I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Dialysis Discussion => Dialysis: Transplant Discussion => Topic started by: mitchorganbroker on September 10, 2006, 08:44:27 PM
-
We see articles and posts describing the the negative from all those other countries, with hardly
any distinction between the individual countries. That's like calling all Transplant Surgery in Cal.
sub standard because of a few mess ups and the Kaiser nonsense.
Except for Pakistan I have been to the countries mentioned below.
China (mainland) They harvest all the organs while alive on the O R table. They say they get
consent before and compensate the family. The guy dies when they remove the heart.
China (Taiwan ) Good Surgeons but you bring your own related donor. Must be proved as close relative
at their Embassy in the US, with real documents.
Cambodia- Not done, they refer to Thailand.
Thailand- Not doing foreigners nor living brain dead donor, since 2001 when police arrested 5 of the best Transplant Surgeons saying that by taking the kidney from a brain dead donor with a beating heart, donor was still alive according to the Thai police.
India- passed laws against selling a kidney and they do enforce the law. Their Transplant Surgeons are top notch but only doing related live donor Transplant. New Dehli has some good Transplant hospitals and the sightseeing is good. The Taj Mahal is about 2-3 hours away. The streets are safe and the people are friendly.
Singapore - One good transplant Surgeon. No cadaver list and only does related donors . Expensive too.
Hong Kong- Only with Related donors but quality Surgeons. Expensive by Asian standards.
Philippines- They were under US control and have medical schools modeled after those in the US. Their
Transplant Surgeon train in the US or with American Transplant Surgeons. They have a National Cadaver
waiting list set up in 1988 by the George Town Medical school. However now cadaver transplants are less
than 5 % of the total transplants in the Philippines. The donors are young men in their twenty's for the most
part. The hospital does not find the donors, since it would be a conflict since the have an Ethics committee to
interview the donor. The Transplant Surgeons are NOT hospital employees as they are in the US . Since the Transplant team needs to approve the donor medically , it is someone with the team who knows of the donor
and not myself. The logic is that I can not buy anything in this country at a lower price than the Filipinos can.
So, what I do is to find the ESRD patients who prefer a transplant. I also keeps the Surgeons from changing prices by playing off one from the next Surgeon. I throw around the names of their competitors to let them know i can do this. They are very experienced Surgeons as well as experienced at prying extra money from the foreigner.
Since I give people a fixed price, I can't allow the Surgeon to demand what ever he likes, so I switch when
needed. The donor gets free followup forever ,whenever.
-
Dear Members,
After several attempts by this member creating new accounts even after I banned several of his accounts and because of him I had no choice but to disable automatic registration, which means I must approve all new members prior to them posting for the first time, which is something I do not like but he left me no choice. We after several bans he sent me emails asking me to give him a chance. I made a deal with him that if I allow him one thread to state his case and have his say, he promised not to spam the site anymore. I set the ground rules to him, that he is ONLY allowed to post in this thread ONLY and he must not engage in a "Flame" war with another member. He must remain calm and act professionally. One of the rules was that he must create a new account with the member "mitchorganbroker" so the members would now that this is indeed the same person who was previously spamming the site.
He was given this chance on D&T (Dialysis & Transplant City) now he will have his chance here. If the members want me to just delete this thread and ban him yet again just let me know, the majority rules.
So please lets all remain calm and tell him why you are against his practices, or maybe you believe in what he does which in my opinion is a "Kidney Broker". So let your voice be heard. What is your opinion?
- Epoman
Owner/Admin
-
Organbroker,
I think it is disgusting how you and your associates take advantage of people in poor situations, manipulating them into selling their organs, and try to convince chronically ill patients that they will receive a high standard of care from ethically questionable providers. I am particularly incensed as my husband has family in the Philippines, and they could possibly be some of the poor people you exploit. You need to go away, and go knowing that you will get your comeuppance sooner or later. Karma's a bitch.
-
Now if you would please check your use of the grammar in the English language in your post, you might be taken more seriously. I for one do not care for your posts and feel that they lead to a lot of heartache for people who choose to go that route and end up with subservice medical care in a foreign country. In spite of the long wait list I will choose to stay on the U.S. transplant list and choose to have the transplant and care here with people who know what they are doing.
-
Organ Broker. I will stay in the United States to wait for my transplant. I would buy a kidney HERE if that was legal and if I could afford it. Since it is not, I will wait.
What do you do if the person cannot pay?
Just how much business do you do in a year?
-
Hmmm.. seems to bring more insight as to why those countries want live donors over cadaver. With seeing their laws it makes more sense why. For me I am poor and am only covered in my own country as it is (Canada) even though I would love to be on the American transplant list (their list is shorter than in Canada. .. Well except Alberta .. which is the best place in Canada to get a transplant) but I would have to pay out of pocket for that :(.
The hospital does not find the donors, since it would be a conflict since the have an Ethics committee to
interview the donor. The Transplant Surgeons are NOT hospital employees as they are in the US . Since the Transplant team needs to approve the donor medically , it is someone with the team who knows of the donor
and not myself. The logic is that I can not buy anything in this country at a lower price than the Filipinos can.
So, what I do is to find the ESRD patients who prefer a transplant. I also keeps the Surgeons from changing prices by playing off one from the next Surgeon. I throw around the names of their competitors to let them know i can do this. They are very experienced Surgeons as well as experienced at prying extra money from the foreigner.
Since I give people a fixed price, I can't allow the Surgeon to demand what ever he likes, so I switch when
needed. The donor gets free followup forever ,whenever.
Ah I was wondering what you do.
He was given this chance on D&T (Dialysis & Transplant City) now he will have his chance here.
If anyone is interested, that link is here (http://groups.msn.com/DialysisTransplantCity/cautiondonors.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=6125&LastModified=4675588967434970761).
I do have some concern about the young men who you say:
The donors are young men in their twenty's for the most
part. The hospital does not find the donors, since it would be a conflict since the have an Ethics committee to
interview the donor.
I would like to know more about that since I can't help but be concerned for their welbeing.
-
IF anyone is interested here's an article that was in the New York Times a few years back about organ brokes and how the organ selling system truly takes advantage of the poor in other countries.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C0CE0DD163EF930A15756C0A9629C8B63
Copy and paste it into your browser.
Donna
-
That's weird, I didn't realize China was a democracy!
They get consent eh?
I would really encourage anyone even considering such a thing to think long and hard about it.
It's not even a matter of just making the "right decision" and doing due diligence. It's much more than that. It's the possibility of supporting a very questionable practice taking place in countries that we already know rank pretty low in terms of human rights.
It's not even really a matter of "quality". Many of these doctors are trained in the U.K. - and I'm sure that in many cases, they're successful in their practices. The issue though, is one of consistency. I'd personally not want to be transplanted in one country, and followed up with, in another. Perhaps I see this having had a transplant, and knowing what comes afterward in terms of followup care.
I'd like to be able to have the person doing the work be the one looking me in the face in the future. I think that personal connection on the physician's part says a lot about their personal passions and motivations, and I think that comes through in their delicate work.
Still though - people will get suckered into this. People don't like to wait, and having a way to get the transplant NOW is attractive to many. I'd wager they're people who haven't done it yet.
I personally am thankful for the last 4 years on dialysis, and wish I'd have been forced to have a year or two of dialysis prior to transplant. I think it's important for people to see the transplantation process as another treatment, and another set of compromises - not a cure, or an "end" to any of the woes of ESRD.
Just my $.02 of course
-
VERY well said slothluvchunk!! :thumbup; :thumbup;
I feel much the same way as you!
-
I've said this before ...
In 1989, I served as reporter, and teamed up with award-winning director Ilan Ziv (Consuming Hunger; People Power) and Icarus/Tamouz Media for a investigative health documentary about the international trade in human organs. The program was produced in association with the BBC (for their program Antenna), RTL+, VARA and the Canadian Broadcasting Company.
Transplants in the Philippines ain't so great. I've been to Manila. You can get a kidney from a prisoner locked up in the national penitentiary, Mantelupa. For their donation, they have their sentences commuted.
I was in Guangzhou, China. They shoot prisoners and give you one of the kidneys. Maybe one of those prisoners is a former student from the Tiananmen Square protests?
The doctors at the hospital/prison I visited in China tried to convince me that a Hep B positive kidney that was available would not cause me to contract Hep B myself. Does a doctor in China or the Philippines really care about an American's health after the transplant has been paid?
In India, I wouldn't want it on my conscience how a young girl of seventeen or eighteen years of age, was forced by her family to give me a kidney.
Having surgery in these countries is in fact buying a kidney. The money may go to a surgeon, but it's still buying a kidney ... we can't spin this any other way. And what if the kidney fails in three months, do you get your money back? This is not like buying a cellphone.
When money talks, ethics walk. :thumbdown;
-
I am curious, is this legal?? Can this person be a broker of organs for transplantation in other countries?? Are there no laws on the books stopping him from profiting on people who are desperate to find an organ? I personally am not sure that our system in the USA is perfect but I do believe that the people who developed it did the best they could. I do think that anyone who profits from suffering people who are desperate to find organs to save their lives should be arrested and thrown in a foreign jail so he/she can wonder when they are going to cut him up for his organs! That is my take on this.
Geoff
-
The ethics and laws relating to buying an organ for transplant were determined by a population consisting primarily of healthy people who have absolutely no idea of the terrrible suffering and high death rate we renal patients have to endure while waiting for a transplant. Nor do they understand how long the wait can be, and how serious the permanent medical disabilities can be from the long waiting times imposed. Does anyone doubt for a minute that if 50% of the American population suddenly needed renal dialysis, it would immediately become legal to buy an organ in a foreign country? If this is so, then the current laws against this have to be regarded as the product of a form of racism, of prejudice and misunderstanding directed against the sick by healthy people who do not comprehend our situation and yet feel free to impose life-and-death rules on us.
People consist of two dimensions -- time and space. It is perfectly legal to sell yourself as time, which is what we all do by putting in time at work to get a salary. So why is it so immoral to sell yourself in your spatial dimension, giving up part of your body for money, if that is what seems right to you?
The desire of people in foreign countries to sell an organ to make money comes from the dire poverty in the Third World, which is largely the result of the world economic system, in which the United States with only 5% of the world's population consumes 60% of its resources. Since the whole foreign policy of the country, since the whole power projection capacity of the armed forces and the CIA is devoted ultimately to keeping that imbalance of resources intact, why is the same country which is so eager to create and maintain this desperate poverty so opposed to people sellling their organs to escape it? Is it because the imbalance benefits the healthy majority, while organ buying only helps a despised minority of sick people? The U.S. supports American companies investing abroad and has no laws against them employing foreigners for starvation wages, but then, when these starving third world workers sell a kidney to save themselves from these low wages, the U.S. declares this to be illegal exploitation of the worker by the transplant purchaser! Shouldn't the U.S. also have laws to prevent the problem at its roots, by requiring U.S. companies investing abroad to pay decent wages so no one is forced to sell an organ?
Why is the organ buyer called an exploiter, since he is helping someone who is already being exploited by someone else to escape that exploitation? The guilty one is the original person, the foreign company or the World Bank or the international capitalist system, which put the foreign worker in his desperate situation by exploiting his labor for low wages, and not the person who offers an opportunity for the worker to buy his way out of a trap someone else has made for him.
If the foreign organ seller determines that he would prefer to sell a kidney rather than starve, is it a moral act to let him starve by refusing to 'exploit' him by cooperating with the contract he wants to make? In the Philippines the kidney donor must be medically qualified, he is given free hospital care for the surgery, and he is paid US $7000 for his kidney, which represents 2.5 years salary in a country where 25% of the population is unemployed. Is this exploitation for him or liberation, especially given that he has sized up the alternatives and decided that selling his kidney is to his benefit? Also, in the Philippines hospital ethics committees consisting a a nephrologist and a Roman Catholic priest have to interview the transplant donor first to determine that he is not acting under duress and that he understands the medical consequences of what he is doing. If this is a moral procedure by the standards of the Philippines, isn't it cultural imperalism on the part of the U.S. to call his illegal when an American citizen goes to the Philippines and abides by the local laws and moral customs? In the Philippines almost all transplants are provided by paid donors, for foreigners and local residents alike.
Finally, in the desperate plight of the renal patient on a transplant list, he is confronted with the tragic situation of having to impose on someone. If he waits on the list he shirks his duty to his own body and life by becoming constantly sicker, by losing the continuity of his career and life plans, and by running an ever increasing risk of death. Also, by waiting on the list he deprives any immediate family members he may have of financial support, to say nothing of not being able to be a normal companion for them, and of constantly threatening them, through his plight, with his own decline and death. If he takes a cadaver transplant, he could be said to exploit the other people on the waiting list, because by his taking a kidney he forces others to continue waiting, and their wait may cause them to suffer worsening health problems, to become medically ineligible for transplant, or even to die. Isn't this a worse exploitation than he imposes on the voluntary kidney donor who is selling his organ? The donor is willing to make this trade, but the person who takes a transplant from the cadaver list does not get the permission of the other people on the waiting list whom he forces to wait even longer. He says, in effect, I am taking this organ even if my having it now means that you will die waiting. In contrast, if he goes abroad and buys an organ, he takes himself off the cadaver waiting list in his home country and thus makes the wait for other patients shorter than it would otherwise be. So it seems that buying an organ is more moral, not less, than getting one from the list!
-
Stauffenberg, you are clearly a genius or something and I, in contrast, am a fairly uncomplicated person. But this is the way I see it; no, it isn't alright for American companies to exploit foreign labor and pay them starvation wages. We should all make every effort not to support companies that use any type of exploitive practice.
But, that doesn't make selling or buying organs right, either. At some point, there has to be a code of human behavior that says we are not willing to take certain actions for money. There's a reason prostitution is illegal in most places. You may argue that those women are just "selling themselves spatially", but I would say that we cannot take advantage of another human beings plight because we have money and they need it. It's wrong, and Mitch the Organ Broker is wrong. He is the ultimate exploiter; exploiting not only the people selling the kidneys, but the desperate kidney recipients that use his services.
The world is not a perfect place. The U.S. is not a perfect country, and we need to do more to balance the resources and ensure that all people, across all countries, have opportunities. If you have an answer as to how we can do that, I'm willing to listen. But I hardly think that marketing organs will resolve the world's issues.
-
In a nice way :thumbdown; Later Dude. Thats my vote.
-
You know I am not one to judge or get into debates on these boards but in this case I am going to speak my mind.
stauffenberg, you seem to be a highly educated smart man. However, after reading your post all I really have to say is BULLSHIT!! Anyone who profits by taking advantage of people be it for economic, health or status reasons is WRONG. End of story in my book. As much as I would like a kidney I would NEVER use one of these "brokers". If it was done ethically (not sure how that could be accomplished), by a not for profit organization, maybe then I would consider "buying" or supporting the organization. We all have choice in our lives as to what we think is right and wrong, and I believe this is absolutely wrong. I have a sister who wants to donate a kidney. I am against it because she is young not married yet and wants to have children in the future, so I am holding off on that until I believe it is in her best heath intrests. How could I possibly know that it was in the best heath intrests of one of these donors that a "broker" uses????? How do I know they are not taking advantage of a situation that seems to only profit them?? Forget about the fact that I have no idea about the ethics and experience of these so called "doctors". So I guess I will have to agree to disagree with you on this. I suggest you go ahead and give it a try for yourself and let us know how it goes! Good luck!
Geoff
-
Oh yea by the way stauffenberg do realize the the BIGGEST FOR PROFIT dailysis centers in the US are run by a foreign company???? It is Fresinous out of Germany. So it is NOT only American companies that profit from those of us with renal failure!
-
I was gonna comment but think I'll stay out of the fray. :thumbup;
-
When two people in comparably desperate circumstances caused by neither one of them meet and come to an agreement which rescues each of them from his plight, and which each of them considers to be an advantageous cost/benefit bargain, can it really be said that one of them exploits the other, or that they both take unfair advantage of the other's dire need? The relationship between them is too reciprocal for that. One of them has money which the other needs but would never be able to get otherwise, while the other has a spare kidney which the first one needs but may never be able to get otherwise. Couldn't it just as easily be said that the kidney donor exploits the foreign renal patient by charging him $7000 for the kidney rather than just donating it to the patient altruistically, especially since the need of the renal patient, if not met, will much more readily lead to further disease or death than the poverty of the foreign donor will?
-
Whatever the paltry sum is, it does not relieve the poverty the donor faces every day. Plus the donor can not work during recovery. That plus the risk of complications and probable lack of aftercare leaves the donor open to infection, illness, even death.
-
Sara,
Don't pay a paltry sum. Instead take the donor back with you, sponsor his visa to enter
the US and get him a job at 7-11 or something that gives him health insurance with a salary
which is higher than a Philippine Nephrologist. BTW Sara with all those poor Philippine relatives
of your husband, why aren't you saving them ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kitkatz,
Thanks for the tip on Grammar. As to your comment about sub service medical , do you have any facts
that you can quote about the Philippines compared to American Transplant Hospital. How about California
and Kaiser wasting organs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rerun,
Three Philippine indigent patients were were transplanted at no cost to them. The husband (Mike Arroyo) of Philippine President Gloria Arroyo paid for it out of his pocket by his generosity. I don't charge Philippine patient a centavo.
-
Zach,
Your story is ancient history from 1989. The Philippine transplant program only started in 1988.
Nowadays prisoners are not used. Since 2002 they have Hospital Ethics committees.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geoff,
You say you would not use a Broker. Good news, Brokers don't exist. It's a make believe word . You say you want a non profit to help you. You're in luck again. There are 100 in the US, just get on the end of the 5 year line.
BTW Geoff, don't you know that the non profit hospitals pay out very large salaries and double dip medicare ?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morality and ethics are a product of religion and geographic area. It appears that Muslim countries do not have cadaver waiting lists .Does that make them more moral than you all ?
-
BTW Sara with all those poor Philippine relatives
of your husband, why aren't you saving them ?
We already do our part to help the family, thank you. That has nothing to do with how wrong you are.
-
I spoke to one Philippine organ donor a few years ago, and he even showed me his operation scar to prove his story. He told me he received US $7000 for his kidney, which is hardly a 'patry sum' in the Philippines, where the average yearly income is US $2000, and where 25% of the working age population is unemployed. Assuming the average salary in the US is about $40,000, the amount that Philippine donor was paid was equivalent to $140,000 in the United States. If you were extremely poor and unemployed in the US, would you consider it reasonable to donate a kidney for that much money? The donor with whom I spoke explained that, because fees are charged in the Philippines to send children to primary school, this was going to give him the chance to save his two children from inheriting his poverty, in effect, since otherwise they would not have been able to attend school and would thus have been condemned to unemployment.
There is a tendency to exaggerate the medical risks of having only one kidney. In fact, many people are born with only one kidney and never know it, and it is only first discovered at autopsy. In every sense the second kidney is really a surplus organ to protect the body against those rare accidents in which one kidney could be hurt by trauma, but in the modern world where we are no longer cavemen fighting sabre toothed tigers, this protection is no longer necessary. The medical fate of kidney donors has been extensively studied and they have been found to live just as long as people with two kidneys, since the functional capacity of the nephrons in the one kidney expands to compensate, fully, for the lack of a second kidney.
At the end of the day, after a Philippine organ transplant the donor is happy because he and his family have been rescued from a poverty which would otherwise have crushed them all; the organ recipient is happy because he has been saved from the living death of dialysis, he has avoided further decline in health during dialysis, and his life expectancy has been greatly extended; the Philippine doctors are happy because they have received a fee for their services which is much higher than they usually get; even the organ broker is happy because he has earned his commission. So given that all these people have been made happy in their different ways, where is the immorality in this exchange?!
-
I personally am not sure that our system in the USA is perfect but I do believe that the people who developed it did the best they could.
Geoff
I am aware that our system may not be perfect. There is always room for improvement. There will always be someone ready willing and able to take advantage of any situation. What is the "official" title of someone who does this kind of deal? If you let me know I will use your terminology. I am in the process of getting on the list here in the states, my final meeting is tomorrow at a foundation called Lifelink. This will be my second transplant. My first transplant I only waited 3 1/2 months for. So it seems there are times when the list works and it even works fast. Granted this does not seem to be the overall consensus.
stauffenberg, I still disagree with you. But I will ask again... If you believe that this will solve your health issues and truly be a help to all the other parties involved then are you going to take action yourself and pay to receive a transplant?? I would like to see "in action" all these benefits you are taking about put into motion. Let's use you as a trial case and document every aspect of the social, economic and health benefits this can offer. Then we can put it out to all the people (the donors, doctors and patients) and see what everyone really thinks. I say put up or shut up!
-
If you were extremely poor and unemployed in the US, would you consider it reasonable to donate a kidney for that much money?
Actually I know for a fact that I would not risk my health like that. And I AM poor... never earned more than 9G a year in my life! (Sucks being sick since birth .. and then just as I was working my way up the ladder .. BAM! Had to claim bankruptcy because I am back on dialysis...)
There is a tendency to exaggerate the medical risks of having only one kidney. In fact, many people are born with only one kidney and never know it, and it is only first discovered at autopsy. In every sense the second kidney is really a surplus organ to protect the body against those rare accidents in which one kidney could be hurt by trauma, but in the modern world where we are no longer cavemen fighting sabre toothed tigers, this protection is no longer necessary.
It is something how the part that gets exaggerated is the part the benefits the one speaking.
You can say it is just an extra organ ... big deal .. la de da! And then you turn around and say dialysis is death when it is the great invention that is keeping us ALIVE!
I will ask again... If you believe that this will solve your health issues and truly be a help to all the other parties involved then are you going to take action yourself and pay to receive a transplant?? I would like to see "in action" all these benefits you are taking about put into motion. Let's use you as a trial case and document every aspect of the social, economic and health benefits this can offer. Then we can put it out to all the people (the donors, doctors and patients) and see what everyone really thinks. I say put up or shut up!
I want to know as well! All we want is proof! You have to understand that right??
-
Folks, stauffenberg already has a transplant--for about a year, from what I can gather.
Whether or not it is from a young Philippine organ donor, who knows.
Gives a whole new meaning to 'the Professors and their young teaching assistants.' ;)
Before I developed renal failure, I was living a hyperactive life as a university professor at two separate universities, one in England and one in Germany. Suddenly, however, I was struck down by Wegener's Vasculitis, an extremely rare autoimmune disease which transformed me from a healthy, young-llooking man in his forties to a feeble renal paitient in the span of just two weeks. I spent eight years on dialysis, during which I was unable to work and endured a kind of living death, during which my existence was plagued with hypersomnia, constant nausea and vomiting, itching, difficulty concentrating, and exhaustion -- despite my rigid adherence to the renal diet and 15 hours of hemodialysis a week. Eventually I got a transplant, and the effect was immediate and remarkable, since I felt truly awake for the first time in years just minutes after coming out of the recovery room following the operation. In the year since then, I have been able to return to work and feel about 80% as healthy as I did before renal failure. The main limitations I experience are from clouding of the vision due to cataracts forming in response to the prednisone dose; tiredness from persistent low hemoglobin levels; and severe, month-long illness when I get the winter flu. Still, I feel incomparably more healthy than I did on dialysis, and now realize that I was unable to perceive during dialysis exactly how far I had dropped below the level of normal living.
-
To me it's just bad karma to take advantage of a poor person who gets $7000 for a kidney. Follow up care for these people? Please............we all know better that there is no such thing. You can make it sound as pretty as you want to, wrap it up in a box and tie a pretty red ribbon on top but BS stinks no matter what you wrap it in. It's exploitative and it's just not right. Everything I've read about this in the last 5 years or so tell me this. Look up Moldavia and organ selling. South Africa is in the organ selling business also. Why is it the poorest countries and the poorest people are doing this? Why are the richest people from the richest countries in the world doing this? Kidneys or other organs are not commodities to be bought or sold.
Impoverished Indians who sell their kidneys in an effort to escape poverty suffer financially and medically in the long run, a new study has found (JAMA 2002;288:1589-93).
The study has broad ethical and social implications for the prospects of increasing the available organ transplant pool through organ sales, and suggests that financial incentives to increase the pool of donors may backfire.
India has a large population of patients with end stage renal disease, and dialysis is not widely available. It also has a chronic shortage of organs available for donation. Consequently, India harbours a thriving black market in organ trade.
Dr Mahdav Goyal and Dr Ravindra Mehta from the Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania and colleagues from the Case Western Reserve University in Ohio and the University of California School of Medicine at San Diego conducted a cross sectional survey of people in India who had sold their kidneys.
The survey looked at the long term economic and health effects on the participants of selling a kidney and catalogued the underlying motivation for organ selling, the amount received from the sale, how the money was spent, changes in economic and health status in the six years after the sale, and what advice they would give to other people considering selling a kidney.
The survey was conducted in Chennai (Madras), Tamil Nadu. Because organ trade is illegal, the survey was conducted in a clandestine, door to door fashion by a team of eight Tamil speaking research assistants.
A total of 305 kidney donors were identified and participated in the study during February 2001. Nephrectomy was verified by presence of scars. The donors were paid 40 rupees (£0.53; $0.83; ¤0.84) for participating in the survey. Ninety five per cent of the men and 60% of the women worked in low paid jobs such as labourers or vendors.
Nearly all the participants sold a kidney for financial reasons, with 292 (96%) indicating that paying off debts was the prime motivating factor. Three per cent sold their kidneys to provide dowries and marriage expenses for their daughters, while 1% required cash to start a business. Seventy per cent sold their kidney through an intermediary and 30% directly to a clinic or individual.
The average payment for a kidney was $1070 (£638; ¤1090)--a third lower than the average amount promised--and the sums ranged from $450 to $2660.
Of the 292 participants who sold a kidney to pay off debts, 216 (74%) still had debts at the time of the survey.
-
Why worry about unethical practices in Moldova and India when in the Philippines the practice of buying kidneys for transplant is the normal custom of the country and so is an integral part of the whole normative structure of the society? Before any paid organ donation can proceed, a hospital ethical committee consisting of a psychiatrist, a nephrologist, and a Roman Catholic priest has to approve it. Obviously the approval would not be forthcoming if the donor were under duress, if he did not understand the choice he was making, if he were not being paid enough, and if he were medically unsuitable. So why leap to the conclusion that this has to be unethical when a society of seventy million people finds it normal practice?
It also seems to be assumed on this message board that living with just one kidney is some dire medical problem which requires constant, intensive, and expensive medical follow-up, when in fact the medical literature shows that this is not the case. Many people are born with only one kidney and this is never known until it is discovered at autopsy or by chance at a routine x-ray. The 'intact nephron hypothesis' maintains that when people lose a kidney, the nephrons remaining increase their functional capacity so that the loss in number of nephrons is made up. People declining into endstage renal failure can often stay off dialysis with only 10% renal function, and someone with 50% renal function would be totally asymptomatic. Studies of renal donors show that they live as long as the normal population and have no higher rates of morbidity. Organ transplant patients generally feel quite well with one kidney and only have to have intensive medical follow-up because, with a transplanted rather than a native kidney, they face chronic allograft nephropathy, and also have to have their immunosuppressive dosage and side-effects monitored. This is not so with someone who gives up a kidney, whose only lifestyle change may be that he should drink a little more water than the average person. Also, in the Philippines at least, only donors with excellent renal function, no history in their families of renal disease, and perfect health are accepted by the ethical committees, so they are well selected to deal with living with just one kidney. Kidney disease which affects only one organ is extremely rare, so they do not lose any advantage against future renal illness by having only one organ instead of two.
