to do so).

This is akin to saying an attorney is both responsible to represent his client the best he can but should also then not be able to sleep at night for winning the lawsuit. (And in this case his client is a dying little girl.)

278 We'd not even come close to "solving" a problem while creating several more.
Better to probably find ways to increase general donorship. (Also, I don't think we're too long from growing kidneys. Those will be the first organ rendered moot I think.)

Posted by: tsrblke at June 15, 2013 12:53 PM (GaqMa)

There are already artificial kidneys that are intended to be implanted that show a lot of promise for the future.  There has also been some initial success in growing kidneys for rats from stem cells.

Speaking of stem cells, there is a promising  research project that could lead to transplants no longer requiring anti-rejection drugs.  In it, they give the recipient what amounts to a massive dose of chemotherapy.  It effectively destroys the immune system  They then transplant the donor organ along with stem cells from the donor and start the patient on the normal meds.  As the immune system reconstitutes itself, it become a dual system.  It can recognize both types of tissue as being perfectly OK to be in the body.  Of the 8 initial patients, 5 had their organs after a year (1 other had died of causes that had nothing to do with the test.)  They are currently expanding the test to a larger pool.

279 tsr---
a) Marry whom you please
b) If you decide to have kids (the 25% option, if CF carriers), that is your choice, but you should not expect the rest of us to roll the dice with you, i.e., pay medical costs.
c) Abortion must be left to you..., it is not a decision for anyone else to make.

280 Wow. You really are as stupid as you seem.

Amazing.

Posted by: Margaret Sanger at June 15, 2013 01:07 PM (WW8xK)

 

If you can't understand it, sport, just ask questions.  No reason to embarass yourself.

281 If elected in 2016, that is my plan for liberals.
Posted by: Ook
--------------------

My tiller stands ready for marching orders.

282 247 We haven't beat this subject to death yet? Posted by: Vic at June 15, 2013 12:55 PM (lZvxr) You were a hall monitor in grade school, weren't you?

283 ....and we're suddenly in Gattica.

284

My problem with this situation is that it seems not that someone was jumped ahead in line, but rather was denied a place in line because the bureaucracy failed to keep up with the medical state of the art.  We have a child who's doctor said that the the transplant would work based on medical science and a bureaucrat who said it wouldn't based on a 2005 policy.  In short, a bureaucrat is telling a doctor how to practice medicene.

When I heard about this, the last thing I thought of was line jumpiing and instead saw it as a preview into the future of Obamacare.  You want an example of a "death panel"?  Well here it is and if you think that this will not explode under Obamacare, I have oceanfront property in Fargo ND to sell you.

285 The free market works fine for food.

Posted by: rickl at June 15, 2013 01:02 PM (sdi6R)

Again, get back to me with this plan when you need an organ.

286 What did we do before organ transplants?

287 THIS IS NOT BUREAUCRATS MAKING AN ARBITRARY DECISION!  HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU NEED TO BE TOLD THAT THESE RULES ARE DETERMINED BY DOCTORS WHO ARE EXPERTS IN THESE FIELDS!  THIS IS NOT OBAMACARE!

288 Wait... I'm not in Maui!!!

289 :-)

290

Posted by: Zombie John Gotti at June 15, 2013 01:09 PM (1hekh)

 

They've been doing variants on these tests for years.  It'd be great if they worked, but I don't hold out much hope for them.

Total bone marrow irradiation is not a pleasant procedure, and stacking it with another high risk procedure (organ transplantation) on top of the disease the person already has, and you get a mess.

Larger scale trials usually end up being a wash.

Even in non-organ transplant cases where complete bone marrow irradiation is likely helpful (i.e. leukemia) they usually hold off on that until the other options have been exhausted.

291

@ZJG,

 

Yeah, while the HHS control of UNOS needs to be severed for a variety of reasons, it's never been an issue before now.  I think making this the "Obama care hill to die on" is a bad move.

However, on the flip side I don't want judges overruling doctors either.

