Is this not a "Death Panel" by the govt?

[Skip8282]

Nonsense. Rules were put in place based on rational standards to address the issue of a limited supply of organs that vastly outpaces the demand for them, and to help ensure that the patient receiving those organs has the best chance at surviving what is a very difficult procedure.

Big fucking deal.  It's a Death Panel with rules. 

We agree there. That's a start.

Don't ever let that happen again.

I don't think this will work - especially if the organs come in one state and the recipient is in another. This is, legitimately, a case where state-by-state solutions won't necessarily work. A good, solid set of first steps to make towards addressing this issue eventually would be:

(1) promote organ donation; there is little reason for anyone to not sign up to become an organ donor.

(2) change the existing rules, making more organs available. As it stands now only the healthiest of organs can be transplanted into the "healthiest" of patients. Why not consider more organs - organs who would now not make the cut as eligible for transplantation into patients who may not, today, qualify? Sure, in doing so, the patient will be taking a risk and life expectancy will be reduced, but it will almost certainly be better than if the patient didn't receive a transplant at all.

(3) promote research into tissue bio-engineering and advanced bio-medical research more generally.

I haven't dealt with this since I was in school and you're making me think - I don't appreciate.

I need to understand what you exactly mean.

So, let me get the structure down again.  Federal law sets the framework, OTPN sets the policy, and UNOS is the database and algorithm (I think)?

Now, I thought that once a medical match is found, it looks at location of the recipient, and then goes to some type of combined score of who has waited the longest and survival after transplantation...maybe.

So, you're saying the healthiest people tend to have the highest scores, and they get the healthiest organs, then the next healthiest gets the next organs etc.  But, if something less healthy comes along, say within the geographic area, they take that rather than waiting for something better?

Do I understand you correctly?

[avxo]

Big fucking deal.  It's a Death Panel with rules. 

Hardly a death panel. It's a death panel in the same sense that a hamburger is a steak between slices of bread...  

I haven't dealt with this since I was in school and you're making me think - I don't appreciate.

Oops. I'll endeavor to not do so in the future.

I need to understand what you exactly mean.

So, let me get the structure down again.  Federal law sets the framework, OTPN sets the policy, and UNOS is the database and algorithm (I think)?

More or less. At least, that's my understanding of things.

Now, I thought that once a medical match is found, it looks at location of the recipient, and then goes to some type of combined score of who has waited the longest and survival after transplantation...maybe.

That's my understanding as well.

So, you're saying the healthiest people tend to have the highest scores, and they get the healthiest organs, then the next healthiest gets the next organs etc.  But, if something less healthy comes along, say within the geographic area, they take that rather than waiting for something better?

No, I'm saying that under the current rules, anything less than a near-perfect organ is automatically ineligible for transplant. For example, supposed there's a heart that's a perfect match for someone who, without it, has less than a month to live. The heart matches nobody else and will go to waste. Now, let's also assume that this heart had suffered a myocardial infarction in the past; that automatically disqualifies the heart. Or let's assume the patient is over a certain age; that automatically disqualifies the patient.

Doesn't this seem silly?


Another example: under current law, no more than 5% of available organs can go to non-citizens. So, if that limit is reached, a perfectly viable organ might end up being thrown away and a life will, likely, be lost.

Doesn't this seem silly?


Of course, these are difficult issues, and there are no easy or perfect answers. Hopefully soon we'll be able to bio-engineer some organs as needed.

[Skip8282]

Hardly a death panel. It's a death panel in the same sense that a hamburger is a steak between slices of bread... 



Oops. I'll endeavor to not do so in the future.


More or less. At least, that's my understanding of things.


That's my understanding as well.


No, I'm saying that under the current rules, anything less than a near-perfect organ is automatically ineligible for transplant. For example, supposed there's a heart that's a perfect match for someone who, without it, has less than a month to live. The heart matches nobody else and will go to waste. Now, let's also assume that this heart had suffered a myocardial infarction in the past; that automatically disqualifies the heart. Or let's assume the patient is over a certain age; that automatically disqualifies the patient.

Doesn't this seem silly?


Another example: under current law, no more than 5% of available organs can go to non-citizens. So, if that limit is reached, a perfectly viable organ might end up being thrown away and a life will, likely, be lost.

Doesn't this seem silly?


Of course, these are difficult issues, and there are no easy or perfect answers. Hopefully soon we'll be able to bio-engineer some organs as needed.

Yes, I would agree with you 100%.  Let me preface that with a note that I'm not a doctor, so there may be issues about such organs that I don't understand, but what you're pointing out does seem to be silly policy.