If you base your ethical thinking on what achieves actual human happiness rather than on vague, metaphysical values which have no practical meaning in human terms, you would have to admit that there is more net happiness in the world when an organ donor sells his kidney to a dialysis patient, since both the donor and the patient consider themselves better off than before, and there is no discernible 'victim' in the exchange. But the healthy majority of people, who don't care about sick people, who don't understand what their lives are like, and who don't even like them, decide to declare paid kidney donation illegal or unethical because of their thoughtless, knee-jerk reaction to the image of the 'organ trade' and of 'transplant tourism,' and their aesthetic dislike for the 'violation of the sacredness of the human body.' But dialysis is the real violation of the sacredness of the human body, not the voluntary removal of a duplicate organ to save someone else's life.
In France in the 1960s it was illegal for family members to donate a kidney because it was imagined that they would be under too much duress from the sick person to make a truly free decision. In many Asian countries all organ donation has been illegal because it violated vague, rationally indefensible cultural norms. In Canada altrusitic donation, perfectly legal in the U.S., is forbidden, because it is imagined that all altruistic donors must really be paid donors. Paired organ donation, which has saved many lives in the U.S., is also forbidden in Canada, because the Canadian Medical Association feels it needs another decade or so to study the question, all the while patients are dying around them left and right. The fact that the rules the healthy majority makes for the oppressed minority of dialysis patients are so arbitrary and varied strongly suggests that they have no rational basis, but arise just from the majority's desire 'to keep the cripples in their place.'
If half the population of the world had endstage renal failure and the other half was healthy, what would the laws on organ purchase be? Would the society be content to watch all its resources eaten up by the cost of dialysis, to have half its population suffering all the time, to lose productivity for the many people unemployed, to have the hospitals overcrowded with cases of dialysis-induced morbidity, and to watch the average life expectancy sink from premature deaths on dialysis? I doubt it. On the contrary, there would either be laws confiscating all the surplus kidneys in society from the healthy half of the population and transplanting them into the sick half, or there would be compulsory purchase of organs, or at the very least voluntary organ sales would be allowed. So if the majority would react this way if dialysis were a large-scale problem, what is their moral basis for making organ purchases illegal just because it is a relatively small-scale problem?
The healthy majority understands the vulnerable minority of dialysis patients as little as Southern racists in the first half of the 20th century understood the Blacks they oppressed, and yet we take the majority's word for it when we accept their ignorant ethical rules for governing our situation, which we all know they don't understand in the least. I think every renal patient owes it to himself to liberate himself from an ethical system made for us by people who don't understand the plight we are in, and to look with an open mind at the real ethics of organ transplant purchase.
-
What happens when the young man decides not to donate at the last minute, and I have spent all the time and money to come to the Philippines? Do I take this impoverished young man to court to recoup my financial losses on this transaction?
Will Medicare accept a foreign transplant and cover the drugs it normally does for domestic transplants?
What happens when the transplant fails, say in two years. Do I receive a partial refund? Is there any warranty as with other items I buy on the market? ;)
I'm not making any moral or ethical judgment ... everyone else here is making a good case. I'm looking at whether it is or isn't a good business arrangement. As business deals go, it has much too many risks and only a few benefits. It just doesn't cut it! Pardon the pun. :o
-
What is sold to the transplant candidate is the full transplant procedure plus the normal follow-up time in the hospital, which is about 10 days. In addition, the patient is given two weeks of immunosuppressive medications to take home with him. If the donor backs out at the last minute and the transplant does not take place, of course the transplant candidate does not owe any money for the services he has not yet received. In the Philippinnes it is not difficult to find a replacement donor, so the only problem for the transplant candidate would be having to wait for the new donor's blood typing, HLA testing, cross-match, medical fitness exam, and ethical committee screening to be completed.
No one in any country under any circumstances, in the public system or in the private system, can give you a guarantee on the future outcome of a transplant. If you get a cadaver organ in the U.S., the hospital, the nephrologist, the surgeon, and the dialysis unit are not going to pay you some compensation just because the organ fails soon after the transplant! However, since in the Philippines you would only get a well-matched kidney from a live donor, the chances of getting a long-lasting kidney are many times greater than if you got a cadaver organ in the U.S.
Medicare pays for immunosuppressive drugs for three years after the transplant for anyone who was on dialysis under the Medicare/Medicaid system. The rules don't confine eligibility to those getting a transplant in the U.S. as far as I know, especially since many people with relatives in foreign countries have to travel abroad for their transplant from an altruistic donor.
-
only 2 weeks?
That is not a lot .. hopefully Medicare would be fast in taking over ;)
It also seems to be assumed on this message board that living with just one kidney is some dire medical problem which requires constant, intensive, and expensive medical follow-up, when in fact the medical literature shows that this is not the case. Many people are born with only one kidney and this is never known until it is discovered at autopsy or by chance bla bla bla same old crap as stated earlier
There ya go assuming again. We KNOW that a person can live with one kidney. BUT you are pushing one side so much and not respecting the other side. Like meadowlandsnj said...
Impoverished Indians who sell their kidneys in an effort to escape poverty suffer financially and medically in the long run, a new study has found (JAMA 2002;288:1589-93).
We would be more inclined to accept all you say as fact IF you were openly weighing the pros and cons, instead of trying to sell us on this idea of paying for organs in the Philippines.
But the healthy majority of people, who don't care about sick people, who don't understand what their lives are like, and who don't even like them, decide to declare paid kidney donation illegal or unethical because of their thoughtless, knee-jerk reaction to the image of the 'organ trade' and of 'transplant tourism,' and their aesthetic dislike for the 'violation of the sacredness of the human body.' But dialysis is the real violation of the sacredness of the human body, not the voluntary removal of a duplicate organ to save someone else's life.
But you are not talking to the healthy majority of people here now are you? You are talking to people who are going through this so that means that how we feel and our stance on this will be stronger than them and for damn good reason! If you are gonna successfully talk anyone into this then you had better come up with a better way .. like how about .. numbers, facts, phone numbers, PROOF of success and actual people's after donation stories. We aren't just selfish people who want a kidney and don't care at what cost. We DO care. We care about the donor and not just about the kidney. How you talk, you seem to want us to be selfish and just want the kidney and hand over money. For myself, that will never happen as I can't even afford to buy a used car, much less a used kidney!
In Canada altruistic donation, perfectly legal in the U.S., is forbidden, because it is imagined that all altruistic donors must really be paid donors. Paired organ donation, which has saved many lives in the U.S., is also forbidden in Canada, because the Canadian Medical Association feels it needs another decade or so to study the question, all the while patients are dying around them left and right.
Dying left and right? Damn .. then I guess I should be dead and everyone in my unit eh? Yet here I am back to work and planning on marriage and having children .... what a fool am I eh? ::)
If half the population of the world had endstage renal failure and the other half was healthy, what would the laws on organ purchase be? Would the society be content to watch all its resources eaten up by the cost of dialysis, to have half its population suffering all the time, to lose productivity for the many people unemployed, to have the hospitals overcrowded with cases of dialysis-induced morbidity, and to watch the average life expectancy sink from premature deaths on dialysis? I doubt it. On the contrary, there would either be laws confiscating all the surplus kidneys in society from the healthy half of the population and transplanting them into the sick half, or there would be compulsory purchase of organs, or at the very least voluntary organ sales would be allowed. So if the majority would react this way if dialysis were a large-scale problem, what is their moral basis for making organ purchases illegal just because it is a relatively small-scale problem?
Are you trying to make it sound like the only way to save the world is live donations from other countries? What about cadaver kidneys? I could get a live donor kidney for FREE in my country but I choose NOT to ... so obviously you are missing the real reason people say no.
The healthy majority understands the vulnerable minority of dialysis patients as little as Southern racists in the first half of the 20th century understood the Blacks they oppressed, and yet we take the majority's word for it when we accept their ignorant ethical rules for governing our situation, which we all know they don't understand in the least. I think every renal patient owes it to himself to liberate himself from an ethical system made for us by people who don't understand the plight we are in, and to look with an open mind at the real ethics of organ transplant purchase.
plight WE are in? Hmmm... well I don't feel like I am in any plight but okay...
I think if anything, kidney disease and dialysis needs to get more recognition much like AIDS did or Cancer or Gay Rights even. If you spent half as much time talking about signing your donor card then maybe there would be more cadaver kidneys considering how many deaths happen daily all over the world. And as for believing the word of the majority?? Excuse me but I am one of the managers of a site run by Dialysis Nurses, Nephrologists and Techs. I think they know their facts and they provide me with the facts. They care very much about their patients and is thus why they made the site at Dialysis & Transplant City. Also all of us here have done research and are NOT just taking the majority's word. We know that the news doesn't always have it right. We know that even some kidney sites (Sandman and I ran across one that said transplants were a cure in some cases .. only case I could think of is between identical twins but they didn't say that). But we as dialysis patients and some of us past transplant recipients know that we have to be in charge of our own health and find the facts ourselves! Telling us to take a stand against our oppressors is NOT going to do anything. Since we are NOT oppressed.
-
I think a lot of people are not fully aware of what after effects a live donor is subject to. Of course, a healthy person should maintain a proper diet and all but they can indulge a bit from time to time. More so then someone who MUST maintain a proper diet like an ESRD patient. But did you know that a donor is subject to the possability of developing hypertension because they donated a kidney? Have a read here. http://www.webmd.com/content/article/125/116104
-
Very good post Sandman :thumbup;
also on top of that there is the risk of infection (don't think it never happens!). See here (http://www.webmd.com/content/Article/125/116017.htm)!
ALso I wanted to ask this: If there is no problem in the Filipinos giving kidneys away, why does it say in this article (http://www.medindia.org/news/view_news_main.asp?x=8364) that they are dying at a high rate due to kidney disease. How can they give kidneys away to people who pay and not to their OWN people? Something seems fishy to me about that.
-
If the donor backs out at the last minute and the transplant does not take place, of course the transplant candidate does not owe any money for the services he has not yet received. In the Philippinnes it is not difficult to find a replacement donor, so the only problem for the transplant candidate would be having to wait for the new donor's blood typing, HLA testing, cross-match, medical fitness exam, and ethical committee screening to be completed.
That situation would be a nightmare for most people.
-
ALso I wanted to ask this: If there is no problem in the Filipinos giving kidneys away, why does it say in this article (http://www.medindia.org/news/view_news_main.asp?x=8364) that they are dying at a high rate due to kidney disease. How can they give kidneys away to people who pay and not to their OWN people? Something seems fishy to me about that.
I don't know but if I had to guess, I would think that would be because the people in question can not afford proper health care or that the medical staff handling these cases are not as efficient as they are else where. ::)
But that is just a guess since I have no proof to back up my opinions. Can anyone shed some factual light on this subject please?
-
Very good post Sandman :thumbup;
also on top of that there is the risk of infection (don't think it never happens!). See here (http://www.webmd.com/content/Article/125/116017.htm)!
ALso I wanted to ask this: If there is no problem in the Filipinos giving kidneys away, why does it say in this article (http://www.medindia.org/news/view_news_main.asp?x=8364) that they are dying at a high rate due to kidney disease. How can they give kidneys away to people who pay and not to their OWN people? Something seems fishy to me about that.
I think the link from WEB MD pretty much explains it. :banghead; Thanks Angie,
-
I am deliberately presenting just one side of the paid organ donation debate because everyone else on this message board seems to be presenting the other side, which thus does not need any help from me.
Even though I am speaking to a message board for dialysis patients, I am criticizing the attitudes of the healthy majority because it is these attitudes which inform the ethical assumptions and laws which most message board members seem to take as the Gospel truth. But in fact, the rules which the healthy majority has the gall to impose on a vulnerable minority whose experience they do not understand at all are based on a complete failure to appreciate the dialysis patient's side of the ethical balance between the interests of the organ donor and the desperate needs of the organ recipient. Since the healthy majority thinks most people are to blame for their own kidney failure and believes that cadaver organs are in abundant supply, are just as good as organs from living donors, and are given to patients after a very short waiting time, and also assumes that dialysis is an easy treatment to endure, their theory that we are just exploiting poor foreigners if we pay for a foreign transplant is based on a gross misapprehension of the reality behind that choice and, as such, deserves no respect from people who, through their own experience, know better.
One poster here seems to like dialysis and does not believe my statement that dialysis patients are 'dying left and right,' but the fact is that dialysis vastly shortens life expectancy, and the death rate among dialysis patients in most first world countries is 9 to 13% a year, which is about the same as the death rate among the soldiers in the trenches on the Western Front during the First World War, which most people regard as an unendurably high risk, even when it lasts only for the duration of the war, four years, rather than for a lifetime, as dialysis without a transplant does. And as I pointed out in another message to this forum, the dialysis death rate in the U.S. is twice as high as in the rest of the developed world, mainly thanks to the for-profit dialysis delivery system, which cuts corners to make profits at the patients' expense.
It is true that kidney donors face a higher risk of hypertension than most people, but if you look at the scientific literature, this elevated pressure is not clinicallly significant. There is also the chance of infection, as well as the one in 3000 risk of dying during the organ removal operation, which is the same as the transplant recipient's risk of dying during his operation. But the fact that organ donors have exactly the same life expectancy as normal, healthy individuals who never donate an organ is proof that all the health risks combined are not serious. Given that the risks, though real, are within the range of acceptable trade-offs, especially given that the Filipino donor goes from being a poor man to a rich man, by local standards, overnight because he has accepted these risks, the buying of organs for donation is NOT EXPLOITATION, since the danger to the donor is not outside the realm of what a rational person would accept for a major improvement in his financial situation, even though people may have different subjective views about whether they would accept that risk for themselves. It is like skydiving: I would never want to risk it, but I can see how other sane people might think the risks worth the thrill, so I would not want to make it illegal.
Almost everyone in the Philippines, medical tourists from the West as well as Filipinos, has to get a kidney transplant from a paid donor, since most hospitals will not transplant cadaver organs, and few are donated anyway. The reason people in the Philippines die of kidney failure is that, with an average salary of $2000 a year, they cannot afford to pay a donor or the surgeon for the operation. The Filipinos I met who had had kidney transplants all had relatives in the United States who had saved part of their salary to give to the relative back home to pay for the transplant.
It is not realistic to say that it would be "a nightmare," as one poster described it, to have the kidney donor back out at the last moment, since that would just mean that the transplant candidate would have to wait in the Philippines for another two or three weeks while a new donor was being tested and screened by the hospital ethics committee. Believe it or not, even some perfectly healthy Westerners deliberately travel to the Philippines for two or three weeks just for the pleasure of being tourists in a country with lots of sun, friendly people, and sandy beaches, and they wouldn't describe their stay as a "nightmare."
-
stauffenberg. Thank you for that well said post as you have answered quite a few of my questions here. :thx;
-
One poster here seems to like dialysis and does not believe my statement that dialysis patients are 'dying left and right,' but the fact is that dialysis vastly shortens life expectancy, and the death rate among dialysis patients in most first world countries is 9 to 13% a year, which is about the same as the death rate among the soldiers in the trenches on the Western Front during the First World War
You clearly know nothing mate, the mortality rate amongst renal patients in the united states is in FACT 0.1743% ! And I imagine that the death rate in the oh so wonderful Philippines you see through your rose tinted specs is a lot higher
Try to do your homework before coming on here with your stats you have picked out of the air. It is offensive to the memories of the 65 MILLION people who died in the first world war. The actual stats for combat death in ww1 was in fact 67.4%
What happens to these donors after you have told them to bugger off with their paltry 7 grand, Do you supply full medical check up for the rest of their lives like a live donor in the states or UK would. I somewhat doubt it! They are more likely than not made to pay for their healthcare from the tiny amount of money you have given them.
How do you feel about this then ?
http://www.pia.gov.ph/news.asp?fi=p050224.htm&no=6
In the U.S., the average cost of transplant is $120,000 or more than P6 million. In the Philippines, one set of laparascopic transplants would only cost a patient P300,000.
"The Philippines has the cheapest kidney transplant cost. However, most Filipinos cannot afford such surgery because the money comes out of their own pockets," Filipino nephrologist Dr. Franklin Guillano said.
Bretan said in the U.S., the government pays for the people's dialysis treatments and even kidney transplantation.
"No one in the U.S. can pay $65,000 for dialysis per year," he said as he explained how comprehensive medical care programs had become an important part in the lives of Americans.
In the Davao region alone, a Philippine study on nephrology showed that out of 854 ESRD patients, only 122 underwent dialysis treatment.
"Two-thirds were not able to undergo such treatment, neither were they hospitalized for such disease. Most patients on dialysis also ran out of money in three to six months time which caused their death," Guillano bared.
or what do you have to say about this..
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/182_05_070305/ken10034_fm.html
Lack of donors has led to a worldwide increase in commercial kidney transplantation programs where recipients acquire kidneys either from executed prisoners or live non-related donors.
Commercial transplantation is prohibited by legislation in Australia.
Our centres have had 16 patients who have travelled overseas to receive a commercial kidney transplant; five have subsequently died.
As has been found previously, patients who received commercial transplants were more likely to develop infections such as HIV, hepatitis B virus, cytomegalovirus and fungal infections.
Previous reports have found that patient and graft survival were comparable to local results, whereas we found that patient and graft survival were worse than transplantation within Australia.
Patients considering the option of overseas commercial donation should be advised that heightened risks to life and graft survival exist.
besides it is still ILLEGAL in the Philippines despite what you may believe ::)
http://www.humantrafficking.org/updates/134
Philippines ratified the United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children supplementing the United Nations Convention on Transnational Organized Crime on September 30, 2001. The definition of trafficking in persons in the Philippine's bill is very similar to that of the Protocol. The version of the bill on Anti-trafficking passed in the House of Representatives defines trafficking in persons as "the recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring or receipt of persons with or without the victim's consent or knowledge through legal or illegal means within or across national borders by means of threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal or the sale of organs.
I offer no apologies for the hostile nature of my post as you simply disgust me and I really dont see why anyone gives you the time of day! >:(
-
Stauffenberg, I cannot understand why you think this is right. If you follow your argument through, it appears that transplantation will become possible only for the privileged in the world. If we accept marketing organs as a worldwide standard, it will only serve to further exploit people who not only feel they must sell an organ as a means to survive, but those same people will have absolutely no hope of ever having the means to obtain a transplant should the need arise for one in their own lives.
There are huge disparities in global health care now. I believe the answers lie in finding global solutions to the world's health problems that will benefit people as a whole, rather than benefitting only a privileged few individuals.
-
If you read R. A. Wolff, et al, "Comparison of Mortality in All Patients on Dialysis," Massachusetts Medical Society, vol. 341, no. 23 (1999), 1725-1730, you will find their statement, right at the beginning, that "the standardized mortality ratio for ... all patients on dialysis was 16.1 per 100 patient-years," which means 16.1% per year.
I wish to thank the poster for confirming my statistical comparison of the dialysis death rate with the death rate in the trenches in World War I, since the death rate of 67.4% which he cites is for the entire war, which lasted from August, 1914, to November, 1918, or 4.3 years. This works out to a yearly death rate of 15.7%, just as I said.
The fact that dialysis and renal transplant in the Philippines is more expensive than most Filipinos can afford is hardly the fault of the renal transplant patient who receives a new kidney in that country. It is the fault of the Philippine government for not establishing a free public healthcare system as most countries of the world have, but since the foreign transplant patient does not have a vote in Philippine elections, he can hardly be blamed for the lack of better care for the general public there.
You are right that the transplant donor has to pay for his own future medical expenses out of the $7000 payment he receives. But keep in mind that many people are born with only one kidney and it is never even noticed until autopsy. Also don't forget that transplant donors have a normal life expectancy, and are only selected from among people with the highest degree of overall health and especially of renal health. Finally, medical care in the Philippines is extremely inexpensive. I spent a half hour talking with a leading transplant surgeon in the Philippines when I was checking out Mitch's program, and the surgeon billed me US $5.00 for the consultation. I spoke to another infectious disease specialist there who charged me $6.00. The nephrologist to whom I spoke was more expensive, charging $10.00 for a consultation.
I spoke to several of Mitch's satisfied patients by telephone and also talked to a large number of Filipinos who had bought donor organs through the Philippine system. I never encountered anyone who was disatisfied with the service or who had had serious post-transplant complications, although it was the custom of Filipinos to wear a surgical mask for an entire month after the transplant, which would not be the usual practice in the West.
Since almost everyone who gets a transplant in the Philippines pays for it, and since transplant hospitals all have standing transplant ethics committees to interview and examine paid donors prior to transplant, I don't understand how what I have seen all over the Philippines with my own two eyes can have been illegal.
If there were a general, worldwide system of paid organ donation for transplants, rather than increasing the exploitation of the poor it would offer an escape for more poor people from a poverty which they regard as worse than having to live with just one kidney. By definition this is true, since the only people who donate an organ for payment are people who have judged the pluses and minuses of the trade-off and found selling an organ to be to their advantage. It is arrogant for people in the First World who have generally never experienced such dire poverty to deny poor people in the Third World this option without understanding what this means for them as an escape.
Also, a general, worldwide system in which more prosperous people could buy organs while less prosperous people could not would help rather than harm those not rich enough to buy a kidney, because it would significantly shorten the waiting list for the supply of cadaver organs, which continues to stagnate at the same level it was ten years ago, while the percentage of the population on dialysis continues to grow.
-
I agree. Let the rich buy a kidney and move me up on the list. Only the rich can buy new Mercedes too. People are born with two kidneys. Why not share and get paid for it. Why give it away.... there is not incentive there. Oh, yeah you will feel good.
Personally I think there should be some sort of "payment" for cadaveric donors too. Funeral Expenses or a tax incentive. They are usually giving up 2 kidneys, heart, liver, etc..... And not a dime. That is robbery. The Transplant coordinator gets paid, the surgeons get paid, the Nephrologist, Cardiologist, Liver Specialist etc.....they all get paid. The recipient gets LIFE........the donor gets nothing. IS THAT RIGHT? Talk about Exploitation.
No I would not be able to pay $140,000 for a kidney, but those who can....do it and get out of my way on the list. :thumbup;
-
I have been told by several transplant surgeons that any donor followup is covered
by the recipients Transplant payment. If its entirely un related to the kidney surgery that is
the donors responsibility unless the recipient wants to help.
I have mentioned on several occasions that to get the donor employment in the recipient's country,
which would provide him with health care , etc , would alleviate all our concerns for his future.
However many Filipinos are happy to stay in their own country.
I was happy to hear from Meadowlands-NJ about that donor survey in India . I will paste a quote.
"The donors were paid 40 rupees (£0.53; $0.83; ¤0.84) for participating in the survey. Ninety five per cent of the men and 60% of the women worked in low paid jobs such as laborers ."
This Survey is flawed, since the participants were paid and may have told the interviewers what they wanted to hear. But if they admitted working in labor type jobs, that says alot by itself as to their real health status.
So this may be the way they got the Africans and the Moldavians to come to be participants, down from the hinterland. Paying Africans and Moldavians to "participate" in exchange for money is a flawed, non acceptable survey, not to mention, who spoke Moldavian during the survey .
Lets see now, a paid Moldavian translator interviewed paid Moldavian participants to tell Organ Watch from Berkley, what they wanted to hear. This poor people were exploited by the survey people who tricked them for pennies. that was an unethical immoral survey , since they present these flawed findings to a sick audience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike,
Interesting statistics. You mention that you somehow know that the transplant is illegal .
Would you mind backing that up with facts from Philippine law itself, to enlighten us.
-
Caveat Emptor (Latin for “Buyer Beware”).
-
Given the high morbidity and mortality rates among dialysis patients, given the extremely long and unpredictable wait for a cadaver organ, and given the difficulty of getting back into a normal social and psychological state again after a long time on the sidelines with dialysis, let the person who does NOT buy a way out of this trap beware!
-
If only all of the prisoners were like dialysis patients, there wouldn't be any need for guards, because the prisoners themselves would keep themselves locked in, thinking it was unethical to try to escape! :angel;
-
If only all of the prisoners were like dialysis patients, there wouldn't be any need for guards, because the prisoners themselves would keep themselves locked in, thinking it was unethical to try to escape! :angel;
har har very funny but it is NOT like that at all and you KNOW it! We are going by our own personal moral code and experiences which you show you are lacking the knowledge in and you can't just judge us as a group.
-
If only all of the prisoners were like dialysis patients, there wouldn't be any need for guards, because the prisoners themselves would keep themselves locked in, thinking it was unethical to try to escape! :angel;
What was the purpose of that post Mitch??? Don't be a jackass ok!
Geoff
-
If only all of the prisoners were like dialysis patients, there wouldn't be any need for guards, because the prisoners themselves would keep themselves locked in, thinking it was unethical to try to escape!
Mitch -
Just out of curiosity, how many transplants have you had?
I ask because your statements are filled with ignorance. Anyone who has ever received a transplant understands that it in NO way "frees" them from the prison they're in.
It's obvious why you're here - not to help people, but to broker deals. But please in your ignorance, try to be sensitive to the fact that we are real people dealing with real issues. Many of us here have experienced transplantation, and if you'd look out from under your rock, you'd find a lot of people who've chosen the "prison" of dialysis, over transplant.
Transplantation isn't a cure, it's the trading of one set of problems for another. To sell it as something else is misleading, and blatantly dishonest.
Forgive me if I've misread something in your post and you haven't meant it to say what I've interpreted it to say.
-
slothluvchunk is right! Mitch you are showing that you know nothing about the side effects of the immunosuppressant medication that is given post transplant so the patient won't lose the kidney transplant. The side effects are many and also the fact that your immune system is lowered to such an extent, even a cold in the first year could very likely make you end up in the hospital. When I had my transplant I was not allowed to go back to school, go to the mall, or any place where there were real life people oh my! Why? Because that is how lowered the immune system is made on purpose just to "be realized from this jail you say dialysis is". Do you actually think a transplant lasts forever? Before you judge people and start name calling please know what you are basing it on okay? With how you are talking you are making me think about changing my mind about letting you be in my own forums. I am sure Epoman is starting to wonder too. Please don't ruin it. You are lucky everyone is giving you a chance. But understand we feel strongly because this is OUR LIFE! We have no choice. YOU DO however.
-
If only all of the prisoners were like dialysis patients, there wouldn't be any need for guards, because the prisoners themselves would keep themselves locked in, thinking it was unethical to try to escape! :angel;
You just don't seem to get it, do you? That has to be one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard. Dialysis patients are NOT prisoners and they are NOT trying to keep themselves locked away. It's not like these patients don't want a new kidney, because most of them do. It's just that ethics do play a roll in where humanity concerned. Let me ask you something. If you were in need of an organ, would you willingly accept one from some shady, black marketeer? ( keeping in mind that even though the black marketeer will most likely be faster, he/she is not your only option ) If you had even one ounce of respect for another persons life and/or well being, you would most likely pass.
As everyone else here has already tried to tell you, kidney transplants are NOT A CURE !! At best, a kidney transplant is a temporary transition away from the dialysis machines. And even though your off the dialysis machines, you are not out of the woods. You run into a new set of problems. Transplanted kidneys are not perminate Transplanted organs will fail because the human body will try to fight off any tissue that does not match it's own DNA and it's a never ending battle.
You know Mitch, you may want to listen to what these people have to say. You may just learn something.