292 OT/ This is going to sound SUPER-RETARDED, but here goes... I'm over 40 yrs old and I apparently don't know how to inflate my tires and/or use the thingamabob (gauge, for you sciency-types) my Da gifted me with, at the age of 17, AT ALL! I don't think I EVER have! I usually, once one of my tires looks more squarish than roundish, unscrew the cap on the tire, poke at it with the thingamabob, get a reading of 25 (it's ALWAYS 25!), nod my head wisely and commence to wrestling some sort of evil yo-yo with a 75lb. dwarf tug -o-war champ (with things to prove) in the compressor box, whilst it hisses like a mad snake until it suckles at the warm teat of my Dunlop until... A.) I'm exhausted and sweaty and things look more roundish than squarish than they were and I worry about exploding one corner of my car. B.) I'm exhausted and sweaty and things look more roundish than squarish than they were and there is some guy in a commercial vehicle impatiently honking his horn at me and NOW, PUBLICLY embarrassed. C.) I, with quiet dignity, apply the tire gauge to the afflicted tire and get a reading of...wait for it...25! (it's ALWAYS 25!, even on the round ones!)nod my head wisely and slink off in utter shame. This might be a topic for Purp to address or maybe not. He seems handy! I can't be the ONLY one to be a bit put off by this process. I could do my own oil change and filter replacement on my Toyota ('cause I got snakey-hands!) in my driveway, if I wanted to fuck around with trying to properly dispose of that toxic sludge. *Pro-tip. Any Jiffy-lube will take your toxic sludge, & charge you about $2 less than it would have cost to just fucking go in there and have this shit taken CARE of, without referencing Chilton's, without trips to PEP Boys or K-Mart for the oil and the filters AND they will VACUUM your car too! ** I don't care if your oil comes out all honey-wheat golden as the day you put it into your Unicorn Fart Fueled Dodge Charger . You don't just put that shit down a fucking storm drain!

293 My point, Nicholas, is that one can empathize with the family but still accept that responsibility that as a society, we should have and enforce and objective set of rules. You misquote me a bit. I didn't say every parent should or would do what they did. Just because they did everything the could do as parents, and they won, and we can empathize with them, does not make the situation right, and is not a good argument (IMO, anyway) for making what they did the standard process going forward. Their daughter's transplant took a good set of lungs from the person on the list she bumped. Eventually, someone on that list dies for lack of an available transplant. I would hope they have the available conscience to consider that at some point, and to consider the media circuses that are to follow. There is no doubt that their process will be copied. Success has that effect.

294

Posted by: krakatoa at June 15, 2013 01:23 PM (eCtnP)

 

Krakatoa,

two things.

1) It's highly unlikely this is directed donation, so I'd cut that out of the post.

2) I do think (and perhaps hope) that if this becomes the new way tweak the system that the system will adjust to ensure the organs go where they have the greatest chance of long term success.

To that end, as I said, I expect we'll start seeing sizing become a criteria for recipients.  As I understand it this was previously handled via the age restriction, which while kludge-like, served it's purpose.  Hopefully something new will emerge.

I'm not saying I didn't want the girl to get an organ, I'm saying I wanted the organ to go the place where it has the least likely chance of failing.

295 285 The free market works fine for food. Posted by: rickl at June 15, 2013 01:02 PM (sdi6R) Again, get back to me with this plan when you need an organ. Posted by: Zombie John Gotti at June 15, 2013 01:13 PM (1hekh) My point was that without a free market in food, food would be scarcer, and more people would go hungry. A free market in organs would increase the supply of donor organs.

