TimmySmith Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 "The nation's organ-transplant network is considering giving younger, healthier people preference over older, sicker patients for the best kidneys. Interesting. I have a feeling that this will not happen as AARP and other groups will gear up to quash it. However, I do see merit in giving younger patients, younger organs. Giving a 70 year old a 20 year old organ, and vice verse, certainly seems inefficient and costly. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/23/AR2011022306875.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 "The nation's organ-transplant network is considering giving younger, healthier people preference over older, sicker patients for the best kidneys.Interesting. I have a feeling that this will not happen as AARP and other groups will gear up to quash it. However, I do see merit in giving younger patients, younger organs. Giving a 70 year old a 20 year old organ, and vice verse, certainly seems inefficient and costly. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/23/AR2011022306875.html Without thinking too much about it...I tend to agree. It sounds horrible, but why would you "waste" 40 or 50 years of an organ on someone who won't live that long? It could make the list a bit complicated as you'd have to categorize both the organs and the people receiving them as well as gauge who needs a kidney ASAP to survive based on the availability. But overall, it's tough to argue with the logic if it can work out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Yeah, on the surface with all things being equal this makes sense. I thought even today that hospitals have a priority list for transplants based on factors that include need, age, overall health, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Of course, like everything else, common sense will be ignored because there is a very large, very vocal, very politically active demographic of aging boomers that will want to keep sucking up the bulk of top tier medical attention for themselves. Yeah I know, sounds cynical or worse, but the realities are just that, realities. We could enhance the lives of dozens of children with the resources spent on keeping one aging hipster going, but we don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Since the transplant is not a cure why not base it on the worth of the individual? Or of course best long term viability Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Since the transplant is not a cure why not base it on the worth of the individual?Or of course best long term viability How do you factor that worth? In dollars? Bank account size? Contribution to society? There's quite a few people with money that i wouldn't give a fingernail to save. Can't really say that about a single kid. Likewise an older person is going to have a longer resumé of accomplishment, where a kid can only show his latest report card. But he may be the person to cure cancer one day. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 I'm not sure I agree with this. Young people may not have as many people relying on them as an older person. I'm not sure I'd be prepared to put a single 20-something ahead of a 40-something single parent for instance. The number of people that rely on an individual would certainly factor in for me. The other thing I'd do is make "organ donor" an opt-out as opposed to an opt-in program. The living need organs more than the dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter44 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 This is the way it should've been done all along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 How do you factor that worth?In dollars? Bank account size? Contribution to society? ~Bang Good question,perhaps weighing their negatives ?....it's fun to play God We aren't really talking kids are we? Should a young person with complications get a better one than a otherwise healthy 35 yr old? Do we count prior poor health choices such as drug or alcohol abuse or smoking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted February 24, 2011 Author Share Posted February 24, 2011 Is it really playing God? We are simply trying do the best we can with an already bad situation. It can work both ways as a younger person could get bumped by an older one when an older kidney is available. A younger person might not go through 2-3-4 older kidneys in a lifetime, thus helping the supply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter44 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Maybe God should play God, then we wouldn't have these problems... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Does the age of the kidney matter or the health? From my understanding it is the health of the tissue itself.....why not give the best to the otherwise healthiest candidate? Yes it is playing God when we seek to change the natural course....which we do daily,perhaps because we are made in God's image;)...but I'd rather not get into a religious sidetrack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Good question,perhaps weighing their negatives ?....it's fun to play God We aren't really talking kids are we? Should a young person with complications get a better one than a otherwise healthy 35 yr old? Do we count prior poor health choices such as drug or alcohol abuse or smoking? I'm not sure. I am glad it's not my decision to make, I must say. I would probably opt for the old fashioned "first come - first served" method. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Everyone is bringing up great points which is why I thought it was a good concept, but would be tough to actually execute. There are just too many variables. Destino, I think you'd need to come up with categories. To me, a 20-year old and a 40-year old should be considered in the same category...but I'm sure people have a different opinion about it. I don't think you can all the way down to the level where you're distinguishing between a 33-year old father of two and a 28-year old father of one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 I'm not sure. I am glad it's not my decision to make, I must say.I would probably opt for the old fashioned "first come - first served" method. ~Bang Me too. I believe now it is graded on need and viability(other health factors) which is probably best. Not too sure of the value of using simply age(and no my age is not a factor since I would be unlikely to accept a transplant) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Since the transplant is not a cure why not base it on the worth of the individual? That sounds like something straight from Nazi eugenicists. I can't remember the eugenicist's name off the top of my head, but one of his quotes is pretty much that people need to prove their worth to a panel, and the panel grants them life or death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shk75 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 This is how other nations do it as well. They do cost effectiveness analysis using something called QALYs or DALYs (quality or disability adjusted life years). This is a formula that favors younger populations over older ones and also weights the economically productive ages of 25-35 higher than other age spans. This is fairly well accepted by older citizens of other nations and they have concluded that saving a young life in their economic prime is "worth" more than saving an older retired person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter44 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 That sounds like something straight from Nazi eugenicists. I can't remember the eugenicist's name off the top of my head, but one of his quotes is pretty much that people need to prove their worth to a panel, and the panel grants them life or death. You do know where the Nazis got the idea from right?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 That sounds like something straight from Nazi eugenicists. I can't remember the eugenicist's name off the top of my head, but one of his quotes is pretty much that people need to prove their worth to a panel, and the panel grants them life or death. Isn't that what they do now to a large degree?(though it is a panel largely weighing facts rather than a patient lobbying his case) QALY is a fact of life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.