-
While people who suffer endstage renal failure will never entirely escape all medical problems, transplant is a treatment option so much superior to dialysis that the difference between the two methods of treatment really does amount to an 'escape from prison' in my opinion. On dialysis I felt unwell all the time on the physical level, muddle-headed on the intellectual level, and utterly trapped in social and psychological terms. There was never a moment when I did not have to keep in mind that I had to structure my life so as to be back on the machine within a few days of the last time I was on it. Counting time for travel to the dialysis unit, waiting to be put on the machine and taken off it, and time being treated, I lost about 21 hours a week -- the equivalent of having an unpaid, uninteresting part-time job. But since my transplant I feel completely free, and there is nothing more essential to the human spirit than to be able to be spontaneous, to be able to break out of the structure of your life now and then.
In terms of physical well-being, since my transplant last year I feel about 90% as healthy as I did before I developed renal failure, instead of 20% as healthy as normal, which was how I felt on dialysis. Aside from having to take pills and having to visit the doctor more often than most people, I don't experience myself as a sick person, and friends of mine don't even know I have a medical condition. And the difference in life expectancy should not be left out of account either. As I mentioned a while ago at this website, the differences in life expectancy with a transplant are as follows:
Average life expectancy on dialysis for the 20 to 39 year old age group: diabetic: 8 years; non-diabetic: 20 years
Average life expectancy with a transplant for the same group: diabetic: 25 years; non-diabetic: 32 years
Average life expectancy on dialysis for the 40 to 59 year old age group: diabetic: 8 years; non-diabetic: 13 years
Average life expectancy with a transplant for the same group: diabetic: 23 years; non-diabetic: 20 years
Average life expectancy on dialysis for the 60 to 74 year old age group: diabetic: 5 years; non-diabetic: 8 years
Average life expectancy with a transplant for the same group: diabetic: 8 years; non-diabetic: 12 years
-
Sandmansa You have taught me something I wasn't sure about. Your type of ethics, not logic is what keeps alot of people from seeking out a live un related donor transplant. Based on some of your statements , your version of ethics may be flawed. This is what traps you, sticking with the waiting list cadaver system.
I never had ESRD ,nor has many of the doctors treating you guys, yet forming reasonable opinions is still possible.
If I needed a kidney transplant, I would pick a certain Philippine transplant Surgeon, who is linked to 3 other leading Transplant Surgeons , one of which transplants mostly in the US.
Each of the three Surgeons based in the Philippines have his own large list of donors who have been previously tested for HLA during the workup of other recipients..Between them, I would stand a good chance of a three antigen match (DR,B and A) Since it's reported that live donor transplants can last 30 years. That would last me a lifetime. The expected improvements in anti rejection medications will add more longevity with less side effects. Sounds like a cure. After reading the livecam story, I learned how much better he felt after his transplant and how strongly he recommends the transplant. I will add that a live one is much better than a cadaver organ.
Therefore your question- "Would you willingly accept one from some shady, black marketeer?" sounds like a story from the National Inquirer. They do NOT exist. Therefore your ethics seem to be based on a make believe myth. If your ethics is based on non existant black marketeers, then it's time to look specifically at the Philippines.
The poor results in Pakistan and China are not to be blended with other countries in Asia , like the Philippines.
-
Here's something I found that mentions our friend Mitch the Organ Broker
Website sells organs from poor foreigners to rich Britons
Main Category: Public Health News
Article Date: 09 Jun 2003 - 0:00am (PDT)
IoS investigation: Shortage of kidney and liver donors creates new international transplant trail
British patients with kidney and liver failure are being invited to buy replacement organs from living donors abroad by a broker who is promoting transplant operations in the Philippines, according to a charity.
The anonymous broker is offering the organ transplants at an undisclosed price via the website Liver4you.org. It was highlighted by the charity Organs Watch, which monitors the trade, as one of the first seeking European customers. A Filipino kidney can be bought for $1,300 (£780) and the operation is carried out in a private hospital in Manila, the charity says.
Yesterday the website, which gives a telephone number in the Netherlands but is registered in Paris, declared: 'You can travel to us for our surgeon. Live donations gives [sic] the best match. Things for the donor are legal.' It singles out the US and the UK as countries where there is a shortage of donor organs.
The website does not give the costs of the operation or the surgeon's fee but says patients will need $1,000 for the round-trip ticket, between $400 and $1,800 a month for accommodation and $200 for a pre-paid mobile phone. It says the average wait for the operation is two weeks.
In response to an inquiry to the website, The Independent on Sunday received an emailed reply, signed by Mitch Michaelson, which said the website was about 'getting transplant surgery, not selling organs'.
It added that live donor transplants were permitted 'as long as you follow the rules' and that the arrangements made by Liver4you.org were 'within the legal structure of the Philippines and their regulations'.
Elizabeth Ward, president of the British Kidney Patient Association, condemned the trade. 'I am absolutely horrified and sickened. It shouldn't be allowed.' She said it was immoral to put live donors in poor countries under pressure to give up their organs when there was a ready but untapped supply from cadavers in this country. 'There is not enough pressure on the Government to change the law to prevent these organs being burned and buried.'
The route from Europe and the US to the Philippines is only one on the transplant trail. The international trade in human organs is growing as wealthy patients in the West are turning to countries in the developing world where they can buy kidneys on the black market, despite an international ban on trafficking in human organs.
A donor can live a normal life with one kidney and can also give up part of the liver without harm, but there are risks involved in the operations.
Other transplant trails identified by Organs Watch, based at the University of California, Berkeley, include that followed by Israeli patients who fly to Turkey, where they are matched with kidney sellers from Moldova and Romania.
Brokers in Brooklyn, New York, posing as a non-profit organisation, traffic in Russian immigrants who provide organs to foreign patients. They are transplanted in some of the best medical facilities on the east coast of America, according to Nancy Scheper Hughes, a founder of Organs Watch.
She has also identified a Nigerian doctor/broker who links wealthy American patients with poor Nigerian kidney sellers for operations either in South Africa or Boston. In Britain, as elsewhere, the trade is fuelled by the desperate shortage of organs available for transplant.
A survey of UK transplant units conducted by specialists at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, last year found 29 NHS patients had travelled abroad to buy kidneys illegally. In more than half the cases the kidney failed and more than a third of the patients died.
Kidney failure is a particular problem among Asians who represent 4 per cent of the population but 14 per cent of those on the waiting list for kidneys. Patients from British-Asian families are among those who have gone to India to buy organs. But the donors, who are mostly poor, may be duped into agreeing to the operation.
A 16-year-old boy from the Punjabi capital Amritsar, interviewed for BBC Radio 4's File on Four, described how he was taken to a safe house near a hospital and introduced to the patient he was being paid to help - without being told the truth. 'I'd been told I was donating blood but the doctor said he had removed a stone,' he said. 'It was when I left hospital I found out they had removed my kidney.'
A police investigation into at least 2,000 questionable transplants in and around Amritsar found that 22 donors had died after giving their kidneys. A leading doctor has been accused of culpable homicide.
To curb the trade and boost the supply of organs in Britain, specialists have suggested radical measures to attract living donors. Last week Professor Nadey Hakim, of St Mary's Hospital, London, who is president of the Royal Society of Medicine's transplant committee, suggested payments of up to £2,000 could help to persuade donors to come forward. 'If it's done safely the donor will not suffer,' he said.
The Department of Health is due to publish a White Paper on organ donation following a consultation paper last year which outlined a number of ways of boosting transplants.
Banned in Britain
The sale of organs was banned in Britain in 1989 after three doctors who offered kidney transplants using paid Turkish donors were found guilty of serious professional misconduct by the General Medical Council.
Despite the ban the trade continues, fuelled by the shortage of organs. About 7,000 patients are waiting for kidney transplants in the UK but only 3,000 operations are conducted each year. Some kidney patients spend years on dialysis before a replacement organ becomes available.
The number of kidneys available has been falling because safer roads have led to a steep decline in fatal accidents, one of the main sources of cadaver organs. The growing recognition that kidneys taken from living donors are more successful, doubling life expectancy to 20 years, is also driving the trade.
Last year Bhagat Singh Makkar, a London GP, was struck off the medical register for offering to procure a kidney for a patient, and a second GP, Jarnail Singh from Coventry, was suspended from the register after being found guilty on a similar charge. Jarnail Singh was reinstated to the register in April.
Both doctors were exposed by undercover reporters from a Sunday newspaper posing as patients seeking a kidney for the father of one of them.
Three years ago Mick Taylor, 26, a dialysis patient from Halifax, Yorkshire, who won £4.1m on the National Lottery, was inundated with offers after he said at a news conference that he would swap his winnings for a new kidney.
A small but growing number of transplant surgeons around the world say the sale of organs should be made legal to improve the supply and to safeguard those involved, given the desperation of patients and the readiness of donors to sell their body parts on the black market.
One suggestion is that governments could control the trade by inviting living donors to donate kidneys to a 'pool' in return for payment. The organs would be allocated from the pool to the most suitable recipient and the safety of the donors would be assured by careful screening and monitoring of their care.
Governments could have an interest in such a scheme because of the huge cost of maintaining kidney patients on dialysis: £20,000 to £30,000 a year, double the cost of maintaining a transplant patient and for a worse quality of life.
Case study
Jennifer Ainsworth scans the website that promises to change her life. The 44-year-old mother of two has had to live with kidney failure for the past seven years. She needs constant dialysis treatment and has been waiting for a kidney transplant for the past five years. But the Liver4you.org website raises more concerns than interest.
'This is clearly a hard-sell website and is not done out of any altruistic motives,' said Jennifer, an office worker from Glasgow, who was diagnosed with kidney failure as a result of systemic sclerosis.
'There is no way I would go to doctors I didn't know or contemplate going abroad to buy a kidney, but I can see how others might be tempted. A commercial site like this just shows how dire the problem is becoming in finding donors.' Jennifer is faced with the prospect of never again being able to lead a 'normal' life.
Everything she, her husband George and their two teenage children do revolves around her medical care three times a week at Glasgow Royal Infirmary.
'What we need in this country is an opt-out system where everyone can be considered a donor unless they carry a card expressly wishing that their organs are not used for transplant,' she added. 'This site plays on the desperation of people, especially liver patients, who face death unless they get a transplant.'
-
It has been estimated that only 15% of cadaver organs suitable for transplant are actually collected, in part because they families refuse, preferring to bury the organs to feed worms in the cemetery rather than to save human lives with them, and in part because physicians feel too uncomfortable about approaching families to donate the organs of a relative who has just died in order to get their permission (Arthur Kaplan, "The Ethics of Organ Transplants," p. 49). Governments can and should have policies in place to prevent this waste, but until they do, where do they get the moral standing, in the face of their refusal to stop this massive waste of life-saving organs, to tell patients it is unethical to buy a transplant? If all countries introduced the 'presumed consent' laws which exist in Austria, Belgium, and Spain, according to which every cadaver is presumed to be available for organ harvesting unless the person has signed, during his lifetime, a special form denying this permission, the organ shortage could be solved over night. But this reasonable proposal is considered in many countries to be too much of an imposition of state power on the freedom of the individual, so it is not adopted. But then how can these same governments turn around and say that they can impose state power on dialysis patients to keep them from buying their way out of the medical trap they find themselves in? Is the right to have your corpse buried intact higher than the right to live by getting a transplant? Why don't governments institute a policy where everyone has to sign up at age 18 to donate their organs if they die; then if they don't, they will never be eligible for a transplant. Why should a person be able to benefit from a donated organ that he was not willing to donate himself? Again, if governments introduced this policy, the organ shortage problem would cease overnight, but the truth is, they really don't care all that much about the tiny, vulnerable minority of people with endstage renal failure. But then why do they suddenly care so much about the ethics of the situation when we try to escape the trap they won't help us out of?
I have investigated Mitch's program in the Philippines as thoroughly as possible, talking to the doctors he works with, the patients he has treated, and the organ donors that the doctors have provided. Everyone I spoke with was well satisfied with his service and everyone said he was scrupulously honest with every penny he was paid. You may not agree with the ethics of what he is doing, but you can't fault the internal integrity of the service he offers or its medical efficiency and successes.
-
Stauff, a couple of things.
If I buy an organ in the Philippines, when I come back I can't get medical coverage for follow-up because "Mitch" is not a preferred provider.
Second thing: Why start at age 18. It is a waste to bury a 9 year old's organs as well, and there are plenty of children waiting for organ transplants. When you start at 18 you are wimping out on your ethical plan and it makes it sound like something is WRONG with the plan if children are excluded. Does Spain etc., have an age limit on presumed conscent?
-
MItch and Stauffenberg are the same person and if not boys prove me wrong. Stauffenberg you were a respected professor in England and Germany? Would you please post a link to a site or sites that describe you or your work? I'm getting a little tired of the Mitch/Stauffenberg good cop bad cop game being played out before patients who are trying to survive and get better. Prove me wrong Mitch/Stauffenberg. Epoman take note, it is time to put an end to this.
-
The system proposed by Rupert Jarvis for organ transplants to be available only to those who signed up ahead of their renal failure to indicate their willingness to be donors starts with people 18 years of age just for the simple reason that that is the earliest age at which legal consent can be given. Obviously special cases, such as people incompetent to consent, people developing renal failure before age 18, people who just moved to the country before renal failure, etc., would have to be taken care of by special legislation within the overall plan. But the idea is a fair one, that if you expect to benefit by a cadaver organ you should be prepared to donate one, and would end overnight the organ shortage problem, since probably everyone would sign onto the plan. But it would still preserve autonomy, since people who had profound objections to organ donation could simply stay out of the plan if they wanted.
Mitch and I are not the same person, as anyone can easily tell from the difference in our writing styles! Also, my personal knowledge of the dialysis and transplant experience should be sufficient indication that I am not Mitch, who does not claim to have had any such experience himself. I was registered with this message board long before Mitch appeared, and I am sure that with such a technologically advanced website as Epoman has constructed, he can tell that Mitch and I are never using the same server, and that we are in fact posting occasionally at nearly the same time from commerical networks which cover areas of the globe many thousands of miles distant from each other. Since I speak frankly about my personal experiences on this message board, I claim the same right to anonymity, however, as everyone else here does.
-
Sandmansa You have taught me something I wasn't sure about. Your type of ethics, not logic is what keeps alot of people from seeking out a live un related donor transplant. Based on some of your statements , your version of ethics may be flawed. This is what traps you, sticking with the waiting list cadaver system. I never had ESRD ,nor has many of the doctors treating you guys, yet forming reasonable opinions is still possible.
Mitch, I am glad you have learned something. My ethics are not important, nor are they like everyone else's. I never said I was right. I only suggested that your point of view was of ignorance and disrespect toward those in which you are trying to solicit. Maybe your right and my ethics are flawed. Who knows but may I let you in on a little secret? Well, not so much a secret but I am not a kidney patient, not like I was hiding that fact. I don't know what kidney patients go through but I am learning as much as I can from sites like this one for the sake of my girlfriend who is a kidney patient.
Therefore your question- "Would you willingly accept one from some shady, black marketeer?" sounds like a story from the National Inquirer. They do NOT exist. Therefore your ethics seem to be based on a make believe myth. If your ethics is based on non existant black marketeers, then it's time to look specifically at the Philippines.
Oh, and forgive me for comparing you to that of a black marketeer. It's just the way you are presenting your arguments, make you seem like you are selling something to good to be true. And ummm, I don't know where you get your information about black markets but they do exist. Just because you have not seen that kind of activity, does not mean it doesn't happen. Can you show me proof that black markets are a myth?
-
If all countries introduced the 'presumed consent' laws which exist in Austria, Belgium, and Spain, according to which every cadaver is presumed to be available for organ harvesting unless the person has signed, during his lifetime, a special form denying this permission, the organ shortage could be solved over night. But this reasonable proposal is considered in many countries to be too much of an imposition of state power on the freedom of the individual, so it is not adopted.
I was hoping that my province would pass that (they put it up and it was voted on) but the majority voted against it because sadly enough most of the public is NOT aware of kidney disease since it is not widely talked about as let's say AIDS or Cancer has been... But I was hoping that we could get that Presumed Consent thing!!
But then how can these same governments turn around and say that they can impose state power on dialysis patients to keep them from buying their way out of the medical trap they find themselves in? Is the right to have your corpse buried intact higher than the right to live by getting a transplant? Why don't governments institute a policy where everyone has to sign up at age 18 to donate their organs if they die; then if they don't, they will never be eligible for a transplant. Why should a person be able to benefit from a donated organ that he was not willing to donate himself?
That is just wrong! Everyone has a right to a transplant! But no one has the right to demand people donate their organs. It is part of FREEDOM!
And who the heck is Rupert Jarvis??
The system proposed by Rupert Jarvis for organ transplants to be available only to those who signed up ahead of their renal failure to indicate their willingness to be donors starts with people 18 years of age just for the simple reason that that is the earliest age at which legal consent can be given. Obviously special cases, such as people incompetent to consent, people developing renal failure before age 18, people who just moved to the country before renal failure, etc., would have to be taken care of by special legislation within the overall plan. But the idea is a fair one, that if you expect to benefit by a cadaver organ you should be prepared to donate one, and would end overnight the organ shortage problem, since probably everyone would sign onto the plan. But it would still preserve autonomy, since people who had profound objections to organ donation could simply stay out of the plan if they wanted.
That would NOT solve the problem! What would solve the problem would be better publication of the disease so that the public can be MUCH BETTER INFORMED!!
Mitch and I are not the same person, as anyone can easily tell from the difference in our writing styles! Also, my personal knowledge of the dialysis and transplant experience should be sufficient indication that I am not Mitch, who does not claim to have had any such experience himself. I was registered with this message board long before Mitch appeared, and I am sure that with such a technologically advanced website as Epoman has constructed, he can tell that Mitch and I are never using the same server, and that we are in fact posting occasionally at nearly the same time from commerical networks which cover areas of the globe many thousands of miles distant from each other. Since I speak frankly about my personal experiences on this message board, I claim the same right to anonymity, however, as everyone else here does.
Mitch was actually here LONG before YOU but was banned REPEATEDLY. He just kept coming back under several names.
Oh, and forgive me for comparing you to that of a black marketeer. It's just the way you are presenting your arguments, make you seem like you are selling something to good to be true. And ummm, I don't know where you get your information about black markets but they do exist. Just because you have not seen that kind of activity, does not mean it doesn't happen. Can you show me proof that black markets are a myth?
And how about proof that you are NOT a black marketeer and what exactly is the difference between YOU and THEM ;)
-
Proving I am not a black marketeer . Will you take my word for it ?
Mr.Sandman ,Have you ever seen a picture of a black marketeer ? If they exist, where are the pics. ? The absence of hard proof by Nancy Scheper of Organ Watch and the horrified British lady.
The people who believe those fairy tales are indeed closing their mind to
a major transplant option and indeed throwing away the key to their invisible cell.
Angie if you are really poor can you prove it ? How about a due diligence or disability letter.?
Mr Livecam, please post some more benefits of getting your transplant. Was it a cadaver ? Are you the person
e-mailing me virus attachments, since this occurs at the same time you post nasty name calling to me.?
I do indeed know the side effects of the meds, I read about it from Livecam and the rest of you guys.I also research them on the internet and get the latest from the Surgeons.
As a group you guys seem to have one similar opinion about how bad foreign transplants are based on incomplete reports and no pictures of the white marketeer.
-
Angie if you are really poor can you prove it ? How about a due diligence or disability letter.?
It would be EASY to prove with my Income tax returns, My Apartment Manager's Yearly Income Report Records on me considering I live in a government Subsidized residence, and the past documents for claiming bankruptcy. There is ALWAYS a way to prove things! Now prove to US who YOU are!!
I don't really care about proving myself to anyone but in your case, you are trying to sell icecudes to Eskimos who get icecubes for FREE. You had better be prepared to do a better job. We can all get kidneys eventually just fine in our own countries.
-
Proving I am not a black marketeer . Will you take my word for it ?
Mr.Sandman ,Have you ever seen a picture of a black marketeer ? If they exist, where are the pics. ? The absence of hard proof by Nancy Scheper of Organ Watch and the horrified British lady.
The people who believe those fairy tales are indeed closing their mind to
a major transplant option and indeed throwing away the key to their invisible cell.
Well, since I don't really know you, I can't exactly just take your word for it. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
I don't need to see pictures of black marketeers, I was involved with apprehending a ring of them that found their way into my city. Well, people who believe those fairy tales as you like to call them, have a reason to believe. And if these people choose to close their minds to your opinionated option, well then that is their choice, isn't it?
And who is Nancy Scheper?
you are trying to sell icecudes to Eskimos who get icecubes for FREE. You had better be prepared to do a better job. We can all get kidneys eventually just fine in our own countries.
Well there you go Mr salesman, looks like you have your work cut out for you here. :popcorn;
-
In the UK the law changed at the beginning of the month: When a cadaveric patient carries an organ donation card his wishes are now carried out even if the family objects. Previously the family could veto any organ donation from someone who who carried an organ donation card. Putting the donors rights first.
There was an article in a newspaper that mentioned the state should buy kidneys from donors who where willing and they would then be given to patients across the country depending on tissue typing. The idea is that the money saved from transplantation in the long run could be used to pay the donating individuals.
This idea was not given much thought as the why would a state pay for something it does not have to. The debate of presumed consent comes up.
A few years ago there was a vote in our House of Commons about presumed consent and it was voted against, but times are changing and I feel in a few years presumed consent might be an option in the UK. It would be a (soft) presumed consent where the family could veto the donation if they have not previously opted out. The reason for this is polls have shown that a high percentage of the population would be willing to donate an organ if they where to die, but are too apathetic to sign up.
This would then eliminate what I feel are unethical sources of organ donation. I hope it comes soon for you.
Alasdair.
-
The debate of presumed consent comes up.
My country voted against it .. and here I was all excited about it. I mean it just made sense as a lot of people are just too lazy or chicken to fill the form or they don't know or they fill those small cards from the kidney foundation and then lose it or it is not on their person when they die so it is never known. Presumed Consent would make it easier as the people who really have something against it would then want to opt out and laziness would not hold them back if they are really against it.
Also getting the knowledge out would help tremendously. Get the people informed! Look how fast people learned about AIDS yet look how many years later so many people don't even know what kidneys DO!
-
It is a typical phenomenon in human culture that when people object to something on the basis of intangible ethical values, they like to assume that some tangible facts support their condemnation of what their theory does not like. Thus, for example, years ago people who did not like cannibis use because they did not approve of others adopting a non-bourgeois form of consciousness also liked to suppose that the drug must be a gateway drug to more dangerous substances, that it must be addictive, that it must cause insanity, etc. Or, at a more primitive level, prudes who objected to masturbation liked to believe that it caused blindness, impotence, and hairy palms, just to have some objective data backing up their subjective dislike. The same sort of thing is now going on on this message board, with people wanting to assume, just because they have intangible ethical objections to buying organs for transplant, that all the ways to do this must necessarily be dangerous, corrupt, fraudulent, etc. But here as in the other examples I have given, the objective world refuses to give tangible support to ethical values, which have to stand on their own. A healthy kidney from a medically qualified donor can be bought for a not unreasonably high price in a foreign country from a reputable organ provision system, in a way consistent with local laws and local ethical standards, and the transplant operation can be done within a few weeks in an excellent hospital with highly qualified doctors. I agree with those who object that you may still have purely ethical reasons for saying it is wrong, but I know from my own personal inspection that it is not also dangerous, corrupt, or fradulent.
It is odd when one poster says that everyone has a right to a transplant but no one has a right to demand that a healthy person donate his surplus kidney, since under the current system the right to a transplant is denied to 50% of patients on the waiting list who die before receiving a transplant, so it is not a real right at all. In a war even a free society claims the right to draft people against their will into the armed forces to save the lives of the people back home, even if this means that the conscripted people risk serious injury or death, but such a draft would never be imposed on people with one surplus kidney each in order to save the lives of dialysis patients who face a much greater risk than any faced by any American citizen back home during any war of the 20th century, but since we are a small minority, no one cares to be consistent.
To say that Mitch is selling icecubes to Eskimos is also not correct, since even though you may have a claim to be on the waiting list for a free kidney, there is a high likelihood that it will come too late to save your life, that you will have gotten so sick on dialysis while waiting that you will be dropped from the list before getting the kidney, or that you will suffer considerable irreversible worsening of your health from the long wait before getting an organ, to say nothing of all the time of your life when you could have been healthy and active which you will never get back. So Mitch is offering you something very real indeed.
To recommend public information campaigns as a way to solve the organ donor shortage simply will not work, since such campaigns have been going on for more than 40 years now, and yet now the shortfall of donor organs is greater than it ever was before in history, as the number of cadaver and live donor organs levels off, while the number of dialysis patients continues to increase.
-
Hog wash!
My ethics come from my strong religious upbringing which I will never give up!
My first transplant I got in only 2 months!
I won't die before I get a transplant as long as I take care of my health and watch my fluid intakes.
I will NEVER be able to afford a kidney in ANY other country but my OWN! (I Don't pay in Canada)
I won't get worse on dialysis! Dialysis KEEPS ME ALIVE! I would get worse withOUT DIALYSIS!!
I will get a kidney MUCH FASTER through a cadaver list than any overseas thing!
I am only speaking for myself as Mitch is generalizing a lot.
Where did YOU get your last transplant? Did Mitch supply it for you??
-
Yes, Stauffenberg, how about it? Did you buy your kidney?
-
I am not sure where Angie got her religious convictions, but the last time I read the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, I did not see anything in there about organ donors. The Bible is so metaphorical in its statements that it requires extensive interpretation to be applied to any ethical situation, so my recommendation would be to concentrate on the rational part of the ethical analysis, rather than on linking it up with cryptic statements written by or for people who knew nothing of organ donation.
Living on dialysis does in fact make patients sicker, since it replaces only 10% of normal renal function and so leaves you in a perpetual state of severe toxicity. Just look at how dramatically dialysis shortens the lifespan. Someone in the 15 to 19 year old age group starting dialysis has a 78% chance of surviving 10 years. Is this normal? A 40 year old caucasian starting dialysis in the U.S. can expect to live 6.9 years, and a 30 year old can expect to live 9.4 years. (Jeremy Levy, et al, "Oxford Handbook of Dialysis" (2001) page 5.) The serious damage which dialysis does to the musculature, the vasculature, the bone mass, and the nervous system will occur whether you watch your fluid intake or not.
If you live in British Columbia the average wait for a second-rate cadaver kidney is 4.5 years. The silting up of patients in Canada is getting progressively worse so the waiting lists will continue to get longer, because while from 1993 to 2002 there was a 111% increase in the number of people on dialysis in Canada, there was only a 73% increase in cadaver organ donations over the same period. From 1994 to 1996 there were 2007 cadaver kidney transplants in Canada, but, because of the continuing decline in donation of organs, there were only 1879 cadaver transplants of kidneys in Canada from 2001 to 2003. With around 2000 cadaver kidney transplants a year and 17,000 patients on dialysis in Canada, you figure out how long you are likely to wait for an organ. For many people, the longer they wait the sicker they get, and before they know it, they are taken off the transplant list as 'medically no longer eligible' as their reward for their patience! In contrast, if you want to buy a medically much preferable kidney from a live donor in the Philippines, you will have to wait only about three weeks or so for everything to be arranged, from payment to transplant.
Given the enormous benefits of purchasing a live kidney over waiting for a cadaver, before you decide that 'ethics' precludes the medically preferable option, you owe it to yourself that you can 100% defeat every single argument I have made why buying an organ for transplant is ethical before you deny this option for yourself or for anyone else.