296 I have really mixed feelings about this situation. As a parent of 3 I get what Sarah's family did. I'd have done the same to whatever extent I could. As someone with a failing heart, if I were eligible to be put on the list which I'm not, I'd be beyond pissed. Organ transplants as it currently exists must not devolve into a contest of who looks the cutest or who has the most heart-rending tale of woe. Someday I believe medical science will find ways to grow, clone or otherwise devise ways to eliminate what for now are scarce resources. Until that day comes the decisions should be based only on likelihood of success. My .02

297 However, on the flip side I don't want judges overruling doctors either.

Posted by: tsrblke at June 15, 2013 01:21 PM (GaqMa)

I agree about the judges.  This had everything to do it being a kid.  I loved to point out that the disease I have is Polycystic Kidney Disease (PKD).  PKD is the #1 life-threatening genetic disease.  There are over 600,000 people with it.  Most people have never heard of it.  They have heard of CF, muscular dystrophy, Huntington's disease, sickle-cell anemia, Hemophilia, and Down Syndrome.  There are more people with PKD than those diseases combined.  People know about them because they all affect kids.  You can trot a sick kid out and get sympathy.  PKD cysts aren't normally large enough to be detected until the person is his 20s.  There is a recessive form that affects kids, but it is not common.  Every once is a while, there will be a piece about a kid that has PKD, but they rarely mention the disease, just referring to it as a kidney disease.

298 tsrblke We don't really cut posts here... we stand on our mistakes with pride and Val-U-Rite, but mostly Val-U-Rite. It's in there because either the article I linked, or another that I read, indicated that it may have been a directed donation. So it is an open question in my mind at least. I agree I could have written it more artfully, but hey, you get what you pay for on AoSHQ. Regardless of whether this donation was or wasn't directed, I think the point stands in that the door has been opened for more popularity contests to try to influence all participants, including donor families.

299 If you allowed deceased persons to sell organs (via their estate), this problem would be solved overnight.

But liberals are more concerned about fairness than they are saving lives.

300 295 A free market in organs would increase the supply of donor organs. I forgot to mention that with an increased supply, the price would come down, so more people could afford them.

301 It's in there because either the article I linked, or another that I read, indicated that it may have been a directed donation. So it is an open question in my mind at least. I agree I could have written it more artfully, but hey, you get what you pay for on AoSHQ.

Regardless of whether this donation was or wasn't directed, I think the point stands in that the door has been opened for more popularity contests to try to influence all participants, including donor families. Posted by: krakatoa at June 15, 2013 01:33 PM (eCtnP


Some of the confusion stems from the statement the parents made.  It came across like it was a directed donation, but as tsr said, I think it was more a generic "Thank you for donating" statement.

302 298 tsrblke

We don't really cut posts here... we stand on our mistakes with pride and Val-U-Rite, but mostly Val-U-Rite.

It's in there because either the article I linked, or another that I read, indicated that it may have been a directed donation. So it is an open question in my mind at least. I agree I could have written it more artfully, but hey, you get what you pay for on AoSHQ.

Regardless of whether this donation was or wasn't directed, I think the point stands in that the door has been opened for more popularity contests to try to influence all participants, including donor families.

Posted by: krakatoa at June 15, 2013 01:33 PM (eCtnP)

 

You can put a correction in about that it probably wasn't a directed donation.  And the statement about popularity contests would still stand

303 Yeah. I think I read a different quote in a different article that made it sound more directed. My bad for not linking the other article as well.

304

Posted by: krakatoa at June 15, 2013 01:33 PM (eCtnP)

 

Your call not mine.

Fact is dead donors are very rarely directed donations (outside of the giant domino transplant types). It's just impossible to plan, you don't expect it, so you don't know who mataches.

And yes, the point remains, the popularity contest thing is not good.

305 And yes, the point remains, the popularity contest thing is not good.

Posted by: tsrblke at June 15, 2013 01:46 PM (GaqMa)

And that adds to the argument against a free market system.  There would be even more incentive to trot a sick child out and beg for donations.  An adult might be able to raise $20,000 for an organ, but a kid could easily raise a cool mil.

306 292     If your gauge always says 25, I'd get a different one.  The amount of pressure your tires require should be on the tire (upside down) of on a label inside the door frame of your car.  Unless it is a teeny tiny tire, it will probably be 35 or 37, so  go to a gas station with AIR quick like a bunny.  The air thingy usually has a gauge on it.  And yes, you should not put oil or grass clippings down the storm drain.