-
One thing is for sure, Stauffenberg, if we listen to you there will be a lot less people getting dialysis. Here's a quote from you in another thread, I apologize, I didn't know how to use the quote function to copy from a separate thread:
"Personally, I applaud those on dialysis who have the courage to commit suicide, since I find these courageous people in some ways more life-affirming than those who continue with dialysis. To kill oneself on dialysis says that the patient values the dignity of true human life so highly he is so profoundly offended by the living death that one is forced to endure on dialysis that he prefers to die rather than disgrace his humanness with the inadequate existence provided by a machine that can only replace 10% of normal renal function. I say this as someone who, during the eight years I was on dialysis, frequently considered suicide but simply lacked the courage to do it, however right the decision seemed. The irrational, instinctive will to live at all costs, even if life has become a disgrace to human dignity, is very difficult to overcome."
Buy a kidney or kill yourself. That certainly simplifies things. Most of us would be gone now, lacking the resources to purchase kidneys. Perhaps we're lucky that we have ethical aversions to giving up on our own lives or taking advantage of others since that appears to be part of what keeps us going.
You just seem so cynical. Seriously, don't you ever read anything positive?
-
Mallory, don't you understand? Stauffenberg and Mitch are the same person. They've been getting off by making kidney patients feel bad on numerous other boards for years. Don't argue with him/them. Just accept that these guys are playing your emotions like a fiddle and ignore them. I don't know for the life of me why Epoman and Angie are allowing this nonsense to continue on their boards. It was the undoing of other boards and it will darn well wreck these boards if it is allowed to continue.
-
I have to agree with livecam. I think this conversation has gone on long enough and there is no way to settle this debate other then by putting a lock on the door. It would appear that Mitch and stauffenberg are pushing the idea that if every dialysis patient here were to spend up-to $120.000 for a transplant procedure, that all their kidney troubles will be washed away. And it has been suggested that if dialysis patients don't take this offer, then they are fools. I for one, was not happy to see that being suggested. This simply can not be allowed to continue for two main reasons.
1.) Hardly anyone here has access to that kind of money to begin with.
2.) Kidney transplants, no matter how good they are, are never a "cure" to kidney disease.
I would imagine that most everyone suffering on dialysis, would someday like to get another kidney but Mitch is not debating the issue, he is pressuring the issue. But no matter how long we debate this issue, Mitch and stauffenberg just don't seem to be willing to get that through to their heads.
-
It would take more than a troll to piss me off, I say hit the road, tired of hearing the same stuff over and over.
-
To Livecam I would say that it does not matter whether someone is trying to 'play on your emotions,' whether Mitch and I are the same person (we are not!), or whether you feel this discussion has gone on long enough or not. You can always have doubts about the motives or the people behind anything and everything you read. But the only rational thing to focus on is whether the arguments you read make sense or not. I am ready to answer any objections anyone might raise, and I have already given a very extensive defense of the position -- now accepted as valid by an ever increasing number of professional medical ethicists -- that buying an organ for transplant is not an unethical thing to do. So if you find the argument convincing and you can't defeat it's logic, then you should rationally accept it, whether it was written by a hundred monkeys randomly banging on the keyboard or by an honest human being.
To Sandman I would say that I never said that getting a transplant was a cure for renal disease, but it is a million times better than dialysis, as I know from my own experience. Something does not have to be perfect to be worth preferring over the alternative. During the time you are on dialysis, you make successive accommodations to your declining energy levels, your increasing discomforts, and your progressive loss of mental focus. These accommodations are so continuous and subtle that over time you don't notice how far you have dropped below normal functioning. But from my own experience, as soon as I was back in my hospital bed after being wheeled out of the recovery room following the transplant, I felt enormously more energetic, clear-headed, and inwardly well than I ever had on dialysis, even though, at that moment, I had just been through a four-hour operation. I was shocked and profoundly disturbed to realize, for the first time in years, just how sick I had become on dialysis without noticing its full dimension. I am sure other transplant patients here can confirm what I say from their own experience.
Also, the price of a Philippine transplant which was cited, $120,000, is way out of range and much higher than the actual price. I have read that Israelis make a practice of going to Turkey to get a Moldavan organ for $100,000, since such a move enjoys much more cultural acceptance in Israel than in the West, and there are also no laws against citizens leaving Israel for a paid organ transplant from a live donor. One transplant facilitator I spoke with said he charges $200,000, and another facilitator in the Philippines, who got into the business because this was the only way he could get a transplant for his wife, who had been taken off the waiting list in the U.S., said he charges $95,000. Mitch is less expensive.
-
To Sandman I would say that I never said that getting a transplant was a cure for renal disease, but it is a million times better than dialysis, as I know from my own experience. Something does not have to be perfect to be worth preferring over the alternative. During the time you are on dialysis, you make successive accommodations to your declining energy levels, your increasing discomforts, and your progressive loss of mental focus. These accommodations are so continuous and subtle that over time you don't notice how far you have dropped below normal functioning. But from my own experience, as soon as I was back in my hospital bed after being wheeled out of the recovery room following the transplant, I felt enormously more energetic, clear-headed, and inwardly well than I ever had on dialysis, even though, at that moment, I had just been through a four-hour operation. I was shocked and profoundly disturbed to realize, for the first time in years, just how sick I had become on dialysis without noticing its full dimension. I am sure other transplant patients here can confirm what I say from their own experience.
I understand all that as I have seen what dialysis has done to my girlfriend and she has repeatedly told me stories of how sweet it was when she got her first transplant and how eager she is to try for another. But one key thing you and Mitch seem to keep overlooking is that most people on dialysis are on some form of government assistance to help pay their medical bills. Some are even in geared to income housing. How are these patients suppose to pay in up wards of nearly $100.000 when they can barely even pay the rent? Why would anyone want go abroad to another country and pay an enormous amount of money for something they can get right at home AND maintain follow up sessions and check-ups for next to nothing? Your preaching to the wrong quire here my friend.
-
Mallory, don't you understand? Stauffenberg and Mitch are the same person. They've been getting off by making kidney patients feel bad on numerous other boards for years. Don't argue with him/them. Just accept that these guys are playing your emotions like a fiddle and ignore them. I don't know for the life of me why Epoman and Angie are allowing this nonsense to continue on their boards. It was the undoing of other boards and it will darn well wreck these boards if it is allowed to continue.
It is true that some other boards have fallen due to "organ brokers" however that is because the site owners did not have control of the situation. If you read the second post in this thread you will see I am in control of this situation: http://ihatedialysis.com/forum/index.php?topic=1334.msg16075#msg16075 it will give a better idea of why I allowed this thread by "mitch" if you notice he is not posting in any other thread or section, he is allowed this one thread to have his say and be allowed to state his case. I recommend that any member who is tired of this thread or does not wish to read it or debate in it anymore, simply ignore it and don't even click the thread. :thumbup;
-
I recommend that any member who is tired of this thread or does not wish to read it or debate in it anymore, simply ignore it and don't even click the thread. :thumbup;
Copy that sir. ;) I am about finished with this pointless debate so I will be removing the notify link to this thread right now.
-
Mitch,
I would like to see some actual facts.
1. Show me an actual invoice for ALL services (travel expenses, MD invoice (neph, surgeon, anesthesiologist, nurses and etc,), Kidney invoice, meds, accommodations). You can blur or omit the actual name of the patient.
2. Amount of money paid to the living donor.
3. Amount paid to you or someone else in your position.
4. mortality rates with as much data as you have for both donor and recipient. How long patients live with the transplanted kidney and the heath status of the living donor.
Lets quit talking about ethics and see some REAL numbers. If this is as safe and organized as you say it is these figures must be available. I also would like to be put in contact with someone (maybe you) that can answer any other questions that may arise. I know I can look up all these numbers on the INTERNET for our Government programs so you should have the same data available.
From my position, I have found that good/great ideas usually stand on their own merit. In other words once spelled out as well as you and stauffenberg have so eloquently tried to convince us the idea if a good one will win over the majority of the people without need for argument or further explanation. This does not seem to be the case here.
Also, I think to myself would I feel comfortable (knowing what I know about this topic) letting my family, girlfriend/wife and CHILDREN sell their organs in if they could make a substantial amount of money. The answer for me is no. How about you Mitch? Would you let your family sell their organs for profit?
So in closing please show me some hard data... case studies, invoices for actual procedure and compensation for all parties involved from you to the doctors to the donors. And bring someone with you to one of these boards who has had the procedure done and let us talk to them. Even better let us talk to one of these doctors involved. We could set up a chat session so any and all questions could be covered.
Thanks, Geoff
-
I think this thread is getting out of hand. Everyone is entitled to there opinions and I know why Epoman allowed this thread to continue, however I think it has turned into more of an attack against the members who happen to disagree with both Stauffenberg and Mitch.
I reccomend taking Epomans advice. Debate over.
-
I can only speak for myself as to why I have allowed a section for Mitch to post in my forums. It is because he finds a way in but at least this way the situation is controlled. Just like Epoman said. As for this quote:
a 30 year old can expect to live 9.4 years. (Jeremy Levy, et al, "Oxford Handbook of Dialysis" (2001) page 5.) The serious damage which dialysis does to the musculature, the vasculature, the bone mass, and the nervous system will occur whether you watch your fluid intake or not.
I know plenty of people who have been on dialysis for years and have proven that you can't say everyone will be like the statistics.
Also D&T City has allowed Mitch a section there too but even there the Dialysis Nurses say that you can't say that either a transplant or dialysis are better than one another because both have their pros and cons. It is an individual choice and you Mitch and you Stauffenberg cannot go around telling people that their choices aren't right just because it is not the choice YOU would make in that same situation!
I say start telling pure hard facts instead of insults and assumptions! Manipulations won't work! We are all smart enough to want to weight the pros and cons instead of just taking YOUR word for it without any facts!
the price of a Philippine transplant which was cited, $120,000, is way out of range and much higher than the actual price.
One transplant facilitator I spoke with said he charges $200,000, and another facilitator in the Philippines, who got into the business because this was the only way he could get a transplant for his wife, who had been taken off the waiting list in the U.S., said he charges $95,000. Mitch is less expensive.
Didn't you guys say before it was $7,000? Seems the price keeps changing. Isn't there any documentation or proof of the actual cost?
-
When Sandman says there is no point to buying donor organs in a foreign country since everyone can get a kidney for free in his home country, he forgets that the issue in not getting a kidney or not, it is getting a kidney NOW as opposed to after a wait of many years, by which time 1) much of your normal life will have been spent less happily than it could have been free of dialysis; 2) you will be much sicker from the inability of dialysis fully to imitate natural renal clearance; 3) your chances of being dead due to the shorter lifespan of dialysis patients will be greater; 4) your chances of having become forever ineligible for a transplant because of your declining health on dialysis will have become greater.
All the people who got transplants in foreign countries I know by buying them from live donors have been able to get follow-up care from the normal health services in the United States and Canada. You simply show up where you were being dialyzed, tell your nephrologist you got a kidney from your cousin in a foreign country, and he refers you to the transplant clinic. In many cases, even if the doctor knows or suspects you may have bought an organ, he does not care, since his first duty is to care for the sick, not to play policeman. Surgeons will even operate on bankrobbers after they have been shot during a hold-up, so nephrologists don't mind helping patients who have paid for an organ donor. I even spoke to one transplant patient who got his kidney through Mitch whose own nephrologist endorsed his plan to go to the Philippines before he even went.
When Geoff poses the question of whether you would want a relative to sell a spare kidney, you have got to think of the proper context. In the Philippines, there is almost no social safety net, children cannot go to school unless their parents can pay the fees, the unemployment rate is 25%, and the average salary is $2000. So Geoff's question should be: would you rather see your relative starve to death or sell a spare kidney?
Angie seems to think that because there are different pros and cons to dialysis and transplant as a response to endstage renal failure, that must somehow necessarily mean that both options are equal, or that we can't possibly figure out which option is better. But of course, the very, very much longer life expectancies of patients with a renal transplant over dialysis patients, plus their essentially normal lifestyle in comparison with that of a dialysis patient, show that the pros and cons of transplant outweigh the pros and cons of dialysis. You don't see "I hate my transplant" message boards on the internet, do you?
The figure of US $7000 was just the amount paid to the organ donor. The higher figures you see are the amounts charged for the entire transplant package, which includes the surgery, the diagnostic testing to make sure both donor and recipient are suitable for the operation, the examination of the donor and the whole arrangement by the hospital ethics committe, all medications used plus the two-week supply to take with you, as well as the HLA testing, often of a very large number of potential donors, as well as the cross-matching.
I was surprised to read Sluff's comment protest against the "attack against the members who happen to disagree" made by Stauffenberg and Mitch, since the only open hostility in the form of a personal attack I have seen in this entire discussion has come in one of the member's objections to something I said. The fact that I disagree with and criticize the views of some members is totally different from a personal attack on them.
Those who want more concrete proof that Mitch's service is real should contact Mitch himself, since he sometimes negotiates phased payments with patients so they can go to the Philippines and check out each stage, paying for each succeeding step in the transplant process only if and when they are satisfied that it is for real. When you see the entire set-up, meet the surgeons and the nephrologists, talk to the dialysis staff, inspect the hospital and the operating room, talk to Mitch himself, you will feel silly for ever having doubted it.
I understand that endstage renal failure can itself create financial difficulties for patients, and I wish the government would fund a program such as Mitch now offers so everyone could get a transplant right away for free. Mitch himself once tried to get a transplant for a patient who could not afford to pay the fee, but since the Philippine surgeons refused to cooperate by waiving their fees, this turned out not to be possible.
-
How do you know so much about Mitch? ::)
-
I know so much about Mitch because I went to the Philippines and thoroughly investigated his whole service.
-
I know so much about Mitch because I went to the Philippines and thoroughly investigated his whole service.
Only investigated?
-
I know so much about Mitch because I went to the Philippines and thoroughly investigated his whole service.
What about the graft recipients? How many did you interview in person? How many are still alive today?
You were so thorough, that you went around the world to meet them?
I know, the word thoroughly is a relative term to you. ;)
-
Angie, Our price haven't been changing. Our web site gives the range and describes it.
------------------____________________________
Mr. Geoffcamp- You asked the right questions. We provide most of what you asked for to serious patients but not those reporters . Part of my job is to screen patient and weed out the reporters. I will provide you with much of that either here on this forum or personally by e-mail, depending on how you first provide me with your medical records , documents like drivers license, dialysis report, doctors letter recommending you for a transplant.
Sandman, You asked about how do people get money for a transplant procedure of 120,000. First of all it's $70,000. The average house in the US is worth around 120,000. So , the homeowner in the family goes to the bank and borrows against the value.
Sandman, I think the transplant is a cure because the person no longer has the condition ESRD. When the doctor perscribes medications for HIV disease to keep it under control so as to prevent AIDS from appearing,
this is not a cure, but keeps the HIV (virus) under control.
-
Sandman, I think the transplant is a cure because the person no longer has the condition ESRD. When the doctor perscribes medications for HIV disease to keep it under control so as to prevent AIDS from appearing, this is not a cure, but keeps the HIV (virus) under control.
Mitch, I think you are missing a valuable point about ESRD and kidney transplants. Please, if you can, show me documented evidence that a transplanted kidney has provided 100% relief from machines, hospitals and doctors visits and medications for the rest of the ESRD patients life. You won't find it and do you want me to tell you why? Because kidney transplants are not a cure. Pretty much summed up as only a temporary patch to the problem but not yet a cure in any aspect.
Now, the only commonality between ESRD and HIV that I see, is that they can both be fatal and last I checked, ( please correct me if I am mistaken ) there is no cure for either one. But what does HIV have to do with ESRD anyway? We are not talking about AIDS here.
-
Sandman keeps harping on the point that the transplant is not a cure for renal failure, but the statistics showing the increase in life expectancy for transplant patients over dialysis patients make a transplant worth $70,000, don't they? And remember, we haven't even started to consider here the vast improvement in energy, clarity of thought, freedom to travel easily and to organize your time as you desire, freedom from dietary and fluid restrictions, and elimination of all the many deleterious health effects that arise from staying on dialysis, such as rapidlly accelerated arteriosclerosis, neurological disease, bone disease, etc. If a surgeon sets a broken bone, the bone will always show radiological traces of having been broken. Does that mean that if you broke your leg you would not go to a surgeon to have it set, because what he could do would never be a perfect cure, since your bone would always have a weak point along the fracture line? It is all a matter of degree, and I can testify that the difference between dialysis and transplant is enormous and worth any amount of money you can scrape together.
I have spoken to two people who got functioning kidneys through Mitch's facilitation efforts. They are both doing fine. I have spoken to four patients in the Philippines who received kidneys from the same doctors who work with Mitch, and who also bought a kidney from a live donor, though not through doctors working for Mitch at the time. They too are all doing fine.
-
I know so much about Mitch because I went to the Philippines and thoroughly investigated his whole service.
I have spoken to two people who got functioning kidneys through Mitch's facilitation efforts. They are both doing fine. I have spoken to four patients in the Philippines who received kidneys from the same doctors who work with Mitch, and who also bought a kidney from a live donor, though not through doctors working for Mitch at the time. They too are all doing fine.
Yes, that's very thorough.
-
I have to admit it, I think Livecam was correct. With each of Stauffenberg's posts, I'm seeing the lines blur between Stauffenberg and Mitch. There seems to be a lot less credible university professor and a lot more desperate pitchman in each post.
-
Angie, Our price haven't been changing. Our web site gives the range and describes it.
------------------____________________________
Mr. Geoffcamp- You asked the right questions. We provide most of what you asked for to serious patients but not those reporters . Part of my job is to screen patient and weed out the reporters.
What are you trying to hide? If you think this is so great why not advertise it? Let the world know about it. Why not let a reporter get the story and publicize it?
-
Angie, Our price haven't been changing. Our web site gives the range and describes it.
------------------____________________________
Mr. Geoffcamp- You asked the right questions. We provide most of what you asked for to serious patients but not those reporters . Part of my job is to screen patient and weed out the reporters.
What are you trying to hide? If you think this is so great why not advertise it? Let the world know about it. Why not let a reporter get the story and publicize it?
BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL!!! YES I AM SHOUTING BUT NOT AT YOU MEADOELANSNJ.... AT MITCH AND STAUFFENBERG!!!!!!!!
-
Hypothetically speaking........say I DID buy an organ, had the operation and came back to the USA. How do I get follow up care? How do I get the immuno medications? How do I do the follow-up bloodwork? Who pays for everything? I can't imagine walking into my transplant clinic and saying "I just got back from Manilla and I have a new kidney--now it's your turn to take care of me". They wouldn't touch me with a ten foot pole. Say I get the organ and it fails........can I get another? Can a US transplant center turn me down to get another kidney if it fails for getting an illegal organ? I would love to ask these questions to someone who can give m e definite and true answers. Stauffy amd Mitch are selling their "product" so I don't think I'll get unbiased answers from either of them.
-
I have spoken to two of Mitch's patients who had transplants in the Philippines, returned to their own countries, and had no problems with follow-up care. One of the patients had the full cooperation from his nephrologist from the start and so, when he returned, he was welcomed back as a post-transplant patient by the same nephrologist who had taken care of him as a dialysis patient. The other simply re-typed all the medical reports from the Philippines on stationery with no letterhead, showed it to a local nephrologist whom he told he had had a transplant from a cousin in another Western country, and he was accepted into the follow-up program. Medical doctors follow a very strict code of professional practice which requires them not to abandon patients or deny care, and so they conceive of themselves first and foremost as helpers of the sick, not as enforcers of government regulations, especially when these are based on ignorance of the real problems sick people face. Many doctors I have spoken with, like an ever increasing number of academic medical ethicists, regard buying an organ for transplant as perfectly ethical.
While some countries make the sale of organs for transplant illegal, there are many which do not. Some countries' laws make it illegal for their citizens to travel abroad for a purchased transplant from a live donor, but other countries restrict such paid donations only within their borders. The constitutions of many nations do not permit them to legislate extraterritorially, so they cannot regulate what their citizens do in another country. Many countries that do make paid organ donations illegal punish violations of these laws with purely tokenal fines, and the vast majority of such jurisdictions never bother enforcing such laws, because the governments are sensible enough to realize that these regulations are unjust, and are just needed to pander to the outrage of the uninformed populace.
-
I have spoken to two of Mitch's patients who had transplants in the Philippines, returned to their own countries, and had no problems with follow-up care. One of the patients had the full cooperation from his nephrologist from the start and so, when he returned, he was welcomed back as a post-transplant patient by the same nephrologist who had taken care of him as a dialysis patient. The other simply re-typed all the medical reports from the Philippines on stationery with no letterhead, showed it to a local nephrologist whom he told he had had a transplant from a cousin in another Western country, and he was accepted into the follow-up program. Medical doctors follow a very strict code of professional practice which requires them not to abandon patients or deny care, and so they conceive of themselves first and foremost as helpers of the sick, not as enforcers of government regulations, especially when these are based on ignorance of the real problems sick people face. Many doctors I have spoken with, like an ever increasing number of academic medical ethicists, regard buying an organ for transplant as perfectly ethical.
While some countries make the sale of organs for transplant illegal, there are many which do not. Some countries' laws make it illegal for their citizens to travel abroad for a purchased transplant from a live donor, but other countries restrict such paid donations only within their borders. The constitutions of many nations do not permit them to legislate extraterritorially, so they cannot regulate what their citizens do in another country. Many countries that do make paid organ donations illegal punish violations of these laws with purely tokenal fines, and the vast majority of such jurisdictions never bother enforcing such laws, because the governments are sensible enough to realize that these regulations are unjust, and are just needed to pander to the outrage of the uninformed populace.
Can you guarantee any of this??? I would want to be absolutely positive that my transplant center and neph would take me back and that I could still use Medicare and my Group Insurance. Again please present facts not what you have second hand seen. Show me where I am guaranteed treatment in the US when I come back from buying a kidney transplant in another country. Bring the people here who have had FIRST HAND accounts of this working for them. I am really tired of hearing STORIES. I want you or Mitch to make a n absolute guarantee that this will happen. I think you are both all talk (eloquent persuasions not presenting any hardcore facts or casestudies). If you can not present these FACTS then stop filling our heads with you rhetoric. Talk is cheap and the proof is in the pudding... so SHOW me don't tell me anymore. I don't know how may more ways I can put this!!! If you are going to rely on opinions and "stories" without backing them up with hard data then just stop posting! Lets see how Gounod-breaking this really is... share all your FACTS and DATA and then you might have a leg to stand on! If you are unwilling to present these facts the get off this board and go somewhere else to peddle your ideas with no basis for any one of us to believe. I am not a reporter, I am a ESRD patient so here is your chance to convice me with out the double talk and ethical debate bring on the facts or get out I say!
-
You can make arrangements with Mitch to go to the Philippines and check out his service there first-hand, if you want to, and that is what I have already done. He has also allowed serious prospective clients to talk on the telephone with satisfied clients of his who have already had a transplant.
If you are seriously considering an option like this and you are worried about follow-up care in the United States, you can research the Medicare rules for yourself or make enquiries among nephrologists you think might be sympathetic to your concerns in advance of heading off for the Philippines, just to make sure that everything is in place for your return. Of the two clients of Mitch that I spoke to on the phone, one had a sympathetic nephrologist even before he left for the Philippines, so he had absolutely no trouble on returning, while the other used the rather easily detected trick I described in an earlier post, which no doctors cared to doubt. If you are really afraid things won't work out on coming back, you can get advice from one of the many lawyers who now specialize in getting Medicare benefits for clients to find out if you would still meet the criteria.
-
Just give me the facts here. I am not going to spend more money out of my own pocket to take that trip without having all the facts. I can find data on everything related to transplants in the US, Canada, and the UK on the internet. Why on earth would i want to spend money on a trip to the Philippines when that data should be available before I make a trip to see if it would be safe for me to consider?? What are you afraid of?? Again how much clearer do I have to be??? Post the data and if it matches what you are both saying it could be a definite consideration. If you want to "sell" this service please prodive ALL the facts. Please do not respond to this post in any other way other then presenting the hard cold facts!!! I am growing tired of hearing conjecture and opinion SHOW ME. How could I be serious about considering this unless I am armed with the facts to make an informed decision??? I must be convinced and your words are not enough for me. So this is the last time I will post here unless you can provide the information we are all looking to see. And I recommend you give up your attempts to convince us with your opinions and augments. If you can not provide this information then this is a fly by the seat of your pants scam operation. It has to be otherwise you would be able to SHOW the success rates, complications and provide doctor references. Like I said show us this information or leave. Your opinions are your own and so are mine... convince me.
-
There is a Philippine Transplant Surgeon teaching and Transplanting organs and Kidneys for a large American Teaching hospital. He and his wife are making a good salaries in the USA.
He is a full time Surgeon in the US but has told me then when he goes on vacation to the Philippines he would transplant an American patient who wants to meet him first in the US. This would also allow him to do aftercare in the US. Since he is used to American fees, his involvement would drive the total cost upward.
I think he would get fired if his US hospital finds out. I wondered if he can accept medicare since he is a provider, even though he is under contract, with this hospital who bills with his medicare number.
I post with an ISP from the Philippines while Stauffenberg does not. Just ask the monitor ,here or Angie or Dialysis Joe. They see where the poster is. Angie's forum even shows the flag of the posters country.
Geoffcamp, get the FACTS for followup care: why not ask Nephrologists near you indirectly ( say it's for your cousin) if they can do followup care for a transplant done in an other country like England. This way you feel him out gently. Try a younger doctor who wants new patients. Tell him the patient is very compliant and has the insurance as you. Don't go to your transplant center to ask those stuffed shirts.
If you want me to contact the doctors in your area for you, I can do that if you desire. But then I will need your name and some medical information.What do i say if they ask me your age,weight,allergies ,etc. ?
Why don't we shout from the roof tops that we do live legal kidney donor transplants fast and give the Doctor/Hospital name ,address and all the confidential FACTS ? Three concerns.
1) I get eliminated by the Surgeon to keep my commission and takes control away from me.
2) The Surgeon may lose his American license when his American colleagues hear that he does paid donor transplant which some consider immoral and unethical. They can easily be pushed out of Honorary Transplant Societies, which in turn means they can't check all the boxes on the MD license renewal application. So the shit piles on them if I don't protect them in the early stage. Initially, I would gets lots more business if I put their career on the block.
3) The Hospital would get lots of normal type overseas phone calls from worried American patients seeking reassurance for their transplant Surgery. The Hospital in the Philippines does not have a dept. to handle normal transplant questions on the Phone. The caller would get passed around or hung up on. In this country I don't call a switchboard , I go in person. The caller and his frustrated (from not getting answers)family would call even more.
Then word would get out to the newspapers ( it caused a hospital problems in 2001).It may suprise you but the local population here does not want you, better off Americans, coming here for transplants, while they can't even afford dialysis.
The citizens have voting clout and the newspapers sell more with sensational headlines, like wealthy foreigners come for Philippine organs. In 2001 an church run hospital had to stop transplanting foreigners, when that story named them.
If I caused the Hospitals or the Surgeons to get screwed , guess who would get black listed. So , I screen carefully for the long term good. Even if I lose patients (and I am sure I do ) I need to be protective of the system here. I am sure you understand.
Geoff, your insurance wil pay just like it does now. Medicare will pay 3 yrs of anti rejection meds if prescribed by a US doctor. The prescription pad does not say where surgery was done. The Pharmacist will not ask. Don't volunteer it.
As for failure, stay here as long as you ned to be sure of it. If it fails because it's our neglegence , you can get a free one, on the house..
-
Geoffcamp, You said
"Just give me the facts here. I am not going to spend more money out of my own pocket to take that trip without having all the facts. I can find data on everything related to transplants in the US, Canada, and the UK on the internet. Why on earth would i want to spend money on a trip to the Philippines when that data should be available before I make a trip to see if it would be safe for me to consider?? What are you afraid of?? "
My commission for one thing. I would rather you not get the transplant here, using my information with me sidelined.
I think this is not for you, because our patients need to pay a down payment of 40,000. prior to getting the Doctor/ Hospital name and address.
The US / UK hospital are dealing with a long waiting list but give out the hospital name however its fairly useless because they are missing the kidney.
-
The reason they don't broker kidneys in the United States is they can make more money from dialysis. But, no one currently on this site can afford $40,000 for a kidney (IMO) in the Philippines. Hey, even if they did it here (in the US) no one could afford $140,000 to buy a kidney. Now, the homeless who would sell a kidney for $10,000 here in the US wouldn't pass the physical.
I'm for "Kidney Farmer's Markets" myself. Those that can afford it can do it. The rest would just be organ donation and I think the government should give them a tax break if they have the misfortune of an accident but leave their organs here.
The only way it will become legal here in the US is if there is sales tax!!
-
Geoffcamp, You said
"Just give me the facts here. I am not going to spend more money out of my own pocket to take that trip without having all the facts. I can find data on everything related to transplants in the US, Canada, and the UK on the internet. Why on earth would i want to spend money on a trip to the Philippines when that data should be available before I make a trip to see if it would be safe for me to consider?? What are you afraid of?? "
My commission for one thing. I would rather you not get the transplant here, using my information with me sidelined.
I think this is not for you, because our patients need to pay a down payment of 40,000. prior to getting the Doctor/ Hospital name and address.
The US / UK hospital are dealing with a long waiting list but give out the hospital name however its fairly useless because they are missing the kidney.
I tried to stay out of this thread for as long as possible, but "Mitch" this comment you made really concerns me.
"because our patients need to pay a down payment of 40,000. prior to getting the Doctor/ Hospital name and address."
So you are saying you require a $40,000 USD down payment before the patient knows who the doctor is or where the hospital is? What kind of business deal is that? To me it sounds like a "Dark Alley" deal. Let me guess it has to be CASH right so there is no paper trail? Why the secrecy? If you are legitimate and want people to put their lives in your hands why do you do business this way?
- Epoman
-
Yeah, if it is legal in the Philippians why the secrecy. It may not be legal in the US, but my understanding was it was in the Philippians.
-
Well Mitch I think you are finally telling the truth. This is no humanitarian effort to save, prolong or ,make people's life's better in any way shape or form. You did not like the terms "black market" or "broker" when the were used to refer to you or your business. Well in fact that is exactly what you are. The dictionary defines black market as such:
NOUN: 1. The illegal business of buying or selling goods or currency in violation of restrictions such as price controls or rationing. 2. A place where these illegal operations are carried on.
OTHER FORMS: black-market (blkmärkt) —ADJECTIVE
black-market·er, black-market·eer (-märk-tîr) —NOUN
black-market·eering —NOUN
Sounds to me just like what you are doing as you described in your own words so YOU are the black market for organ buying.
The dictionary defines broker as such:
NOUN: 1. One that acts as an agent for others, as in negotiating contracts, purchases, or sales in return for a fee or commission. 2. A stockbroker. 3. A power broker.
Again by that definition your ARE in fact a broker correct????
Let's face it this is all a scam so you and a select few (hopefully) doctors can make a lot of money from desperate suffering people. And those desperate suffering people are the patients and their families you try to sucker into these black market deals and the poor suffering donors and their families and the family tree for future generations that you sucker into believing you can provide a way out of the extreme poverty the live in everyday. I don't know how you sleep at night knowing how take advantage of all the parties involved. You sugar coated it as long as you could with your ethical debate on whether buying organs should be leagal until you were pushed for actual facts then the REAL truth came out. It is all about money! Well I do understand now and you are right this is not for me.
-
The reason they don't broker kidneys in the United States is they can make more money from dialysis. But, no one currently on this site can afford $40,000 for a kidney (IMO) in the Philippines. Hey, even if they did it here (in the US) no one could afford $140,000 to buy a kidney. Now, the homeless who would sell a kidney for $10,000 here in the US wouldn't pass the physical.
I'm for "Kidney Farmer's Markets" myself. Those that can afford it can do it. The rest would just be organ donation and I think the government should give them a tax break if they have the misfortune of an accident but leave their organs here.
The only way it will become legal here in the US is if there is sales tax!!
Rerun,
I can not believe what I read! Who makes money from dialysis vs. transplantation?? Certainly not Medicare or our private insurance companies.. I agree ther are some very large corporations out there making money from dialysis but it certainly has nothing to do with why the US does not broker kidneys! Please explain to me how this works. I know that Medicare pushes transplantation in order to save dialysis costs so if "brokering" was an ethical money saving alternative I am sure it would be used! And you are dead wrong! Don't presume to know anyone else's financial situation here on this board. I in fact have a successful business and come from a wealth family and I could come up with 140K with no problem but it is wrong and illegal to do so.
"I'm for "Kidney Farmer's Markets" myself. Those that can afford it can do it. The rest would just be organ donation and I think the government should give them a tax break if they have the misfortune of an accident but leave their organs here. "
I have no idea what you are saying here! Are you actually saying that you are for being able to buy an organ in the US??? Do you have any idea of how many people would suffer and die so the rich could live?? If you could go to the hospital and buy the organs of recently deceased or recruit people to sell their organs there would be none left over for those who could not afford to buy one. So you would remain on there list and dialysis for much longer periods of time because all the organs would be going to those that can afford to buy one! I do agree we should in some way compensate living and deceased donors in some way. I hope in the future we put a plan into place to do that in some manner.
And "sales tax"???? How on earth would that solve the problem?? you will have to explain that to me.
I have seen some valid reasons for pondering making organ sales legal but I am at a loss at to the reasons why you think this is a good idea. You are definitely entitled to your opinion but I just don't think you have truly thought this out! Maybe you can explain it to me better and I will see your point.
-
Well Mitch I think you are finally telling the truth. This is no humanitarian effort to save, prolong or ,make people's life's better in any way shape or form. You did not like the terms "black market" or "broker" when the were used to refer to you or your business. Well in fact that is exactly what you are.
Ding ... Ding ... Ding ... Ding ... Ding ... Ding!!!!
-
It may suprise you but the local population here does not want you, better off Americans, coming here for transplants, while they can't even afford dialysis.
No, it doesn't surprise me that people in the Philippines may resent wealthy foreigners coming to the Philippines for transplants from their impoverished citizens who cannot afford dialysis. That's the point, this is reprehensible exploitation and I for one, will not support it.
Mitch, If you are from the Philippines, why would you want to do this to people in your own country? Do you have no conscience?
Stauffenberg, I can only assume that if you are not Mitch, you are on his payroll.
Both of you, go peddle your wares someplace else. Look for a new website, maybe you can do a search for something like "ESRD patients with no ethics" or "wealthy ESRD patients willing to exploit others for their own gain".
-
While some countries make the sale of organs for transplant illegal, there are many which do not. Some countries' laws make it illegal for their citizens to travel abroad for a purchased transplant from a live donor, but other countries restrict such paid donations only within their borders. The constitutions of many nations do not permit them to legislate extraterritorially, so they cannot regulate what their citizens do in another country. Many countries that do make paid organ donations illegal punish violations of these laws with purely tokenal fines, and the vast majority of such jurisdictions never bother enforcing such laws, because the governments are sensible enough to realize that these regulations are unjust, and are just needed to pander to the outrage of the uninformed populace.
Why are you trying to sell organs to people in countries where it IS ILLEGAL?? Why not stick to countries where it IS legal instead of harrassing us?
Sandman keeps harping on the point that the transplant is not a cure for renal failure, but the statistics showing the increase in life expectancy for transplant patients over dialysis patients make a transplant worth $70,000, don't they? And remember, we haven't even started to consider here the vast improvement in energy, clarity of thought, freedom to travel easily and to organize your time as you desire, freedom from dietary and fluid restrictions, and elimination of all the many deleterious health effects that arise from staying on dialysis, such as rapidlly accelerated arteriosclerosis, neurological disease, bone disease, etc.
I have HAD a transplant! I KNOW how a person feels with a kidney! BUT the fact remains that it IS only temporary and NOT a cure! Or else what the hell am I doing back on dialysis now for the last 5 years?? Huh?
Geoffcamp, You said
"Just give me the facts here. I am not going to spend more money out of my own pocket to take that trip without having all the facts. I can find data on everything related to transplants in the US, Canada, and the UK on the internet. Why on earth would i want to spend money on a trip to the Philippines when that data should be available before I make a trip to see if it would be safe for me to consider?? What are you afraid of?? "
My commission for one thing. I would rather you not get the transplant here, using my information with me sidelined.
I think this is not for you, because our patients need to pay a down payment of 40,000. prior to getting the Doctor/ Hospital name and address.
The US / UK hospital are dealing with a long waiting list but give out the hospital name however its fairly useless because they are missing the kidney.
I tried to stay out of this thread for as long as possible, but "Mitch" this comment you made really concerns me.
"because our patients need to pay a down payment of 40,000. prior to getting the Doctor/ Hospital name and address."
So you are saying you require a $40,000 USD down payment before the patient knows who the doctor is or where the hospital is? What kind of business deal is that? To me it sounds like a "Dark Alley" deal. Let me guess it has to be CASH right so there is no paper trail? Why the secrecy? If you are legitimate and want people to put their lives in your hands why do you do business this way?
- Epoman
VERY good point!!
Well Mitch I think you are finally telling the truth. This is no humanitarian effort to save, prolong or ,make people's life's better in any way shape or form. You did not like the terms "black market" or "broker" when the were used to refer to you or your business. Well in fact that is exactly what you are.
Ding ... Ding ... Ding ... Ding ... Ding ... Ding!!!!
Finally it is coming out.
It may suprise you but the local population here does not want you, better off Americans, coming here for transplants, while they can't even afford dialysis.
No, it doesn't surprise me that people in the Philippines may resent wealthy foreigners coming to the Philippines for transplants from their impoverished citizens who cannot afford dialysis. That's the point, this is reprehensible exploitation and I for one, will not support it.
Mitch, If you are from the Philippines, why would you want to do this to people in your own country? Do you have no conscience?
Mitch still doesn't seem to realize why we are so against it but it is obvious and is as plain as day! We don't want to do something illegal that might jeoperdize our health and the future of our care! Also we would feel guilty taking good kidneys away from dialysis patients in the Philippines! They need it more than we do! We have good care in all of our own countries!
-
Epoman must realize that there are obvious reasons why Mitch cannot be completely forthcoming. In many jurisdictions there are legal problems with even helping someone to get in contact with physicians who can provide a live donor, even if you do not recruit the donor yourself, as Mitch does not, so he is not an 'organ broker' in that sense. Organ Watch, an organization of self-righteous, meddlesome people who understand nothing of the plight of renal patients and who could care less, also try to cause trouble for foreign transplant facilitators who are too open about their service and its details. Finally and most importantly, Mitch earns his commission by having researched the available facilties in the Philippines thoroughly and by having made arrangements with local surgeons and hospitals to perform transplants for his clients. If potential clients knew all the details of his program in advance, they could simply get in touch with these hospitals and surgeons on their own, making their own arrangements with them, which would cheat Mitch out of the commission he deserves for all the work he has done in setting up his program.
From what I have seen during my trip to the Philippines, once the client has made his down payment and has arrived at the hospital in the Philippines,and has gotten to know all the nephrologists and surgeons, he is already fully integrated into the system and could make his own deal then and there to get a transplant. However, since the surgeons would try to cheat the patient and get more money out of him than their real costs and fees deserve, it is important for the patient to continue to act through Mitch, whose wide contacts with the medical community in the Philippines permit him to keep the surgeons' costs in line with the deal Mitch has made with the patient. He can do this, as the surgeons well know, by taking the patient to another surgeon who will cooperate, so this system keeps the money-grabbers in line, which a lone patient, unfamiliar with the Philippines, could not manage on his own.
I am sure Geoff realizes that a program can be both money-making and life-saving at the same time; after all, that is what ordinary medicine is in countries which allow private remuneration of physicians, isn't it? As for the theory that the donors are exploited, I do not understand how paying them enough money to escape their desperate poverty by giving up a surplus kidney that they can live a normal life expectancy without amounts to exploiting them rather than, as it seems to me, rescuing them. It is easy to make the mistake of assuming that the dire poverty in the Philippines, which is in fact caused by the international economic system, is somehow the fault of the kidney patient, when in fact the kidney patient is helping to rescue the poor person from his greatest problem, for a deal which not only the poor person finds an advantageous trade-off for himself, but also which the transplant hospital ethical committee, consisting of a nephrologist, a psychiatrist, and a Roman Catholic priest also finds advantageous for him. It is also a culturally accepted, normal practice in the Philippines to sell an organ to escape desperate poverty, since this is the way 95% of kidney transplants among the Filipinos themselves take place. Ask yourself this question: would the situation of the person who wants to sell his kidney be improved if we took away this 'exploitation' and told him that even though he found this trade-off advantageous for himself, we were not only going to forbid him to exercise his own free will, because we are wise people from the First World and he is a stupid Third World resident, but also, we are then not going to do a single thing, ever, to make his poverty any better! So he stays poor in a country with no social safety net, and as a result he runs a higher risk of health problems and premature death than if he sold his kidney! Remember, the US $7000 he gets is 3.5 times the average yearly salary in the Philippines, which allows the donor to buy himself a small business, such as a little store, and keep himself employed for the rest of his life, in a country where the unemployment rate is not 5%, as in the US, but 25%.
I met two kidney donors, but only spoke at length with one, who described to me how he was able with the payment to send his two young children to primary school and pay off the mortgage on his house. He was unemployed at the time, so he suddenly had a chance he would normally never have had. His wife was also eager to become an organ donor herself, having seen her husband's experience and found it such a good deal for the entire family.
The best program would be for organ sale from medically fit living donors to be legal in Western countries with the government the only legal purchaser of the organs. These would then be distributed according to medical need to those on the waiting list. But that sensible plan will never be adopted, because the majority of people, who hardly know what a kidney is or does, look at some article about paid organ transplants, react with uninformed disgust, and so would never permit it.
Mallory should know that the overwhelming majority of Filipinos who get kidney transplants buy them from other Filipinos with money that they get from their relatives working, usually as nurses, in Western countries. When I first arrived in the Philippines I thought I would have to be very careful about saying anything about organ purchases, but to my surprise, everyone, from the dialysis staff to the doctors, from the other dialysis patients to the patients at the renal transplant follow-up center, said the same thing: "Oh, you must be here to buy a kidney transplant!" In the Phillipines this is considered a normal, everyday thing to do, since almost no one ever gets a kidney transplant other than by buying it, and the Filipinos are a very friendly people who appreciate the foreign money coming into their country with the transplant business and never think of it as immoral, which is a Western idea.
I am sorry that Angie's kidney did not last longer, but by arranging a transplant from a live donor well in advance, the Philippine doctors can sort through the HLA data on a large pool of potential donors and select a very good, often a three HLA group match with the all-important DR site, for the overseas client. A well-matched organ from a living donor with a three-point match should normally last for around 15 to 20 years.
-
2It may suprise you but the local population here does not want you, better off Americans, coming here for transplants, while they can't even afford dialysis.
I'm not the one who said Filipinos resent Americans for coming there for transplants, Mitch said it. I just agreed with him. I still agree with him. I still think this is exploitation and that the practice is deplorable.
-
As for the theory that the donors are exploited, I do not understand how paying them enough money to escape their desperate poverty by giving up a surplus kidney that they can live a normal life expectancy without amounts to exploiting them rather than, as it seems to me, rescuing them.
That is the thing ... I don't see any kidney as a "surplus kidney!"
Ask yourself this question: would the situation of the person who wants to sell his kidney be improved if we took away this 'exploitation' and told him that even though he found this trade-off advantageous for himself, we were not only going to forbid him to exercise his own free will, because we are wise people from the First World and he is a stupid Third World resident, but also, we are then not going to do a single thing, ever, to make his poverty any better! So he stays poor in a country with no social safety net, and as a result he runs a higher risk of health problems and premature death than if he sold his kidney!
You make me tired going over the same thing time and time again. I am poor too but that doesn't mean I will die early. You make it sound like they don't need that kidney so why don't we relieve them of the burden of that extra kidney and make them have a sweet little rags to riches story. Maybe I should sell off an organ and make myself a little rags to riches story too! ::)
When I first arrived in the Philippines I thought I would have to be very careful about saying anything about organ purchases, but to my surprise, everyone, from the dialysis staff to the doctors, from the other dialysis patients to the patients at the renal transplant follow-up center, said the same thing: "Oh, you must be here to buy a kidney transplant!" In the Phillipines this is considered a normal, everyday thing to do, since almost no one ever gets a kidney transplant other than by buying it, and the Filipinos are a very friendly people who appreciate the foreign money coming into their country with the transplant business and never think of it as immoral, which is a Western idea.
I am sorry that Angie's kidney did not last longer, but by arranging a transplant from a live donor well in advance, the Philippine doctors can sort through the HLA data on a large pool of potential donors and select a very good, often a three HLA group match with the all-important DR site, for the overseas client. A well-matched organ from a living donor with a three-point match should normally last for around 15 to 20 years.
Didn't Mitch just say that the Philippines didn't want rich Americans there? Yet here you say the exact opposite. Sounds fishy to me.
Yes it only lasted 11 years and was a near-perfect match, but you are telling me my next one should last 15-20 years? Bull Crap! Anyone knows that with subsequent transplant that there are more antigens so the chance for the transplant lasting longer, much less, as long, as the last transplant is not very good odds! You are raising high hopes only for them to be dashed in the future! What kind of way is that to make business??
-
I did not say to Angie that if she were to get another kidney transplant it would necessarily last for 15-20 years. What I in fact said was that "a" kidney which is a three-point match with the DR HLA group from a living donor can generally be expected to last that long. Obviously a patient who has had previous transplants, and thus who has a higher percentage of pre-formed antibodies, will have more difficulty with successive transplants, but this makes the option of buying a kidney from a live donor all the more important, since you will need to sift through a larger population to find someone who passes the cross-matching test with you, and this you can only do if your surgeon can select from a large number of potential donors, rather than just have to wait for the right cadaver kidney to show up some day by luck.
My experience in the Philippines was that everyone was extremely friendly with me, even when they knew I was investigating the purchasing of kidney transplants. I was dialyzed at two different hospitals while I was there, and of all the staff and patients there who got to know me, no one ever said that they thought that foreigners buying organs for transplant was a bad thing. Mitch may have had a different experience, but the reaction of other people is always a matter of subjective judgment. Maybe now, by the way, you will start to believe that Mitch and I are not the same person, since we do not always agree with each other.
Given that all the medical studies show that the life expectancy and health of live kidney donors is the same as that for the general population, given the 'intact nephron hypothesis,' which states that, as the number of nephrons declines, the remaining nephrons expand in function to take up the slack, and given that many people are born with only one kidney and never know it, I think we are pretty safe in saying that for a healthy person with no family history of renal disease, the second of two kidneys really is a 'surplus organ' which can safely be donated to someone who has none. Skeptics might want to have a look at Ingela Fehrman-Ekholm, et al, "No Evidence of Accelerated Loss of Kidney Function in Living Kidney Donors: Results from a Cross-Sectional Follow-Up," Transplantation, vol. 72, no. 3 (August, 2001) 444-449.
-
Well Mitch I think you are finally telling the truth. This is no humanitarian effort to save, prolong or ,make people's life's better in any way shape or form. You did not like the terms "black market" or "broker" when the were used to refer to you or your business. Well in fact that is exactly what you are.
Ding ... Ding ... Ding ... Ding ... Ding ... Ding!!!!
I was wondering when others were going to catch on. I was beginning to think I was the only one who spotted that.
-
I for one hope the Americans and the Canooks never wake up and legalize paid donors. You guys will continue running in circles never looking for new possibilities to get the cure (transplant) IMO.
As for brains in the forum,
I see about three. Stauffenberg,Epoman and Geoffcamp,maybe some others. As for the also ran, which includes me, Angie and Mallory, we need to eat more fish and read more carefully after drinking some coffee. Sandman, forget the fish,just relax and don't worry about anything. Sluff, darn if you don't look like Elvis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Epoman, The Surgeons,Transplanting hospitals and the Marketing group(me) do NOT pay, hire, nor contract with each other. We work together but may change partners like at a square dance. When it comes to money, they(Surgeons) would and did push me out of the way to get at the money. They thank me for the refferal but never ask, " Did anybody give you a commission ". The Patient often thinks I work for the Hospital like coordinators do in the US.
So, for me to assure getting a commission as well as being able to deliver the transplant surgery at a price I set,
I need to collect the down payment before I say where we are going. I believe this is the usual way with foreign live transplant. Jim Cohan does it like that too. I found out why Pakistani and Indian patients contact me instead of transplanting in their home country. They want good results, thats why.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geoffcamp, You must have read the news reports from Organ Watch, etc which criticizes us but they have never reported any poor results in the Philippines,specifically, nor any patient ever being cheated ,even though they pay prior to meeting the doctor.
The patient pays the remaining balance(30,000) after he meets the Surgeon in the Transplant Hospital. Here is the next supprise. Nobody in the Philippines will accept American checks (takes 45 days to clear+ they take 10% excise tax) Do you like traveling with cash. Those 500 Euro bill (worth $600) make for a thinner bulge than USD.
So ,the balance needs to be paid in cash or though us again. The exception is the labs, Pharmacy and hospital will accept most credit cards but ask for an additional 5 %.
There is a paper trail. The 40,000. down payment is wired to a bank in the USA. The Brits can wire to a French Bank.
We do not bank in the Philippines , we use safer banks.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Sandman, do you think that collecting knee jerk reaction is being brain washed or "not the only one catching on " ?
-
Geoffcamp, I am not "one that acts as an agent for others". I simply check the records and bring the patient
to one of many transplant Surgeon. I am not his agent therefore from your definition I do not fit the description of a broker. Not black market cause it's legal. Also I am not the one arranging the donor.
We have tried to use US/Canadian lawyers who usually run scared.
We are willing to use a Two Lawyer Approach. One American - One Philippino. If you can find a US lawyer to represent you . See how fast he throws you out of his office, as soon as you say " Sir can you be my lawyer so I can get a Philippine Transplant by contract, with him holding the money in his escrow account, until the Philippine lawyer checks out the transplant hospital ." :thumbup;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rerun, Yes its legal but I am not foolish enough to work for free but we can use a Two Lawyer approach. :thumbup;
------------------------------------------------------------
Mallory, what are you talking about. What practice is deplorable.? Letting them get 3years of salary for a donation of bean ------- :banghead;
-----------------------------
Zach, You spotted something ? Hang in there and spot more stuff for fluff. :clap;
-----------------------------------------
Angie, Why do you keep posting this lie :thumbdown; "Why are you trying to sell organs to people in countries where it IS ILLEGAL??" Does our web site speak of arranging transplants or selling organs ? Read again www.liver4you.org
and then post your apology to the forum members for trying to mislead them. :2thumbsup;
"Why not stick to countries where it IS legal instead of harrassing us?" I Am talking about a legal Transplant Surgery to people who say they hate dialysis. How is that harassment ?
I live here and Stauffenberg had a short visit with nice people helping him. Sounds fishy to you,then eat more fish.
-
I am not sure what great discovery Zach, Geoff, and Sandman believe they have made when they keep pointing out that Mitch's program is not a charity but is a profit-making enterprise. Every single private medical service in the world, from the United States to the Philippines, is simultaneously a profit-making operation for the physican offering it and a humanitarian benefit for the patient receiving it. There is absolutey no logical consistency in a service being both at the same time. Mitch never claimed to be operating a charity, and although he once tried to get a transplant for a patient for free, this turned out not to be possible because the Philippine doctors and hospitals would not also donate their services. And just because a service is offered as a profit-making enterprise, there is no logical reason why it cannot also be honest, efficient, and genuine.
-
Using Lawyers adds trust and security but takes longer for Transplant Surgery . Speak about a paper trail.
I think that we can have a Two Lawyer solution to make it happen.
An international network of 4500 lawyers should work out for us.
http://www.iln.com/Members_Search_Res_Country.asp?c=USA&s=
You hold your own money. The American lawyer, who you pick from the
list does not get to hold your money. Neither does my lawyer.
You hold it.
The steps that we take :
1) You sends us medical records to 1-888-716-4953 or as e-mail
attachments
2) We review the reports and bring the reports to the transplant
team.
3) The Transplant team Nephrologist, gives an appointment date on
paper . He also is in charge of the dialysis. The Surgeon will
be seeing you as the Nephrologist completes his medical exams.
4) My lawyer in the Philippines who belongs to the same
International Lawyer Network she contacts the Hospital and Doctors
to confirm the the Transplant team has given an
appointment date in the transplant hospital for you. This lawyer
checks on the Hospital and the Doctors as well as confirming the
Transplant team appointment, but keeps confidential the doctor/hospital contact
details.
5) You pick an American lawyer, who is part of the same
International Network of Lawyers.His task should be to advice you
on the honesty and trustfulness from the work of the Philippine
lawyer from the same network of lawyers. As well as any other
independant checking that you want him to do.
This International Lawyer Network has a Board of Directors, in New York who the
you and your lawyer can also contact.
6) You wire us $45,000, down payment only if you are satisfied with
your network Lawyer's opinion as well the confirmation of
your appointment with the Transplant team.
7) Then you all fly to Manila and you would be responsible to
bring or send the remaining balance. We make all the arrangements
needed in the Philippines.
(WE HAVE NOT YET USED ILN SO DON"T CALL EXPECTING KNOWLEDGE ABOUT US OR TRANSPLANTS) :thx;
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The ILN
Headquartered in New York, the ILN is an association of high-quality
, full-service law firms with more than 4,500 lawyers world-wide.
The Network provides clients with easily accessible legal services
in 61 countries on six continents.
Executive Offices:
45 Rockefeller Plaza, Suite 2000
New York, NY 10111
Tel: 212.332.2488
Fax: 201.594.9431
Learn about becoming a member of the ILN.
If you have any questions regarding the ILN, please contact:
Lowell Lifschultz
Chairman
Telephone: 212.351.4725
Fax: 212.661.0989
E-Mail: llifschultz@ebglaw.com
Alan Griffiths
Executive Director
Telephone: 201.594.9985
Fax: 201.594.9431
E-Mail: alangriffiths@iln.com
Lindsay Griffiths
Director of Network Development
Telephone: 201.594.9430
Fax: 201.594.9431
E-Mail: lindsaygriffiths@iln.com
Paramjit Mahli
Media Contact
Telephone: 212.661.9137
Fax: 212.661.3704
E-Mail: pmahli@suncommunicationsgroup.com
----------------------------------------------------------
ILN MEMBER(S) FOR USA ( COMPLETE LIST AT THEIR WEB)
Arizona, Phoenix Ryley Carlock & Applewhite, A Professional Association
One North Central Avenue, Suite 1200
Phoenix, Arizona, 85004-4417, USA
Telephone: (602) 258-7701
Facsimile: (602) 257-9582 James E. Brophy, (602) 440-4807
Christopher A. Coury, (602) 440-4847
Rodolfo Parga, Jr., (602) 440-4848
Brian M Nazarenus, 303 813 6702
Arizona, Scottsdale Merton E. Marks, PC - Commercial Arbitrator and Mediator
8655 East Via de Ventura, Suite G-200
-
Angie, Why do you keep posting this lie :thumbdown; "Why are you trying to sell organs to people in countries where it IS ILLEGAL??" Does our web site speak of arranging transplants or selling organs ? Read again www.liver4you.org
and then post your apology to the forum members for trying to mislead them. :2thumbsup;
"Why not stick to countries where it IS legal instead of harrassing us?" I Am talking about a legal Transplant Surgery to people who say they hate dialysis. How is that harassment ?