307 I really doubt the PR efforts made much different in deciding whether Sarah received a transplant, other than in making sure she was at the appropriate place on the list based on her medical condition.

First, the transplant rules never disqualified Sarah.  Instead, the Under 12 rule pushed her to the bottom of the list because she was under 12. Maybe the transplant rules made the Under 12 distinction for a good reason when the rule were made, but the court found the reasons were not justified now and, in fact, are discriminatory.  By finding the Under 12 rule discriminatory, the Judge held there was no rational reason for the rule -- so apparently there was no convincing testimony from the medical community in support of the Under 12 rule.

Second, once the Under 12 rule was no longer in the picture, Sarah was relocated on the transplant list to the place where she would have been absent the rule.  Since she was on a ventilator, her need was great and she probably was at the top of the list or very near it.  Other factors, such as whether the donor's and Sarah's blood types matched, go into the final decision regarding whether Sarah got the lungs.

308 Link for my statements:
http://tinyurl.com/l2kgz6d

309 Bottom line:  there aren't enough organs to go around, and people die every day because of it.  It is necessary to have objectively crafted rules and priorities, but there will always be individual cases which appear unjust and are certainly sympathetic.

Someone else on the waiting list died to give this little girl a few more years (God willing).  We cannot forget that fact.

310 As far back as 1994, Childrens' Hospital in Boston recognized that while size disparity matters in pediatric lung transplants,  there are tools that enable a broad range of sizes to be used.

311 Posted by: Zombie John Gotti at June 15, 2013 01:50 PM (1hekh)


So?

312 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7965525

313 First, the transplant rules never disqualified Sarah. Instead, the Under 12 rule pushed her to the bottom of the list because she was under 12. Maybe the transplant rules made the Under 12 distinction for a good reason when the rule were made, but the court found the reasons were not justified now and, in fact, are discriminatory. By finding the Under 12 rule discriminatory, the Judge held there was no rational reason for the rule -- so apparently there was no convincing testimony from the medical community in support of the Under 12 rule.

Posted by: DRJ at June 15, 2013 02:07 PM (iqHi+)

Partially true.  He still hasn't held a full hearing and issued a ruling.  He merely issued and 10-day TRO because he felt the evidence would show that the plaintiff would prevail.  Now that OPTN has suspended the rule for a year, the case is somewhat mooted.  It could still be argued and a ruling made in the event that OPTN lifts the suspension.

314 See how I got there or do I need to draw you a better chart. There are effectively only 2 ways to control eugenics: On the front end (selective breeding) and on the back end (abortion.)

Posted by: tsrblke at June 15, 2013 01:04 PM (GaqMa)

In the case of a fetus determined to have two copies of the CF gene, and therefore doomed to live a short and miserable life, I can see early abortion as being the least-worst option.

315 We are getting pretty close to making new organs using stem cells. Figuring out how to do that on scale will erase 99% of these heart-breaking scenarios.

316 Organ transplants as it currently exists must not devolve into a contest of who looks the cutest or who has the most heart-rending tale of woe. I think that you are right. OTOH: Some organs you really can't "donate" until you are done with the whole system. But what if I have a say... spare kidney? I could offer it up right now, to an anonymous stranger, if I wanted to but I won't. If the kid were cute enough or the cash payment big enough, I might reconsider. Okay, no. No child I am not related to is "cute enough" and no cash settlement is "big enough" for me to volunteer for surgery. It's not even that I'm afraid of dying. I just can't take the chance of impairing my ability as a provider for members of my family in an act of "altruism". Also, Surgery? Yeearch!!!

317 And in the case of CF specifically,  early diagnosis and  a new drug (avail since Jan) that targets the specific genetic defect ( the first drug that operated on the the underlying cause of cystic fibrosis instead of just the symptoms),  working in combo with another drug already approved and in widespread use,   means much longer and healthier lives for CF patients.

Continued improvements in therapies in this range could mean if not a cure,  a  maneagable condition with vastly healthier patients.