I live here and Stauffenberg had a short visit with nice people helping him. Sounds fishy to you,then eat more fish.
I didn't check the site out myself due to mistrust but Sandman checked it out out of couriosity. But I am strictly going by what is said in the 3 forums that I know you are allowed to post in. (The most being said here). If we are to accept this with open arms than why are "US/Canadian lawyers....run(ning) scared" ?????? Everyone knows that Lawyers are never afraid of anything if they can make money! Are you saying it is NOT illegal here? What lie am I saying? You are going from site to site trying to convince everyone to buy kidneys in the Philippines as if the kidneys there would be a better match and easier to come by then anyone's own country. Am I right? Or am I wrong? Please correct me if I am wrong because I am just trying to understand this.
I am not sure what great discovery Zach, Geoff, and Sandman believe they have made when they keep pointing out that Mitch's program is not a charity but is a profit-making enterprise. Every single private medical service in the world, from the United States to the Philippines, is simultaneously a profit-making operation for the physican offering it and a humanitarian benefit for the patient receiving it. There is absolutey no logical consistency in a service being both at the same time. Mitch never claimed to be operating a charity, and although he once tried to get a transplant for a patient for free, this turned out not to be possible because the Philippine doctors and hospitals would not also donate their services. And just because a service is offered as a profit-making enterprise, there is no logical reason why it cannot also be honest, efficient, and genuine.
That makes sense.
-
There are two main reasons why it is better to get a live donor transplant in the Philippines rather than waiting for a cadaver organ in your own country. First, a live donor transplant can be performed in the Philippines within about a month of you making arrangements with Mitch, while in a Western country you typically have to wait many years for a cadaver kidney, during which time you run a higher than normal risk of death, your health declines, and you may become so ill that you will find yourself dropped from the transplant list as medically ineligible. Second, if you wait for a cadaver organ to show up in your home country, the survival of the organ will be compromised by the fact that it comes from a cadaver, that the typical cadaver from which it has come will be an older person and so have less efficient renal function, and that the organ may well not be very closely matched to you, since the waiting lists are so long that transplant centers are now using organs with two, one, or even zero HLA matches, just to clear people off the waiting list. Sometimes even medically substandard, moderately unhealthy organs are now being used because the waiting times are getting so long and the number of patients is growing so much faster than the supply of organs.
But in the Philippines, your transplant surgeon can pick just the right match for you from among a large number of live donors who have already volunteered. This allows him to get you a kidney which is 1) healthier because it comes from a live donor; 2) a better match for you, often a 3-point match with the DR group; 3) from a donor who has had to pass a high standard of overall health and excellent renal function -- rather than just any old cadaver that happened to land in the hospital with a donor card in its pocket and no relatives to object to the donation.
-
a better match for you, often a 3-point match with the DR group; 3) from a donor who has had to pass a high standard of overall health and excellent renal function -- rather than just any old cadaver that happened to land in the hospital with a donor card in its pocket and no relatives to object to the donation.
You make it sound like the don't test cadaver kidneys but they DO!
-
But in the Philippines, your transplant surgeon can pick just the right match for you from among a large number of live donors who have already volunteered.
Are these young live donors volunteers or are they paid. This story keeps on changing, as do the facts.
-
Re: Sluff looking like Elvis - - does Mitch not recognize that picture? Couldn't trust anyone who doesn't know who that is! ;D
-
Angie, of course they check for Landsteiner blood groups, Rhesus blood groups, HLA groups, and perform the cross-matching in all Western countries as well as in the Philippines before they perform an organ transplant. But the huge difference is, if you are waiting for a scarce cadaver organ to become available in a Western country, you have to wait a long time before the right one becomes available. As transplant coordinators become more and more concerned about the fact that the number of people on the transplant waiting list is growing much faster than the number of organs available for donation, the pressure on them is very great to try to get people off the transplant list by offering them less than perfect matches. In the United States it is current United Organ Sharing Network policy to allow surgeons the discretion to transplant cadaver organs with 2, 1, or absolutely no matching HLA groups, which makes for a very much shorter life expectancy for the organ. Some centers are even using organs which are medically of marginal suitability, such as from people older than the normal cut-off age, people with a history of hypertension, diabetes, or with non-metastisizing cancers which can be excised from the kidney before transplantation. But you avoid all of this in the Philippines, where the supply of organs vastly exceeds the demand, so your surgeon can pick the very best one for you.
Zach, since our whole conversation over the last six webpages has been about the ethics of paid organ donation, I assumed we all understand that the live donors in the Philippines are paid for their donation. The usage has developed in the medical literature of calling such people 'paid donors,' although technically they are not really 'donating,' since they get paid. Etymologically this usage may well be justified, since the Latin 'donare,' from which our 'donate' arises, can mean either to 'give' in the sense of 'hand over' something, or to 'give' in the sense of 'make a gift of something.'
-
Re: Sluff looking like Elvis - - does Mitch not recognize that picture? Couldn't trust anyone who doesn't know who that is! ;D
Shit I've been made. And you all thought I died. ;)
-
Re: Sluff looking like Elvis - - does Mitch not recognize that picture? Couldn't trust anyone who doesn't know who that is! ;D
Shit I've been made. And you all thought I died. ;)
LOOK EVERYONE! ELVIS LIVES !!! ;D :clap;
Sorry, just saw a opportunity to lighten the tensions here. :P
-
But you avoid all of this in the Philippines, where the supply of organs vastly exceeds the demand, so your surgeon can pick the very best one for you.
What about all those people who live there who are dying on dialysis while they WAIT for a kidney there?? Or do you mean the supply exceeds the demand of people who can afford to buy?
-
They can not afford dialysis not do they get government health insurance. Dialysis here costs about $50, more if you don't want to reuse. Some people do get dialysis once in two weeks. There is real dire poverty in most of the world with zero safety net. Here young ladies do die in childbirth at home. This is not Canada or the US.
The US,Canada and Western Europe have decent health insurance,housing and food programs as well as disability checks for the disabled or the poor. One of my Nephrologist friends volunteers at a special dialysis program in Manila using good equipment donated by the Swedes. Access is free by you need to apply to be considered. Then if you are picked you get one dialysis treatment in a month.
Half the people live in shacks or sleep on the streets. Children run to beg money from me. To get them to leave me alone, I cover one nostril with my finger, lean over the beggers hand and pretend to shoot snot soup. The shacks have no plumbing and people live very close together. They pirate electric and cable really cheap.
Many working people get $2/day for a family of 10. Even a Nephrologist would only make 5000/year.
So to recap, ESRD as well as AIDS are a death sentence here. The local Manila gov. does provide TB medications for free. They have real poverty with little hope so they say 50 cents to buy a lottery ticket.
Anybody want a slum photo ?
-
Zach, since our whole conversation over the last six webpages has been about the ethics of paid organ donation, I assumed we all understand that the live donors in the Philippines are paid for their donation. The usage has developed in the medical literature of calling such people 'paid donors,' although technically they are not really 'donating,' since they get paid. Etymologically this usage may well be justified, since the Latin 'donare,' from which our 'donate' arises, can mean either to 'give' in the sense of 'hand over' something, or to 'give' in the sense of 'make a gift of something.'
This is a perfect example of your twisting what we say to fit your own script. I quoted Mitch describing them as volunteers. All you had to do was read what I said, not invent what I said.
You can give us your perfunctory Latin lessons all you want. I'm just pointing out (with sarcasm) the inconsistencies of Mitch's sales pitch.
-
Where there cannot possibly be any confusion, there can also logically be no deception. After seven web pages of discussing the morlaity of people selling a kidney to get themselves out of dire poverty and people buying that organ to get themselves out of even more desperate medical need, if someone says that "he volunteered to sell his kidney" or "he agreed to donate his kidney for $7000," no one in his right mind is going to be confused or misled by these arguably inapt verbal formulations into thinking that we are now talking about altruistic donations. This type of captious argumentation only distracts us from the real issues under debate.
While there is a surplus of organs available for transplant in the Philippines, local people on dialysis still die for lack of an available kidney for transplant because they cannot afford to pay for a kidney transplant operation or for the donor. This is not the fault of Mitch or of any foreigners buying up the supply of organs for transplant, since the total number of foreign transplants is small compared to the number of Filipinos who can afford to buy an organ and who do so. In such a poor country as the Philippines, the supply of people in a population of seventy million eager to sell an organ to escape poverty is enough to provide the whole world of dialysis patients with a kidney and there would still be some left over.
The scene in Philippine dialysis centers is sad, since most patients can only afford to pay for one dialysis session a week, so they don't live very long or look very healthy. At the center where I was dialyzed in the Philippines, the patients refused to believe I was on dialysis, since I looked so healthy compared to them. The problem is that even though medical care is inexpensive in the Philippines, it is not cheap enough for the tiny income most Filipinos earn, and medical insurance is almost unheard of, as few people can pay for more than their bare survival from one day to the next, never mind a 'luxury' like protection against medical problems which have not yet materialized. Also, because President Marcos found enough wealth in the Philippines to ship five billion dollars to his private bank account in Switzerland, and because the profits of the country's great natural resources all go directly into the pockets of the rich Western shareholders whose companies own those resources, there is no money available to establish a national healthcare system to provide free service to the local population. This is the real exploitation, not the purchasing of kidneys from the local population, in which the money goes directly to the people themselves and pulls them out of a poverty that no one else -- not their government, not the capitalists, and not any rich foreign countries -- are interested in rescuing them from.
-
I think I would have more respect for Mitch if he was the type of guy going around asking for money to help establish some help for the poor on dialysis in the Philippines instead of trying to get us to buy a kidney from the poor who still have kidneys. Especially since there is no guarentee that down the road the donors wouldn't be one of the poor on dialysis themselves.
-
And I would have more respect for all the doctors in the world if they, like Dr. Albert Schweizer, donated their services all the time to the poor. But even though very few of them do, that does not make them criminals, untrustworthy, or too suspicious to deal with.
I referred one poster earlier to the medical journal article by Ingela Fehrman-Ekhold, "No Evidence of Accelerated Loss of Kidney Function in Living Kidney Donors," Transplantation, vol. 72, no. 3 (August 16, 2001) 444-449, which convincingly shows that there is no greater likelihood that someone who donates a kidney will later suffer kidney failure himself. So there is no sense in worrying about that issue.
In fact, generally, living kidney donors are remarkably healthy. Consider the following analysis by Ronald Munson in "Raising the Dead: Organ Transplants, Ethics, and Society," Oxford University Press, 2002, pp. 120-121: "The operative mortality of kidney donors is three deaths per 10,000 cases. ... University of Minnesota researchers found serious complications in only 2.8 % of the thousand cases they examined. They found no deaths. .... University of Alabama researchers were "unable to demonstrate any adverse long-term effects" of kidney donation. ... all available information suggests that the average life-span of donors remains unchanged. Insurance companies don't even charge donors higher rates for health and life insurance." Munson is a supporter of payment for live donor organ transplants and, far from being some 'shady character' or 'organ broker' or 'self-interested transplant tourist,' he is Professor of Philosophy of Science and Medicine at the University of Missouri-St. Louis! So the idea of payment to a donor of a kidney cannot be as outlandish, morally outrageous, or unthinkable as many of the members of this message board seem to believe it is universally accepted to be.
-
Children run to beg money from me. To get them to leave me alone, I cover one nostril with my finger, lean over the beggers hand and pretend to shoot snot soup.
You're a real class-act, asshole.
-
So why do you not help the Philipinnos who need dialysis by investing in dialysis clinics int he country instead of exploiting them?
-
And I would have more respect for all the doctors in the world if they, like Dr. Albert Schweizer, donated their services all the time to the poor. But even though very few of them do, that does not make them criminals, untrustworthy, or too suspicious to deal with.
I referred one poster earlier to the medical journal article by Ingela Fehrman-Ekhold, "No Evidence of Accelerated Loss of Kidney Function in Living Kidney Donors," Transplantation, vol. 72, no. 3 (August 16, 2001) 444-449, which convincingly shows that there is no greater likelihood that someone who donates a kidney will later suffer kidney failure himself. So there is no sense in worrying about that issue.
Then why do the nurses of D&T City seem to think there are reasons to worry? I have heard first hand from medical staff that there are reasons to keep your "extra" kidney. Liver is different than kidney.
-
Sara, All my Philippine friends caution me not to give money to child beggars, since not only does it teach them bad social-work values, the foreigner seen being nice to the street children here in the Philippines, will be set up,and accused of Pedophilia. So its imperative to get them away from me without touching them. That's an other fact of life here. Sara, when are your Philippine relatives coming for a visit?
Walang pera , deba ?------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Angie- I have never charged a Philippine( not counting American-Filipinos) for helping connect him with the best or most economical Surgeon with a good facility as well as the inside information, which I don't share with you guys.
_____________________________________________________________________________
KitKatz- International Dialysis company called Asia Renal Care in the Philippines have opened well equipped ( German Equipment) have opened branches all over the country in the Philippines staffed by Nephrologists 6-7 days a week and lots of RNs, No techs. Still I never had trouble getting a patient an appointment. They always have unfilled chairs because $50 is not available to most ESRD . The American aid does not even trickle down. Some 7th Day adventists come but their help is very limited. The police are very corrupt and poorly paid ( two $ a day) so any foreigner trying to set up a public aid organization would get ripped off at every step of the way even by the people you are trying to help.I hear this from the local people.
Many of the older generation admit that they were less poor and better off when America controlled the Philippines as a possession.
So much for Independence. :2thumbsup;
-
Sara, All my Philippine friends caution me not to give money to child beggars, since not only does it teach them bad social-work values, the foreigner seen being nice to the street children here in the Philippines, will be set up,and accused of Pedophilia. So its imperative to get them away from me without touching them. That's an other fact of life here. Sara, when are your Philippine relatives coming for a visit?
Walang pera , deba ?------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We can not afford to pay for airfare plus visas/passports for them to come here. We do support them as much as we can. And I don't speak Tagalog or whatever dialect that is, sorry.
-
I would refer Angie to the medical journals and to the book by Munson which I quoted, which agree that there is no signficant health risk to the person who sells his spare kidney. The medical journal articles and studies quoted by Munson are written by professors of medicine and, before they can be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, have to satisfy a board of experts that they are scientifically accurate. Information from such sources is more reliable than what some nurse at D & T City thinks she may have heard once upon a time about the importance of having two kidneys. Generally, the bilaterally symmetric organs of the body (the two hemispheres of the brain, the two eyes, the two lungs, the two testes/ovaries, and the two kidneys) are provided in pairs so that in earlier phases of evolution, when accidents, fights, and animal bites were a serious problem for human survival, the person could continue living and functioning with just one member of each of the paired organs. So you can still think with a one-hemisphered brain, you can stil see with just one eye, you can still breathe with just one lung, you can still reproduce with just one testicle or ovary, and you can still survive quite well with just one kidney. You have two of these things for insurance, not for necessity.l
-
While there is a surplus of organs available for transplant in the Philippines, local people on dialysis still die for lack of an available kidney for transplant because they cannot afford to pay for a kidney transplant operation or for the donor.
Just a comment and it probably has nothing to do with this but......there seems to be a surplus of dialysis nurses where I go that are Phillipino. In fact I'd say about 80% of them are. Most of them (the ones I talk to) have children and families over there and they left them in order to work here in the US. Anyone else notice this at their center?
Donna
-
Sara, the kids laugh and run off when I pretend to do the noes thing. The next time they see me, they smile ,wave but do not stop to beg . That Tagalog expression walang (no ) pera(money) ,deba ( right !) You answerred. well.
Most of my friends here are Philippine and they are from the ghetto ( Barangay ) are surprised to see I have windows, running water and junk I hardly use..-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Meadowlans- How do you compare the Philippine Nurses to the American Nurses, in every way ?
-
Donna. Yes, I have been saying this to my neighbors lately. Why all the Filipino techs and nurses in the United States? Are they paid that much less that other races think the pay stinks? My Filipino neighbor said that Filipino people are hard workers and will work very hard and run and run all day and lazy American's won't. I couldn't argue.
Correct spelling: Filipino people live in the Philippines. Why the F vs the PH?? Don't know, but that is correct.
-
Educated Philippine people try to get a job abroad for a better future. Nursing is the field where English speakers could get a high paid job in America or Canada , after passing that countries nursing exams. About 10 % of the Philippine Doctors are going back to school to get a Nursing Degree. The reasons :
All Philippine Doctors speak fluent English as their second language, since 100 % of medical school , most of university and even three subjects in middle school (math , science and English) are taught in English, unlike Western (continental) Europe. There is a very hard 3 day American medical exam that needs to be passed to work in the US. I would estimate that only 10 % can pass it. The average Doctor's salary in the Philippines is $ 5000. /yr.
Most of those doctors could pass the American Nursing exam and walk into a $ 40,000 to 50,000 Nursing job as an RN. Even Ophthalmologists in the Philippines are throwing in the towel, to go back to school to become a nurse. They say, that there is starting to be a shortage here, of those Ophthalmologists, especially outside of Manila.
But Nursing school tuition becomes more expensive than Engineer University tuition. It's their supply and demand as well as a more valuable future career.
-
Mitch has gotten that story exactly right. A number of nurses, even a couple of techs I have met over the years, were doctors in their home country. Not only from the Philippines, but from Poland as well.
-
Here's an article quoting prices for a legitimate kidney transplant in the Philippines as $25,000 (US):
http://www.pcij.org/i-report/2006/medical-tourism.html
The article has links to the Philippine Medical Tourism program:
http://philippinemedicaltourism.info/
If I didn't believe this was exploitation, why would I go through Mitch when I could get the transplant through the PMT program for about a third of the cost? PMT is very willing to share information, they have all of their contact information on their site. PMT is a public-private initiative created through an executive order from President Arroyo. Again, why would I go through Mitch when I can go through PMT?
-
Good catch Mallory!!! That is exactly what we all wanted to really see on this thread! I can't believe how cheap it really is. Thx for finding these links! I can't wait to see the responses from mitch and stauffenberg!!
-
The Philippine people are generally among the nicest in the world. My wife, who accompanied me on my inspection tour of the transplant system there, commented that it was the only place in the world where you never see people arguing in public. However, the one limit to their niceness, which is understandable in a country with such desperate poverty, is that they cannot afford to play fair when it comes to money. Going around in the Philippines and looking like someone from the Western world is like wearing a giant sign proclaiming, "Cheat me! I'm a foreign millionaire!" which is how the local people see you. Every price you hear quoted, every deal you think is settled, will be changed at the last minute to your disadvantage, and the Philippine court system is in such a shambles that it takes decades to follow a case to its conclusion.
The result is that if you want to get a kidney in the Philippines, you need the assistance of a facilitator with a lot of local connections who knows how to play the system against itself. That is the only way you can defend yourself against the local medical system, which will take every penny you have and then some if you don't have an experienced and powerful person on your side to keep them in line. I learned this lesson the hard way when, in informal conversation with some Philippine surgeons, my wife mentioned something that let them know how much money we had available. The price we had been discussing with them more than tripled in less than five minutes, being excused by all sorts of imaginary additional costs of which there had been no mention before. Mitch is worth the price because he is your only lifeguard against these sharks and he guarantees what you can't when dealing with the local system, which is that for the set price agreed upon with him, you get your transplant. A Philippine system offering transplants for less is just bait to get naive people who are in desperate need and in a vulnerable position -- because they have to rely on the nephrologists offering the transplant also to provide them with dialysis while they are in the Philippines -- to put their neck into the noose of a system that will squeeze many, many times more money out of them than they anticipate.
-
Oh please stauffenberg!!!!! Do you think we are morons?? I have negotiated business deals larger then amount we have been talking about here! And if on the web site article it quotes $25K for the operation the just try and talk me in tripling it!!! No freaking way that would happen! I am just as smart as you or Mitch and am fully capable of using my skills and contacting the multiple hospitals they list to find the best deal. Not only that but I will now have more money to negotiate with without paying Mitch or someone like him. I think everyone on this forum is fully capable and knows enough about transplantion and would do all the research they could do if they decided this is what they wanted to do. We are all very experienced in the way of medical cost and patient research. Your reply holds no water at all! Simply put we no longer need either of you! But good try. Good night Irene the party's over thanks! Way to go Mallory, I applaud you and your research.
-
Meadowlans- How do you compare the Philippine Nurses to the American Nurses, in every way ?
Very efficient! I have to say they're very good and know what they're doing. They speak perfect English. In terms of caring and compassion they're excellent. I can't think of one right now who I ever had a problem with. Another thing is that most of them take on Americanized names. I had two nurses named Misty and Honey. They're very clean and hygenic in my dialysis center always washing their hands and using universal precautions.
-
Mallory thanks for the links to the articles. :2thumbsup;
I have a quote from the article:
"Proponents of the medical-tourism program say it could only revitalize the country's weak healthcare system, in large part through outright financial infusions."
Where is the money going? Back into the system to give the people healthcare?
-
Geoff should realize that most business deals he is probably familiar with are negotiated against the background of a society governed by the rule of law, where there is an independent, objective, efficient, functioning judicial system, and honest police force, and a general belief in the validity of contractual agreements. In the Philippines there is none of this. As soon as you get off the plane in Manila you suddenly find yourself in a chaotic, bustling, hectic metropolis where you are immediately noticeable to everyone as one of the few 'rich' people in a country where the vast majority of people are desperately poor. It is a cross between Dodge City of the Old Wild West and the world of Franz Kafka, where nothing is as it seems.
The closest thing you have in the Philippines to a substitute for the background stability of the rule of law which makes deal-making in the West possible is a service such as Mitch provides. Unless you have lived half your life in the Philippines as Mitch has, unless you know the local dialects as he does, unless you understand the unique cultural usages which inform every step in Philippine bargain-making, unless you have extensive contacts throughout the medical system so you know from long experience who is a friend and who is not, which people you can trust and whice you can't, then you are going to be completely lost. I know from my own experience in having explored the world of Philippine transplants for a month. But don't take my word for it -- why not go there on your own, as I did, and see how far it gets you.
-
Geoffcamp, You remember that our web site said that prices are subject to change ?
My boss informed me that the full price is really $85,000. I believe the range given was 35,000 to 85,000. on the web. I am not going to list the web URL but you can ask if interested.
By the way a cadaver transplant with a FREE donor kidney is only 35,000. I did like that photo with the Philippine
water scene. The lady Zoe came for Orthopedic Surgery ,not a transplant. Did you ask yourself , why that news report didn't show a person coming for a transplant ? or even a tummy tuck ?.
Geoff we do realize how smart you are and you summed up nicely, what you would say if given the real information without a major down payment first. "We don't need you any more " .
Now I want all you people with telephones to help Geoff find his cheaper transplant, so he doesn't have to eat crow. Don't forget to ask about the donors well being into the future, and morality questions.
Geoff, when you wake up in AM, make ten or more calls and post something about it by the end of the day.
If somebody in the Philippines says, "for a while sir" and the line goes dead, it means they hung up on you.
I give the rest of you all longer to tell us , if you have any news about the transplant. Me , I'll go to Makati for lunch and catch up on people watching.
That news article puts medical services in good light, happy hunting.
-
Meadowlands, You wrote "Where is the money going? Back into the system to give the people healthcare? "
No unfortunately, this web is advertising Cosmetic Surgery but uses other news to say it's sponsored by the Government. Read those links and see if it's specific or politicians blowing off air about something general..
The private Orthopedic Surgery in an expensive Episcopal Hospital can not possibly be a government initiative.
The money went to the Surgeon and the Hospital, and little if any taxes are paid.
-
Going around in the Philippines and looking like someone from the Western world is like wearing a giant sign proclaiming, "Cheat me! I'm a foreign millionaire!" which is how the local people see you. Every price you hear quoted, every deal you think is settled, will be changed at the last minute to your disadvantage, and the Philippine court system is in such a shambles that it takes decades to follow a case to its conclusion.
The result is that if you want to get a kidney in the Philippines, you need the assistance of a facilitator with a lot of local connections who knows how to play the system against itself. That is the only way you can defend yourself against the local medical system, which will take every penny you have and then some if you don't have an experienced and powerful person on your side to keep them in line.
So it is either the locals who will rip us off or Mitch who will protect us?
All we have to do is pay Mitch upfront. "and the Philippine court system is in such a shambles that it takes decades to follow a case to its conclusion."
-
I agree with Geoff on this one. I am employed by an international company, and I negotiate business deals much larger than this every day for a living. The price quoted for a kidney transplant in the article is $25K, that gives me a lot of room for negotiation between that price and the $85K Mitch is now quoting.
Should I run into trouble, I would hate to think that I was dependent on Mitch blowing his nose on someone to get me through a difficult situation.
I think I'll take my chances on my own. In the unlikely event that I ever end up in the Philippines for a transplant, I'll do my own research and probably go with the PMT program.
However, Mitch and Stauffenberg, you have shown me one thing; it's not the entire idea of a Philippine kidney transplant that I find exploitative and deplorable, it's you. It appears you are willing to exploit both the Filipino donors and the kidney recipients.
Now that's deplorable.
-
Do you want to know what the 'real price' is for a kidney transplant in the Philippines? Anything the Philippine surgeons think they can get out of you. The first price you either hear in person or read on a website is not anywhere near the last price they will demand. On your own you have no control over how many times or when they increase the price, and believe me, they will, at your most vulnerable moment, such as when they decide that the dialysis center is too crowded for you to have your appointment today or just after you get your epidural and are en route to surgery. The decisive advantage of dealing with Mitch is that you pay one price determined in advance and then you get your transplant -- no further negotiating, no surprises, no lengthy haggling in a foreign culture where you have no savvy and even less power in the face of surgeons who are holding all the cards while your life depends on their approving your next dialysis treatment. Mitch acts as your agent to make sure all the otherwise uncontrollable surgeon-sharks stay in line, or otherwise they know he will never refer any more clients to them. What kind of leverage do you have to get them to stay in line, keep their promises, and adhere to their bargains? Nothing. So you can't say Mitch is overcharging, because a) there is no 'real price' for a transplant in the Philippines against which to compare what Mitch charges, since it varies depending on what the locals think they can shake out of you; and b) Mitch clears out of your way many months of unpleasant haggling which will very likely prove fruitless in the end, and instead guarantees you the result you want to buy, so his service is well worth it.
So much for the theory that Mitch is exploiting the patients. As to the charge that he is exploiting the donors, I have already extensively discussed the reasons why it is not exploitation of poor people to offer them the money they need to get out of poverty. Are they better off if you deny them the right to sell a kidney and so close the door forever on the poverty trap they are in? Is it respectful of their autonomous right to choose what solutions to their life's problems which they find preferable, given the desperation of their poverty, if you say, from your position of relative comfort in the prosperous West, no, I don't find it ethical, so I insist that you continue to live with your poverty? Who is exploiting whom, when a renal patient in a desperate situation, gradually getting sicker and sicker, quickly approaching premature death on dialysis, makes a bargain with a Filipino in a desperate situation, gradually dying from the hunger and disease which poverty will inevitably bring to him, so that each of them can get out of his own desperate trap? Why isn't the Filipino exploiting the dialysis patient by not giving him a transplant for free, rather than shaking him down for $7000 the dialysis patient may not be able to afford?
-
just a note-I lived in the Philippines for five years. While far from rich-it being a third world country we WERE compared to most of them. if you go to the downtown market you pay someone(they cluster around you) to watch your car(or you won't have one) carry your basket and sometimes a guide. then when all the postions are filled the others look for the next mark.It is tragic but its also just a way of life there-I was treated wonderfully always by the Filipinos.and i loved living there-but to go there on your own without hiring a guide would be foolish-I'm sure there are others besides Mitch who would guide you for less-but it is risky regardless and naive to think your good intentions mean anything to them.
-
Do you trust American Lawyers ? We have already suggested to Geoff, the details on this thread using two lawyers and a contract .
One lawyer is American who you pick (and pay)from any US city you like. We pick one over here.
Our payment if you agree in the end is to a bank in the US, with an American address.
If any of you have ever been here, you know they don't take American checks.
Do you want to be guided by a Philippine guy on the corner or a professional group that is wise enough to Bank in the USA.?
-
MEDICAL TOURISM NEVER DOES TRANSPLANTS. The newspaper said the Philippine President favors Medical tourism but she doesn't want foreigners coming for live transplants otherwise American aid would be cut.
I will look for the article where she concurred with the US Dept of State against Transplants.
Further the Tourism group didn't list transplants as a service provided. The mention of a Transplant for $ 25,000. is with student Doctors in training at a Government Hospital for a cadaver donor, which is one Surgery, not two as in a Live donor. Even that price doubled as in two people having Surgery , plus the American trained Surgeons fee, not included above, plus the live donor, brings the price to triple.
If I am proved wrong after you contact Mallory's post, please tell me.
-
Mitch, I am not willing to do any legwork on this for a couple of reasons. 1. I do not want to jeopardize my current bid for an American transplant (getting my medical records and such would be a red flag!) 2. I simply do not have the time or energy to do the work involved as I am working more then full-time and doing dialysis. 3. I am not currently in a life or death situation. Dialysis is working fine for me and has for 6 years now. Now if I was n a life or death situation I do believe I would seriously consider trying this route. I can definitely understand why people needing liver transplants would find this a viable option as there is no treatment and they will die if a liver cannot be procured. As for using you or someone like you I think I would at least give it a shot on my own. Hire an interpretor and do most of my negotiation from the states and have everything all ready for when I arrived. I am suspicious of the offers on the those sites as well as yours, I have found the being suspicious is a healthy approach to anything that is this complicated and looks too good to be true. It is just the way I am. I am sorry i really would like to make some calls and find out more but I do not want to jeopardize what is going on in my bid for transplant now. I am intrigued by this method and maybe someday it will become a more "above the board" effort. Let's hope that continued work on new options such as this will pave the way for more transplant options to those of us who want/need them. Maybe insurance companies will push these options to save money for their greedy bottom lines and the US government will look to these programs to more effectively come up with living donors in the states in the future (thru compensation of some sort to willing living donors). Options are never a bad thing however i would feel a lot more comfortable if there was a legal way of doing this. Also a way that would guarantee that your medicare and private insurance will cover the costs of post transplantation when you arrived back in the states after transplantation. Just my opinion.. there are pluses and minuses and it is a start to open the eyes of the "majority" to find new ways of making living donor transplantation more prevalent and find a win win situation between commerce and heath care. I am sure we all want options and no one wants to die waiting for an organ we all have a lot to live for! But right now we simply are not in a place where this seems to be a good alternative to someone like me. I hope you decide to find a way to make the "system" as a whole better and give hope to the people who desperately need organs because the alternative is scary! Hopefully there can be a change for the better and all can benefit from some kind of hybrid programs that should be looked into and developed. That is my wish.. a better way!
Geoff
-
Believe me, absolutely the last thing on earth the plantation masters of the U.S. dialysis system are ever going to suspect is that one of their 'slaves' is going to escape their control by buying an organ from a live donor abroad! There are a thousand stories you can tell them so that there is no 'red flag' problem, such as, for example, just saying that you are going to be away for a while and the general practitioner you are going to speak to there wants you to bring your medical records with you. It is also possible to go to the Philippines with no medical records at all, since the hospitals there do all their own diagnostic work and tissue-typing just to double-check in any case.
Staying on dialysis is never harmless, since it some damage is always accumulating given the fact that dialysis only compensates for 10% normal renal function (G. M. Danovitch, "Handbook of Kidney Transplantation (2001), p. 1). These may remain sub-clinical for several years, but by the time the harm from continuing dialysis appears, it is often too late to correct it. Thus in my case, I had absolutely no clinically evident complications of dialysis for seven years, but then, suddenly, several appeared all at once, such as weakening of the heart muscle, deformation of the bones in my foot from dialysis neuropathy, and a general hormonal imbalance because of toxic effects on the pituitary gland. I will now always walk with a slight limp because I did not get out of the dialysis trap quickly enough, but I was lucky not to be among the many who suffered amputation, heart attacks, or cancer from spending too long on the machine.
-
Believe me, absolutely the last thing on earth the plantation masters of the U.S. dialysis system are ever going to suspect is that one of their 'slaves' is going to escape their control by buying an organ from a live donor abroad!
Man, take a deep breath!
We're not slaves.
You really need alprazolam.
-
Stauffenberg why are you trying to sell the organs so badly? I understand that Mitch gets money out of it. What do you get?
I know you are trying to argue your point as you went there to buy a kidney and subsequently have had a kidney transplant. What country did that happen in?
I just see the world a little differently to you. We all do what makes us happy. I feel fortunate enough to be able to have dialysis as many people around the world are not so lucky. If that makes me a slave I will take that title.
-
I think the characterization of the whole dialysis-transplant system in the West as a 'plantation,' and of the patients as 'slaves,' is an apt one. Companies like Fresenius, Baxter, and Kaiser make a fortune out of their truly 'captive' population always having to pump money out of the government into the companies' pockets. Nephrologists, dialysis nurses, and technical support people are also making money off of the perpetual plight of the patients. The dialysis centers themselves are often run mainly for the convenience of the staff, while the patients are forced to endure countless petty rules which, not being objectively necessary, in fact merely serve the psychological point of keeping patients subservient.
The transplant system as well is not run with patients' priorities in mind, but is severely limited by the utter disinterest of the general public, which ultimately determines what government transplant programs are going to be, in rescuing patients. The supply of transplants is also unreasonably limited by a public policy which bends over backwards to invent arbitrary 'ethical' rules which prohibit transplants on one flimsy pretext or another. Many countries refuse to allow altruistic donors to provide an organ because they are so idealistic they are suspect, and at the same time, they refuse to allow paid donors because they are not idealistic enough. Some countries used to ban relatives from donating because they were thought to be under too much pressure from the patient and so could not make a valid decision, while now these same countries ONLY allow relatives to donate because ANY ONE ELSE is assumed to be under too much pressure to make a valid decision. In most countries where the law says that a person can donate his body for transplant, physicians still, in defiance of the law, permit the relatives to override the wishes of the deceased, because they consider the right of relatives to feed the worms in the cemetery to be ethically superior to the right of the deceased to determine how his own body is disposed of and the right of the waiting dialysis patient to get a life-saving organ. The whole system is cruel and idiotic -- just like the treatment of slaves in the plantation system of the American South. Most dialysis nurses I asked confessed they had never even thought of signing an organ donor card -- which gives you an idea of the contempt the plantation masters have for their slaves.
That is why I am so passionate about helping the slaves out of their confinement, like a modern-day Sparticus, especially since I was once trapped in the plantation system myself. If the only quick way out today is the admittedly imperfect one of getting a transplant through facilitators like Mitch in the Phillippines, then I say we have every right to take that route unless and until the Western dialysis and transplant system is radically redesigned to put the patients' needs first.
-
Why the hell do we have to go all the way to the Philippines when there are North American sites like:
matchingdonors (http://matchingdonors.com)
or even FREE places to advertise for donors and dialysis patients in need right at D&T City (http://groups.msn.com/DialysisTransplantCity/donorsearch.msnw)??
Just read this CBSNEWS article (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/16/sunday/main1807188.shtml).
** please note that no one here particularly pushes these sites, but they are ones I have come across in the last year during my research on this topic.**
So tell me, WHY do we have to leave our countries? We don't have to pay someone for a kidney when there are generous people who give from their hearts! (I still worry they are not properly educated on what it means to give a kidney but still we don't have to pay)!!
-
The first problem with Matching Donors is that it may take quite a while for someone to step forward to help your particular case, especially if you are not cute or if you can't tell a heart-warming story about why someone should help you as opposed to some more moprally appealing young person in need. Also, there are many stories about volunteer donors backing out at the last minute, as the whole project suddenly begins to seem uncomfortably real to them.
But the most important reason is that many transplant centers in the U.S., and nearly all transplant centers in Canada, absolutely refuse to consider performing transplants on altruistic, unrelated donors, because they presumptively assume that they must be being paid, and try as you might, you can never convince them otherwise.
-
OKay that that brings up another important point!!
How do you decide who gets a kidney from someone first before another?? Do you know who needs one more?? Someone who gets a kidney real fast won't appreciate their situation as much as someone who waits for a transplant.
Don't get mad at me anyone! I am ONLY speaking from my OWN personal experience!
-
Why the hell do we have to go all the way to the Philippines when there are North American sites like:
matchingdonors (http://matchingdonors.com)
Does anyone here have any experience about matchingdonors?
But the most important reason is that many transplant centers in the U.S., and nearly all transplant centers in Canada, absolutely refuse to consider performing transplants on altruistic, unrelated donors, because they presumptively assume that they must be being paid, and try as you might, you can never convince them otherwise.
Is this really true? At least in my center I was very much encouraged for living donors and I was recommended to "talk to family, friends and workplace colleagues and have them call us".
Someone who gets a kidney real fast won't appreciate their situation as much as someone who waits for a transplant.
This might be true in some cases, but I don't think we can generalize that people getting fast transplant would not be appreciative. Also my neurologist's opinion was to try to get to the list asap and hopefully avoid the dialysis totally. I have heard the same opinion from other nephrologists as well. (Of course I understand that this not possible if you have acute renal failure, but can work only if you have a slowly progressing CKD.)
-
But the most important reason is that many transplant centers in the U.S., and nearly all transplant centers in Canada, absolutely refuse to consider performing transplants on altruistic, unrelated donors, because they presumptively assume that they must be being paid, and try as you might, you can never convince them otherwise.
Is this really true? At least in my center I was very much encouraged for living donors and I was recommended to "talk to family, friends and workplace colleagues and have them call us".
Once again, staffenberg has it wrong. Many centers today in the U.S.A. do encourage living non-related donors. In fact, I know one major transplant center that advertises on the radio the use of living non-related donors.
-
Medical Tourism says you need to bring your own related kidney donor and says it costs 3 million peso,( $60,000.not counting the donor))( not $25,000) Read below from Philippine newspaper. ;D
"Editor's Note: Published on page A1 of the Jan. 5, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
A NEW KIDNEY would save an Arab man's life so he went to the Philippines. Not as urgent, an American girl wanting bigger breasts arrived here, too. So did a Korean girl who wanted her eyes bigger and more expressive.
Driven by different medical reasons, foreigners like them have been steadily coming to the country as part of the Philippine Medical Tourism Program started just two years ago.
They come mainly because treatment is much cheaper here than in their respective countries like the United States, according to Undersecretary Jade del Mundo, the Department of Health's pointman on the new program.
Visitors usually seek cosmetic procedures which are mainly available at the Belo Medical Center and Calayan Service Center.
Both clinics fall under the "ambulatory centers" included in the program. They also include the American Eye Center, Asian Eye Institute, and RX Pinoy, a group of doctors involved in medical tourism.
Del Mundo said Asian
Kidney donor
Since available kidneys are scarce in the country, foreign patients are asked to "bring your own kidney donor" who is usually a relative or a close friend, according to the undersecretary.
"We don't want Filipinos to be sacrificed in favor of medical tourism," he said.
rer
Editor's Note: Published on page A10 of the January 17, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
the competent health professionals it has, its international image as a caring and compassionate nation and its very reasonable and competitive medical rates. Also a plus is the fact that most of our health professionals are proficient in English.
A heart bypass here costs only about P500,000, or about half the price abroad. A kidney transplant costs P3 million,The Philippin or less than half the rate in other Asian or Western countries. Even cosmetic surgical procedures are cheaper here. For example, blepharoplasty, which widens the contours of Asian eyes, would cost about P500,000 in Japan and South Korea, but only P150,000 in the Philippines."
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________----
In the Philippines due to the Hurricane our electricity has been out three days, since falling trees have knocked power lines.The hospitals have backup generators, so the dialysis center there is OK, but many dialysis centers outside of hospitals do not have backup generators.
Since I crave Air conditioning by mid day and miss the Internet, I just walked in to an expensive hotel since I don't look like a Philippine but like a tourist. Now that I stopped sweating and wheezing, I feel better. They say we may get the electric back by Monday some time.
This blackout has hit the main Island of Luzon, including Manila. Its much worse on the poor Philippine people from the slums, than myself since my building lights the hallways and runs the elevator with the generator. I use candles and now just chilling for free in a Hotel lobby. The big stores and supermarkets use generators for lighting and cooling food, but no more air conditioning. Cold water showers still help cool people down
-
Zach, of course you must realize that there is no logical inconsistency between my saying that "many" U.S. transplant centers will not accept unrelated, altruistic donors, and your saying that "many" will. I don't know if anyone has yet published a tally of the numbers of each type. But the general problem is that the medical profession, under their motto of "First, do no harm," has a strong bias AGAINST accepting a kidney donor, and thus positively struggles to find some reason during the intensive interviews of the donor they conduct for NOT allowing the donation to proceed. Even if a related donor at the last minute suddenly says anything that could be construed to suggest that he is less than 100% enthusiastic, the doctors will even lie to the patient, telling him the potetial donor had a medical excuse he did not in fact have, just to save the donor's shame at backing out. With a paid donor in the Philippines all this hassle and uncertainty is avoided.
In Canada unrelated, altruistic donors are almost never accepted. In fact, last summer there was a legal case, Tengue v. Royal Victoria Hospital of Montreal, of a dialysis patient who had an altruistic but unrelated donor whom the hospital simply refused even to interview, saying it was against there policy to accept such donors. He sued them for violating his right to life, and as the crisis built and the media pressure was on, suddenly, miraculously, "just the right cadaver kidney became available" for Tengue and the suit was dropped. Obviously the hospital did not want to see its cherished anti-patient policy struct down by the court as the foul violation of human rights that it was.
In England there is a national committe which reviews all unrealted, altruistic donors to make sure that there is no possible excuse, real or imaginary, they can find to disqualify him. The committee feels good about itself and morally superior every time it condemns another patient to a slow death on the machine in the name of its own, ignorant ethical presuppositions. The chances of getting a donor over that hurdle are small.
-
Zach, of course you must realize that there is no logical inconsistency between my saying that "many" U.S. transplant centers will not accept unrelated, altruistic donors, and your saying that "many" will.
Yes, I chose the word "many" precisely for that reason.
It's all about how one sees the world around them ... half full or half empty.
I would also like to add that the word "most" will soon replace the word "many" when it comes to, " ... transplant centers today in the U.S.A. do encourage living non-related donors."
-
Zach , the bottom line is that the shortage of transplant organs in the US keeps getting bigger. Unos has the American stats, see www.unos.org All the efforts of Education and all the other American half way measures did not reverse the trend.The glass is becoming more empty than half. .
Me personally, I am content the US keeps coming up with moral ,ethical or other silliness as to why they don't legalize paid donors. Many people on this forum howled that those in the Philippines were immoral and questioned if we had the brains to inform the donors of the risks.
But when they thought "a Medical Tourism Program" would do a transplant for $25,000., all that moral B.S. went out the window.
That gloating was short lived, when new post showed Philippine Daily Inquirer, wrote the Under secretary Del Mundo head of Medical Tourism says you need to bring your own related kidney donor and says it costs 3 million peso,( $60,000.not counting the donor))( not $25,000)
Geoff , when you call you will not need a translator because any worker who answers phones needed to be fluent in English to get that job. Mallory, this is my followup on your posting on Medical Tourism. :clap;
Well, our Philippine electricity is still out
-
It is very scary to look at a country for possible transplant that has a power outage and cannot get up and running again in a few days. I think the major cons of going to the Philippines is that there is lack of technology throughout the country as a whole. I would worry once I was out of the hospital would I be able to eat good food and drink water that I could survive on. As often happens to foreigners in countries, they get sick on the water and food because their system is not used to it. It would be very expensive to do bottled water and import food. You are asking very westernized people to come to a country we know little about and have major surgery. Personally I think it is nuts.
-
As a Westerner, you can completely insulate yourself in a first-world cocoon in the hotels, and all the hospitals have their own power generators. If you are afraid of Philippine food, there is a McDonald's restaurant on every corner, although they generally serve rice instead of french fries, which is probably more healthy for you anyway. Finally, if you are afriad of the cultural adjustment, that is why you pay a facilitator like Mitch to handle all the bureaucracy and negotiating for you.
-
I'm in the UK and they do allow ultrustic donors. I have had 8 people go for tissue typing and only 1 one is a relative. I feel the dialysis unit is only there because of patients like me. It must be run differently to the States as the only people who could make money out of it is who ever supplies the stock to run the dialysis machines. I don't feel as though I'm a slave to the centre. I might be a slave to kidney failure, but that I will have to live with that for the rest of my life regardless if I have a transplant which I have or if it is on dialysis.
While I agree a transplant is a better form of treatment it is by far not a cure and gives you another form risks. I do not think this is the debate.
My concern is buying Body parts in an unregulated fashion. To me this would create slavery where people are so desperate for money that they have to sell of a body part. How can you say there is no duress when someone is so desperate for money. They might not be forced into donating by another person, but forced into it by circumstance and I'm sure brokers will target these individuals and sell them the dream. How many kidney sellers get themselves out of poverty by selling one of their kidneys?
In an ideal world I would not be against buying a kidney if it was State controlled. Where the State would buy kidneys from the public on a voluntary manner and then send them to the transplant centre that had the best patient match as they do with cadevaric organs. In theory the State would be able to pay for the cost of donors from the money it saves against dialysis costs. I did say an ideal world.
Unfortunately for me brokers do not fall into this category of an ideal world.
-
Say I arranged for a kidney transplant through Mitch. Everything is arranged, I'm at the hospital and ready to do it. My donor gets scared and backs out at the last minute. Is he coerced into doing it after that? What happens then? Do I get my money back? Has it ever happened like that where the donor changes his mind? I know when I had my donation from my mother in 1995 I told her right before she went into the OR that she can change her mind anytime and it would be fine with me. I can't imagine a donor doing this when the organ is already bought and paid for.
-
Alisdair, I began dialysis in 1996 in England and was dialized at four different centers during my time there. My typical experience as a dialysis out-patient was that I had to wait at least 45 minutes for my treatment session, since the staff insisted that the patients arrived on time but did not return the courtesy by being punctual for our needs as well. The dialysis room had one loud, blaring television set bolted to the ceiling for thirty treatment stations, and there was no way to change the channel. The dialysis machines themselves were so old and contained so many bio-incompatible elements that I always vomited after each treatment in the taxi ride home. Instead of the nephrologists coming around to see the patients during treatment as they usually do in North America so as to save the patients' already much-reduced free time, the nephrologists made us come to their clinic, where we also had to wait hours, in addition to the three treatments a week. I never felt as if the NHS or the British taxpayer cared a whit whether we patients lived or died. Even when I was in three of the 'leading' hospitals of London when I first developed renal failure, I was so much ignored by the doctors that my hemoglobin feel to 60 simply because no one ever bothered to check it, since I was classified for four months as an 'acute' renal patient, and that class of patients normally gets well in a week or two so there is no need to give Epo or to check hemoglobin levels. In short, I was treated like dirt.
Although England at least has enough moral sense not to let private, profit-making companies deliver dialysis treatments, there are plenty of people making money even there from the fact that patients are left to languish and die on dialysis, from the dialysis equipment suppliers to the surplus nephrologists.
As for the morality of buying a kidney for a poor person, why do you assume that a bargain which a poor person finds profitable to him to accept necessarily has to be illegitimate? How do we harm people who because of their extreme poverty will die early, suffer poor health, perhaps starve, have miserable facilities in which to live, and be unable to provide for their families if we deny them the only way out of the trap they are in by calling it, from our position of material comfort in the West, 'morally unacceptable'? The $7000 Philippine kidney donors get provides them with the money to send their children to school, pay off their mortgage, and open a small shop for themselves where they can guarantee themselves employment for the rest of their lives in a country where the unemployment rate is 25%. Is that bargain exploitative if the person accepting it voluntarily is of the view that it is to his benefit?
Meadlowlands should keep in mind that before the transplant operation is scheduled the donor has had to pass through a lengthy interview with the hospital ethical commission in the Philippines, in which a priest, a nephrologist, and a psychiatrist rigorously scrutinize the donor to determine that he is acting of his own free will and without any mental reservation. This considerably reduces the chance that he will back out at the last moment. If he does back out (and I have never heard of it happening), there are long lines of donors waiting already to take his place. Of course there would be a delay while the new donor was tested and interviewed, but in a week or two the surgery would go ahead as arranged. If for some reason the surgery could not proceed, such as no donor being found who was a suitable HLA match or able to pass the crossmatching test, then Mitch would refund the money paid, minus the dialysis and medical testing costs up to that point. This would mean that the major costs, such as the surgery, the donor's fee, and most of the hospital bill would not be owing. At least that is what I understand about his policy -- for the details you would have to ask Mitch himself.
-
But the general problem is that the medical profession, under their motto of "First, do no harm," has a strong bias AGAINST accepting a kidney donor,
Do you blame them? I mean I know a lot of nurses since I moderate a forum run by U.S. Dialysis Nurses. I have heard first hand (and so has Mitch from Dialysis Joe, who is the main nurse who runs D&T City) from nurses who say they took an oath to help as long as they do not harm a living being. They will not just take a kidney from one to put in another if it will lead to any harm to the donor. They want to make sure the donor knows full well what s/he is doing and what their future will mean without their "extra" kidney.
But instead you are playing on the side of guilt and anger trying to make like you are our buddy against the evil nurses and doctors who won't give us a chance at a real life!
I'm in the UK and they do allow ultrustic donors. I have had 8 people go for tissue typing and only 1 one is a relative. I feel the dialysis unit is only there because of patients like me. It must be run differently to the States as the only people who could make money out of it is who ever supplies the stock to run the dialysis machines. I don't feel as though I'm a slave to the centre. I might be a slave to kidney failure, but that I will have to live with that for the rest of my life regardless if I have a transplant which I have or if it is on dialysis.
While I agree a transplant is a better form of treatment it is by far not a cure and gives you another form risks. I do not think this is the debate.
My concern is buying Body parts in an unregulated fashion. To me this would create slavery where people are so desperate for money that they have to sell of a body part. How can you say there is no duress when someone is so desperate for money. They might not be forced into donating by another person, but forced into it by circumstance and I'm sure brokers will target these individuals and sell them the dream. How many kidney sellers get themselves out of poverty by selling one of their kidneys?
In an ideal world I would not be against buying a kidney if it was State controlled. Where the State would buy kidneys from the public on a voluntary manner and then send them to the transplant centre that had the best patient match as they do with cadevaric organs. In theory the State would be able to pay for the cost of donors from the money it saves against dialysis costs. I did say an ideal world.
Unfortunately for me brokers do not fall into this category of an ideal world.
EXACTLY!!! :thumbup;
Alisdair, I began dialysis in 1996 in England and was dialized at four different centers during my time there. My typical experience as a dialysis out-patient was that I had to wait at least 45 minutes for my treatment session, since the staff insisted that the patients arrived on time but did not return the courtesy by being punctual for our needs as well. The dialysis room had one loud, blaring television set bolted to the ceiling for thirty treatment stations, and there was no way to change the channel. The dialysis machines themselves were so old and contained so many bio-incompatible elements that I always vomited after each treatment in the taxi ride home.....
You know ... you love to describe dialysis as this unbarable torture and that we should all be in a major rush to get a kidney from anyone and who cares about the donor as long as they go through with it.
Dialysis for me is nothing like you describe! WE all have headphones for our tv's and we all have remote controls at my unit and we all have Fresenius 2008K machines and have never had any trouble with comtaminations. Even my taxi has worked out a system with me and my favourite cab driver and I sing to the radio on the way home :P And the longest I ever had to wait was once 1/2 hr. All the other times only 10 min max. Waiting in the Nephrologists office after you get a transplant is a longer wait than any dialysis day wait.
As for the morality of buying a kidney for a poor person, why do you assume that a bargain which a poor person finds profitable to him to accept necessarily has to be illegitimate? How do we harm people who because of their extreme poverty will die early, suffer poor health, perhaps starve, have miserable facilities in which to live, and be unable to provide for their families if we deny them the only way out of the trap they are in by calling it, from our position of material comfort in the West, 'morally unacceptable'? The $7000 Philippine kidney donors get provides them with the money to send their children to school, pay off their mortgage, and open a small shop for themselves where they can guarantee themselves employment for the rest of their lives in a country where the unemployment rate is 25%. Is that bargain exploitative if the person accepting it voluntarily is of the view that it is to his benefit?
Why do you think that if you are rich that morals don't matter? No matter how much money I have or lack I have my own morals that don't change with what my yearly income is!
And to anyone who says that no doctor will let any live person donate a kidney to someone if they are not a relative, read the cbsnews link I posted above again because obviously you didn't realize that was in the States. There was complete stranger who donated a kidney to another who he never met! It DOES happen! You make it sound like it never does!
-
Kitkatz, Most apartment buildings had backup generators for at least the elevators and hallway lights, but ALL the hotels costing at least $15/day had ice cold air conditioning as did all the major hospitals. The electric powered trains were running as well as all public transport in Manila during the 4 day blackout with the help of gas powered generators. The big stores , supermarkets and restaurants were not as icy cold as before the black out but felt OK for me to be there. But the slums had zero electric. My impression as to why the repair crews didn't get it repaired quicker, is that the repair people were not asked to work overtime, so the company could save money. The government wasn't offering to pay the overtime and the slum dwelling weren't real customers anyway, since they are part of the network that cuts in to the main line for free.
So for the TRANSPLANT patients in the Philippines, everything was normal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meadowlands- You asked," if My donor gets scared and backs out at the last minute. Is he coerced into doing it after that? What happens then? Do I get my money back? Has it ever happened like that where the donor changes his mind? ".
The Doctors have a big list of donors ( no brokers here) so he would fill it quickly ,however the donor wants to get the financial help so badly, this would not happen,and never did. Yes you get your money back, minus the already used tests, dialysis, meds and the Nephrologist medical evaluation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AlasdairUK- I think a transplant is a cure to ESRD, since this disease is no longer in the patient.
You said " How can you say there is no duress when someone is so desperate for money. They might not be forced into donating by another person, but forced into it by circumstance and I'm sure brokers will target these individuals and sell them the dream. How many kidney sellers get themselves out of poverty by selling one of their kidneys? "
You seem to think that "brokers", who don't really exist will target the very poor ( 74 million people out of a population of 75 million). These poor people know very well ,without being tricked by a fantom character ,that the sure way to make big money is to sell an extra kidney, so they flock to the hospitals to beg to be a donor. The amount should get them out of poverty however better still would be for that concerned British person to get him a job in the UK, to keep an eye on the chap, as well as signing his UK VISA application and flying him to Heathrow. Then after 6 months or so of working in UK, he gets to have his own British Health System to cover his health needs.