318 Do people really believe that making organs sellable will lead to organ theivery? I hear comparisons to free market tvs and jewelry still being stolen but organs obviously aren't like that. You cant just pick a random victim steal an organ and fence it later to a shady anonymous person and get a ton of many for it. How do you do the blood tests the matching the disease screening. How do you get a skilled surgeon to abandon a well paying legal job to work in your underground organ ring? How do you keep tbe organ from going bad before you put it in your illegal customer? The idea that wa legalized free organ market leads to wide spread organ thefts is absurd.

319

Require DNA fingerprinting for donated organs and all organs need to be matched to an authorization paper with DNA sampling attached.

Any mismatched one and the seller of the organ gets life in prison, the buyer the same.

320

Walter Williams has an interesting take on this, he thinks we should pay for organs and makes his case here:

 

 

http://tinyurl.com/kpgab95

321 I have been on the kidney transplant list for 4 1/2 years. Had several donors but all failed to qualify. Problem is I am a B positive blood type and there are not many of them out there. Am now at the point where getting a kidney would be a life saver. Need type B or O donor pretty urgently. But, the point I want to make is that if political pressure could make a difference I would have a kidney today.

322 Do people really believe that making organs sellable will lead to organ theivery? I hear comparisons to free market tvs and jewelry still being stolen but organs obviously aren't like that. Well, apparently organ rental is the Next Big Thing! Namely, the uterus. "Well, 3 decades after my graduation from Bennington, I have decided that me and my life partner wife (thank you MA!)Sylvia should have a child. I have a cousin somewhere in Ohio who is a breeder. If she's popped out 3 she can bake another cake for me! "No." "What if I offered you, like, $20,000? You guys could surely use the cash, ami rite!?" "Even MORE no." "It's not like it's a big deal, you've done it like, 3 times already! And if you DON"T agree I'll tell all of the family what a selfish, baby-hating, anti-gay bigot you are!" "Huh. And I thought your CARROT was lame and in-artfully presented... Just so's you know, I'm the cousin "Deety" that is a spinster that family "speculates" about, NOT the "fecund one" in Indiana. Dumb-ass!" You are a HORRIBLE PERSON! and you should never raise a child, you sick fuck! Good news is, you can't buy a womb for love or money, now!

323 I have been on the kidney transplant list for 4 1/2 years. Had several donors but all failed to qualify. Problem is I am a B positive blood type and there are not many of them out there. Am now at the point where getting a kidney would be a life saver. Need type B or O donor pretty urgently. But, the point I want to make is that if political pressure could make a difference I would have a kidney today.

Posted by: pete pylant at June 15, 2013 04:20 PM (Hsm1n)

I am B+ also.  The average wait time at my transplant center for B+ is 5-6 years.  I got lucky and got mine in just over 3.  Political pressure won't work for you; you aren't a cute kid.

324 You know, I wanted to discuss this, but frankly almost the entire discussion is so insanely stupid and tendentious that I think it's *literally* impossible to do so. There was a period when, on discussion boards, abortion was like that (and I think when you have "both sides" present it kind of still is). Let's just hope we continue to get better at growing / manufacturing organs, though I imagine lungs won't be coming soon.

325 I haven't read the comments so I might be repeating something someone else has said - if so, it needs to be repeated:

There is no way that person to person transplants is going to solve this problem.  We have  over the years wasted billions on embronic stem cell research and the global warming hoax for political reasons.  Had we been directing that money into autostem cell development of organs we'd be a lot further along and could have possibly solved this problem years ago.

326

Too far down the list to matter. Too many comments to see if anyone made this point. the best of both worlds. Heh

The race to the bottom has begun. This case sets a most dangerous precedent (mind you, I am of the mind that people should be allowed to sell their organs to whomever they choose).

For a terrific example of the lowest common denominator system of spoils, you should read the story of the demise of The Twentieth Century Motor Ompany in Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged.

When the most pathetic are the winners, you have successfully stood lawful society on it's head. Thanks a lot, Progs.