-
- I think a transplant is a cure to ESRD, since this disease is no longer in the patient.
How can you say, "this disease is no longer in the patient" ??? I mean ... do you think that the body does NOT fight off the kidney? What do you think the antirejection medication is for? Fun candy??
Transplants do not last forever as the body's natural defense fights it off! If it is a CURE then why don't I still have my transplant?? And the fact that I am BACK on dialysis after I had a transplant ... if "this disease in no longer in the patient" then what is this I have now? A NEW DISEASE???
The amount should get them out of poverty however better still would be for that concerned British person to get him a job in the UK, to keep an eye on the chap, as well as signing his UK VISA application and flying him to Heathrow. Then after 6 months or so of working in UK, he gets to have his own British Health System to cover his health needs.
It seems like MAYBE they flock to you because you advertise that they can get free health care or get a better future in OUR countries ?? Is that what you are REALLY telling them??
-
Transplants do not last forever as the body's natural defense fights it off! If it is a CURE then why don't I still have my transplant?? And the fact that I am BACK on dialysis after I had a transplant ... if "this disease in no longer in the patient" then what is this I have now? A NEW DISEASE???
That is a very good argument Angie. I couldn't have worded that any better. Well how about it mitch? How do you explain this?
-
Alisdair, I began dialysis in 1996 in England and was dialized at four different centers during my time there. My typical experience as a dialysis out-patient was that I had to wait at least 45 minutes for my treatment session, since the staff insisted that the patients arrived on time but did not return the courtesy by being punctual for our needs as well. The dialysis room had one loud, blaring television set bolted to the ceiling for thirty treatment stations, and there was no way to change the channel. The dialysis machines themselves were so old and contained so many bio-incompatible elements that I always vomited after each treatment in the taxi ride home. Instead of the nephrologists coming around to see the patients during treatment as they usually do in North America so as to save the patients' already much-reduced free time, the nephrologists made us come to their clinic, where we also had to wait hours, in addition to the three treatments a week. I never felt as if the NHS or the British taxpayer cared a whit whether we patients lived or died. Even when I was in three of the 'leading' hospitals of London when I first developed renal failure, I was so much ignored by the doctors that my hemoglobin feel to 60 simply because no one ever bothered to check it, since I was classified for four months as an 'acute' renal patient, and that class of patients normally gets well in a week or two so there is no need to give Epo or to check hemoglobin levels. In short, I was treated like dirt.
Stauffenberg I'm sorry you had such a poor time. I have once had to wait an hour, but I do not have to have an arrival time. I do twilight shifts and they are happy for me to arrive when I can. Obviously I get there as early as I can so I can get home as soon as I can. If I do have to wait it does not bother me as much as it must you as I think what is the difference between 4 hours or 5 hours. My concern is to achieve a good dialysis. That is my main aim. I use a Fresenius 5008. In the UK you are able to choose which hospital you want, so you have the freedom to move. I agree that not everything is perfect, but you do need your glass to be half full.
AlasdairUK- I think a transplant is a cure to ESRD, since this disease is no longer in the patient. Have you had a transplant? I have and yet I still have kidney failure.
You seem to think that "brokers", who don't really exist. I do think they exist, they just do not fit into my ideal world.
The amount should get them out of poverty. My question was how many kidney sellers actually get themselves out of poverty. I'm sure in the short run the cash injection is beneficial, but what are the long term effects?
I'm not sure of letting in 74 million poor people into a country that has a population of about 65 million is a realistic approach. We do however have an open policy within Europe and with the EU expanding some of the poorer EU states are allowed to come and seek work in the UK and receive benefits. However most come and add to the economy with working hard, paying taxes. I think we are getting off track here as this is not an immigration debate.
-
In theory a transplant is not a cure for endstage renal failure, but is instead just another mode of treatment, like dialysis, since a foreign kidney maintained in an unnatural location in the body by immunosuppressive drugs is not a natural condition, but an ongoing medical intervention. However, in terms of the way the patient feels and lives while the donor organ lasts -- which can easily be 20 years from the kind of young, carefully selected, well matched kidney you can obtain from a live donor in the Philippines -- life with a transplant is FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT to perfectly healthy life. Having to remember to take a handful of pills morning and evening and having to visit the doctor every few months represents a trivial difference between normal human existence and the existence of a transplant patient, but is miniscule compared to the difference from the normal standard of the life of a dialysis patient.
Angie, with respect to the ethical position of physicians always favoring the donor's interests over the potential recipients, I do not think this is consistent with the Hippocratic rule, "First do no harm." Just look at the issue in utilitarian terms: if you have one patient dying of renal failure and another person with two healthy kidneys, the total human happiness between the two of them is infinitely smaller than the total human happiness in the same pair if you have one person with a functioning transplanted kidney and the other with a functioning natural kidney after the transplant. So doctors ARE DOING HARM every time they concoct some 'ethical' reason for NOT accepting a donor, since they reduce the total amount of human happiness in the world!
I have been dialyzed in four different countries, and the experience in each place was very different, but England was for me one of the worst. I agree with you that dialysis in most places is not as bad as in the center I was describing, which was the outpatient dialysis clinic of the Hammersmith Hospital in London.
I also agree with you, Angie, that live, unrelated, altruistic kidney donors are accepted in many transplant centers in the United States and also with the approval of the central committee for such donations in England. But almost nowhere in Canada is this possible, and many centers in the U.S. will also not consider it. It all depends on how stubborn and old-fashioned the nephrologists are where you are being treated. But do you think it is ethical that the stubborn, unreasonable, personal value system of some ignorant transplant coordinator should be allowed to determine which dialysis patients live and which die -- which is what happens when they reject unrelated altruistic donors.
Alisdair, Mitch is right when he says there are no kidney brokers in the Philippines, much as those who oppose the sale of spare kidneys love to conjure up the image of the evil broker. The system actually functions by transplant facilitators like Mitch bringing overseas patients into contact with the Philippine surgeons and transplant hospitals where they can be transplanted. The facilitator makes all the arrangements and guarantees all the prices, but he never deals with any Filipinos selling their kidneys. Instead, it is the Philippine surgeons themselves who, independently of the facilitators, recruit and test potential donors from the local population, maintaining a large list of blood types and HLA antigen date so they can easily match patients with donors when and as the need arises. In one case I saw a surgeon would perform a kidney transplant on a poor Filipino for free but then in return the patient would have to go back to his village, tell people about the possiblity of donation for payment, and then recruit them to be tissue-typed. So the transplant facilitator is quite far removed from anything that can be described as 'organ brokering.'
-
In theory a transplant is not a cure for endstage renal failure, but is instead just another mode of treatment, like dialysis, since a foreign kidney maintained in an unnatural location in the body by immunosuppressive drugs is not a natural condition, but an ongoing medical intervention. However, in terms of the way the patient feels and lives while the donor organ lasts -- which can easily be 20 years from the kind of young, carefully selected, well matched kidney you can obtain from a live donor in the Philippines -- life with a transplant is FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT to perfectly healthy life.
Yes, the transplanted organ "can easily last 20 years," or it can easily last only 4 years, even "from the kind of young, carefully selected, well matched kidney you can obtain from a live donor." Please take the time to read the transplant stories of the members here. Some have had two and three kidney transplants.
And there are kidney diseases that do, in fact, reoccur with the transplanted kidney, such as Focal Segmental Glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) and Membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis (MPGN), to name only a couple.
You have had your transplant for only about 18 months, right? Do you think the kidney works fine for whatever number of years and then just stops? It is usually a slow progression to failure. And during that time, perhaps over two years, you will feel pretty bad, both physically and emotionally ... and more than likely spend a whole lot of time in the hospital.
Having to remember to take a handful of pills morning and evening and having to visit the doctor every few months represents a trivial difference between normal human existence and the existence of a transplant patient, but is miniscule compared to the difference from the normal standard of the life of a dialysis patient.
Since you have been telling us that we are slaves to the dialysis industry, you mean you're not a slave to the medications and big Pharma?
And going through life with a compromised immune system is no fun and games. As you yourself have stated before:
The main limitations I experience are from clouding of the vision due to cataracts forming in response to the prednisone dose; tiredness from persistent low hemoglobin levels; and severe, month-long illness when I get the winter flu.
And for most transplant patients, there is a real concern of skin cancer, including Kaposi's sarcoma. In fact, according to the November 2005 issue of Cancer Online, "kidney transplant patients can be up to four times more likely to get melanoma, a deadly for of skin cancer." So much for your "life with a transplant is FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT to perfectly healthy life."
Lets get real, folks! ;)
-
Me personally, I am content the US keeps coming up with moral ,ethical or other silliness as to why they don't legalize paid donors. Many people on this forum howled that those in the Philippines were immoral and questioned if we had the brains to inform the donors of the risks.
But when they thought "a Medical Tourism Program" would do a transplant for $25,000., all that moral B.S. went out the window.
That gloating was short lived, when new post showed Philippine Daily Inquirer, wrote the Under secretary Del Mundo head of Medical Tourism says you need to bring your own related kidney donor and says it costs 3 million peso,( $60,000.not counting the donor))( not $25,000)
Mitch, All that "moral B.S." did not go out the window, you and Stauffenberg appear to refuse to consider that we have morals or that they are of any consequence to this issue. I have stated repeatedly that I have no intention of ever going to the Philippines for a transplant, that is still true. I don't think it's the right thing to do, not through you, and not through the medical tourism program. Here is a link to an article describing medical tourism in the Philippines as a "poison pill" that is hastening the demise of the public health care system in the Philippines:
http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=politics03_feb11_2006
I think the issue of organ transplantation is an emotionally-charged minefield, and there are a lot of things to consider for both the donors and the recipients. Each of us who are faced with those decisions have to make choices based on our backgrounds, morals, financial status, cultural mores, familial opinions, religions, physical condition and many other factors.
Stauffenberg, I'm glad that having a transplant, wherever you got it, worked out for you. If you did get your transplant in the Philippines, it sounds like you are pleased with your decision. I think that's great. Please allow us the same consideration. For many of us, the idea of a Philippine transplant is not acceptable, and we have a right to our opinions, just as you do.
As to whether Mitch is a facilitator or a broker, why do you care what we call him? Because "broker" has a negative connotation? Because it makes him sound like his motives are less than altruistic? Come on, let's call 'em like we see 'em; in my opinion he's a pimp.
-
:thumbup; WOW VERY GOOD ARTICLE!! :2thumbsup; :thumbup;
In 2004, the Philippine Heart Center (PHC) had as many as 4,000 patients waiting for heart surgery. At the National Kidney and Transplant Institute (NKTI), there are over 180 patients in the waiting list for kidney transplants.
Many of these patients may die even before they get the treatment they need.
“What happens to these patients when PHC and NKTI open up their doors to foreign patients?" he asked.
He pointed out that heart surgeries and kidney transplants are also expensive for most Filipinos. A kidney transplant will cost a paying
patient between P1million and P1.5 million while a charity patient will have to shell out almost P500,000 even if the kidneys are donated for free. But rather than act to make these procedures more affordable, government agencies are now advertising these procedures as “cheaper” alternatives for foreigners.
Maybe Mitch is not doing anything wrong in his country but he should at least understand why we would not just want to make his country worse for the people of the philippines.. read that article! It is a good and insightful read!
The more "foreigners" that go there the less they will bother to try to make it easier for their own people to get a transplant! Is that what we want??
-
Zach, as you know, science is based on averages, not on anecdotes. With respect to the average half-life of a kidney from a living donor, for the scientific as opposed to the anecdotal information you have to consult a scientific work, such as Professor D. E. Hricik's "Renal Transplantion" (2003) p. 5, where he writes: "... between 1988 and 1995, the projected half-life of a living-donor transplanted kidney increased from 12.7 years to 21.6 years during this time period, while the half-life of a cadaver-donor kidney insreaded from 7.9 to 13.8 years ... ." That is where I got my information for writing that a living-donor kidney could be expected to last around 20 years on average.
I don't feel exploited by Big Pharma for the immunosuppressives I buy, since my insurance covers all but a trivial amount of the cost. What did make me feel exploited, however, was to be serving Baxter, Kaiser, Fresenius, and an army of otherwise surplus nephrologists with a perpetual income by being kept trapped in a dialysis center that no one, from the government officials who made the transplant policy so restrictive there was nearly no hope of a cadaver transplant, to the researchers, mainly employed by the same companies making a profit off of me, who tinkered and dithered in their labs for decades without ever finding a way to free their 'cash-cow' from its pen -- I wonder why?! Even if I were burdened with having to pay the cost of the overpriced immunosuppressives myself, I would still not mind as much as being on dialysis, which robbed me of my freedom rather than of my money.
After you compare all the numerous advantages and disadvantages of dialysis and transplant as treatments for endstage renal failure, neither is perfect, but on balance, transplant is infinitely better. To bring a complex comparison down to a single, bottom-line number, the projected years of life for all patients of all ages on dialysis who are young and healthy enough to be selected for the transplant list is 10 years, while that for all patients of all ages with even just a cadaver transplant is 20 years. (R. Wolfe, et al, "Comparison of Mortality in All Patients on Dialysis Awaiting Transplantation and Recipients of a First Cadaver Transplant," New England Journal of Medicine, vol 341, no. 23 (1999) 1725-1730.
Both Angie and Zach were concerned about transplant tourism somehow ruining the whole healthcare system in a nation of seventy million people or that transplants for foreigners would somehow keep Filipinos from getting a transplant. As to the first point, 'transplant tourism' is a huge industry, comprising everything from plastic surgery to liposuction, and in that mass of foreign patients the number of people seeking a kidney transplant is miniscule. As to the second point, there are many, many more people in the Philippines lining up to become kidney donors for pay than there would ever be a demand for their services, so the few foreigners who come to the Philippines for that purpose will simply be adding as many live-donor kidneys to the supply as they put pressure on the supply, so their impact will be absolutely zero on the availability of kidney donors for the local patients. In any case, the locals themselves who get a kidney transplant fall into two classes: those who are Philippine ex-patriots who make or made their money abroad and return to their homeland for a transplant, so their money is foreign money, just as much as that of the transplant tourist. The other class are those patients with relatives abroad who make good money at jobs in Western countries and send it home so a relative can get a transplant, and in this case as well the money is foreign. It would be very rare for a purely domestic patient ever to afford to be able to pay for the operation, never mind for the donor, and that is the fault of the Philippine government for not having a free national healthcare service, and instead sending the country's money in buckets to Swiss bank accounts. But that is not the fault of the comparatively small number of foreigners coming to the Philippines seeking a transplant, whose number I would guess at around a hundred people a year at most.
-
Angie and Mallory, that article which tells of future doom to the Government and public Hospitals in the Philippines
is political propaganda for the anti Government Philippine people to follow the crowd but is only the author's opinion. These comments are not logical since these government medical services to the poor have always been ground floor shit( like care for the Vets), so how can it be doomed.? (No they don't have basements) Furthermore the Government spokesperson( Mr. Del Mundo) for the Dept of Health, already commented (in the daily Inquirer) the foreign transplant patient need to bring their own donor, which would eliminate transplants for foreigners.
The silly article likes to forget, that transplants were not to be done with medical tourism. Now Mallory and Angie like to forget it also. ( Ladies, read again, the article which quoted that Dept. of Health guy Mr.Del Mundo.)
Doctors do not work only for altruistic reasons, they like the challenge, the good feeling that solving or helping a difficult medical case gives the Health care provider. Doctors as well as successful Philippine Surgeons do give charity. But starting out Doctors can't do what the established doctors give. They have families to support and medical school loans to pay back. Now their parents who struggled for them are now elderly with medical conditions of their own. If helping ESRD patients get transplanted makes me a pimp, what name should we call people who scare ESRD patients into trapping themselves in that dialysis prison ?
To recap : that article talks of future doom. How in blazes can you consider it like a fact ?
-
Mitch, I work in Marketing. It's my job to make our product attractive and salable to customers. To do that, we offer excellent customer service and problem solving for our clients on an ongoing basis over the term of their relationship with our company. The majority of our customers are with us for many, many years.
Your marketing technique is interesting to me. Fear, intimidation, belittling and/or demeaning your potential customers; how's that working out for you? I would never consider getting a transplant through your organization, largely because of the methods you've employed to attract business. Your whole approach seems unsavory to me. I don't see you as someone that I could trust with my very life.
Apparently there are others that agree with me. Here's an article that mentions you specifically:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=3737
And here's another that calls your organization the Toys R Us of the liver trade:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ISW/is_267/ai_n15795060/pg_1
Here's another article with more information on the negative impacts selling a kidney has on the donor:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JQP/is_2003_March/ai_99232383
A quote from the article:
"WHILE kidney selling is a deeply stigmatized act in Moldova, it has become a routine event in slums and shantytowns half a world away in the Filipino capital of Manila. This is despite the fact that the operation has put a great many young men permanently out of work, Kidney sellers say they are no longer able to lift heavy cargoes. 'No-one wants a kidney seller on his work team,' an unemployed father of three told us while his wife fumed at him from a distance."
And the same article outlines risks to the recipients as well:
"Bangon Lupa is a garbage-strewn slum built on stilt shacks over a polluted and faeces-infested stretch of the Pasig River that runs through the shantytown on its way to Manila Bay. In Bangon Lupa 'coming of age' now means that one is legally old enough to sell a kidney. But as with other coming-of-age rituals, many young men lie about their age and boast of having sold a kidney when they were as young as 16 years old. 'No-one at the hospital asks us for any documents,' they assured me. The kidney donors lied about other things as well --- their names, addresses and medical histories, including their daily exposure to TB, AIDS, dengue and hepatitis, not to mention chronic skin infections and malnutrition."
So, Mitch, you have not sold me on a transplant in the Philippines. And you seem to be missing an important point:
If helping ESRD patients get transplanted makes me a pimp, what name should we call people who scare ESRD patients into trapping themselves in that dialysis prison ?
Angie and I are not suggesting or recommending that ESRD patients not get transplants, we're recommending that if they decide to get a transplant, they should not get it through you.
-
If helping ESRD patients get transplanted makes me a pimp, what name should we call people who scare ESRD patients into trapping themselves in that dialysis prison ?
Angie and I are not suggesting or recommending that ESRD patients not get transplants, we're recommending that if they decide to get a transplant, they should not get it through you.
Ya pretty much! I mean, come on Mitch! You ALREADY KNOW that I am not against transplants as you KNOW I have had one before and AM BACK ON the transplant list for another!
You keep twisting ALL of our words saying we "Trap" ourselves!
You got it all wrong Mitch and if you want our respect much less actually believing you have any integrety, then give us the pros and cons so we can feel confident in any decision we make regarding any foreign kidney transplants!
The kidney would go into OUR bodies so we have EVERY RIGHT to be scared of what comes from your country in less than moralistic means!
You make me nervous as much as a used car sales man saying if I don't buy your used car then I am "Trapping" myself by sticking to riding my bicycle in the snow as winter comes. Buying your used car (or used kidney) could lead to more problems I am not willing to take on!
Your marketing technique is interesting to me. Fear, intimidation, belittling and/or demeaning your potential customers; how's that working out for you? I would never consider getting a transplant through your organization, largely because of the methods you've employed to attract business. Your whole approach seems unsavory to me. I don't see you as someone that I could trust with my very life.
EXACTLY!! That is why I am apprehensive myself!!
-
Mallory, when you quote to me anecdotes from a newspaper article suggesting that there are enormous health problems in donating a spare kidney in reply to my citation of articles by professors of medicine, published in prestigious, peer-reviewed, professional medical journals, backed by controlled studies and rigorous statistical analysis, then I think even you would agree that the journalist's sensationalism cannot compare with the medical opinion that donating a kidney is essentially harmless. Do you think that the newspaper editor for whom the reporter writes the story believes he can increase circulation by blandly stating that kidney donation is harmless, as the medical journals say, or do you think he needs a real shocking, heart-wrenching story to catch the reader's attention? In the medical journal "Transplantation" (vol. 64, no. 7, 1997, pp. 976-978) Ingela Fehrman-Ekholm, who has not a journalism degree but an M.D., published an article provocatively titled "Kidney Donors Live Longer," in which she found in studying a cohort of kidney donors over 31 years in comparison with a random cohort of age-matched people who had not donated a kidney that "survival was 29% better in the donor group" than in the non-donor group!
Also, the Philippines is not India. The transplant hospitals there conduct extensive medical checks of the donors over two weeks before accepting a kidney from them, which include Doppler ultrasound, electrocardiogram, renal function tests, tissue typing, and infectious disease screening. I even spoke with the resident infectious disease expert at one of the hospitals. Forty years of American occupation have westernized the medical practice in the Philippines much more than it is in the rural Indian hospitals where transplants are still performed now that it has been declared illegal in India to pay donors for a kidney transplant. On the examination of the competence of foreign medical graduates to enter practice in the United States, the ECFMG exam, graduates of the University of Manila have the highest pass rate in the world.
-
"WHILE kidney selling is a deeply stigmatized act in Moldova, it has become a routine event in slums and shantytowns half a world away in the Filipino capital of Manila. This is despite the fact that the operation has put a great many young men permanently out of work, Kidney sellers say they are no longer able to lift heavy cargoes. 'No-one wants a kidney seller on his work team,' an unemployed father of three told us while his wife fumed at him from a distance."
Whow! Wait a second. I was not aware of that. Is that true? If I was to donate a kidney, would that hamper my ability to pick up and carry heavy objects?
Mallory, when you quote to me anecdotes from a newspaper article suggesting that there are enormous health problems in donating a spare kidney in reply to my citation of articles by professors of medicine, published in prestigious, peer-reviewed, professional medical journals, backed by controlled studies and rigorous statistical analysis, then I think even you would agree that the journalist's sensationalism cannot compare with the medical opinion that donating a kidney is essentially harmless.
Now since when did a second kidney become classified as a "spare"? Generally, you are born with two kidneys and your body uses both of them at the same time. One of them does not work as a back-up unit for when the first one gets taken off-line, so to speak. I can agree that is has been clinically proven that you can function with one kidney but at no time while you have two functional kidneys, does one remain dormant until it is needed. Please show me proof that a second kidney does in fact work as a back-up unit.
A fifth tire for your car is a "spare" tire. A second kidney is NOT a spare.
-
Mallory, Angie, Yes you are for transplants, as long as it is FREE. The expectation of a naive altruistic free donor coming along to risk his life for a selfish person is outrageous. It's about money with you guys. Angie, all the free medical services and free housing in Canada , did you contribute 1 % or less when you were working?
Mallory, when you do your marketing are you facing people ignorant of the facts who insult you, calling you a pimp and wanting your product for free and asking for the component address, so they can go around you ?
Those donor surveys where they had to pay donors for their comments are misleading and useless .
The Pro and con:
Pro -Live matched donor in two weeks , . In one month you are are free from dialysis.and NORMAL
Then you live a normal life as before.
The con
It's not free , you have to pay for it.
Your medicare is useless in an other country. You have to put up with insults from the ignorant .
You will tremble from all the propaganda , repeated mostly by ignorant peers.
Questions for you thinkers : If you travel to an other state for a transplant , is that medical Tourism ?
Is it only medical tourism if you travel to an other country.?
Is the highly paid man working at a US hospital, who helps you get a kidney transplant called a broker ?
Is he a transplant coordinator or a dirty broker.
Who is the person to blame for preventing you from getting a kidney transplant ? Is it the slow moving altruistic guy or the druggy who hasn't crashed into a tree yet.? The answer is in your mirror.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandman , Mallory uses BS articles from unsavory rags. That stuff is not medical journals. Actually it's from reporters who are paid to propagandize about foreign transplants. That's how they make a living.
Both normal kidneys work at the same time but do not need to work very hard to get the job done.
-
Zach, as you know, science is based on averages, not on anecdotes. With respect to the average half-life of a kidney from a living donor, for the scientific as opposed to the anecdotal information you have to consult a scientific work, such as Professor D. E. Hricik's "Renal Transplantion" (2003) p. 5, where he writes: "... between 1988 and 1995, the projected half-life of a living-donor transplanted kidney increased from 12.7 years to 21.6 years during this time period, while the half-life of a cadaver-donor kidney insreaded from 7.9 to 13.8 years ... ." That is where I got my information for writing that a living-donor kidney could be expected to last around 20 years on average.
stauffenberg, your Abbott & Costello routine with mitchorganbroker is fraying at the edges.
Come over to the other side!
-
Bathe in the Light. Come over from the dark side.
-
Here are the facts:
Kidney Transplants
5 Years
Living Donor Graft Survival 80.2%
10 Years
Living Donor Graft Survival 56.4%
As we can all read, there is a significant drop after 5 years. These are actual patients.
Half-life is calculated by estimation of projected median years. Half-life means that half of the kidneys will function fewer than the stated years and half will survive longer.
How many transplants has Mitch arranged? How many years has he been providing this service?
There is no question that a functioning kidney is better than not having one. That's not the issue.
I'm looking at it simply as a business deal--risks vs. benefits.
Source: United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) Scientific Renal Transplant Registry
OPTN/SRTR Data as of May 2, 2005.
10 Years = 1993-2003 --Yes, a lot has changed in the anti-rejection medications since 1993. But there is still the problem of chronic rejection.
http://www.optn.org/AR2005/default.htm
-
Mallory, Angie, Yes you are for transplants, as long as it is FREE. The expectation of a naive altruistic free donor coming along to risk his life for a selfish person is outrageous. It's about money with you guys. Angie, all the free medical services and free housing in Canada , did you contribute 1 % or less when you were working?
I think I have contributed every time I have worked (over 9 years 12hr wing shifts + overtime without overtime pay).
The Pro and con:
Pro -Live matched donor in two weeks , . In one month you are are free from dialysis.and NORMAL
Then you live a normal life as before.
The con
It's not free , you have to pay for it.
Your medicare is useless in an other country. You have to put up with insults from the ignorant .
You will tremble from all the propaganda , repeated mostly by ignorant peers.
Questions for you thinkers : If you travel to an other state for a transplant , is that medical Tourism ?
Is it only medical tourism if you travel to an other country.?
Is the highly paid man working at a US hospital, who helps you get a kidney transplant called a broker ?
Is he a transplant coordinator or a dirty broker.
Who is the person to blame for preventing you from getting a kidney transplant ? Is it the slow moving altruistic guy or the druggy who hasn't crashed into a tree yet.? The answer is in your mirror.
I wouldn't want a kidney from a druggy.
A transplant coordinator is NOT a broker simply because they don't push you to have the surgery if you are apprehensive about it. They especially do not keep pushing and pushing for you to have it in a country where you are not even covered!!
Sandman , Mallory uses BS articles from unsavory rags. That stuff is not medical journals. Actually it's from reporters who are paid to propagandize about foreign transplants. That's how they make a living.
Both normal kidneys work at the same time but do not need to work very hard to get the job done.
So when you donate a kidney then your other kidney has to work extra hard. Sure it can pick up the slack. Hopefully there are no other problems. If there are then oh boy!
How many transplants has Mitch arranged? How many years has he been providing this service?
This is no question that a functioning kidney is better than not having one. That's not the issue.
I'm looking at it simply as a business deal--risks vs. benefits.
Source: United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) Scientific Renal Transplant Registry
OPTN/SRTR Data as of May 2, 2005.
10 Years = 1993-2003 --Yes, a lot has changed in the anti-rejection medications since 1993. But there is still the problem of chronic rejection.
http://www.optn.org/AR2005/default.htm
I want to know as well!
-
Zach, was the donor graft referring to only kidneys or all organs ?
I have been in this line of work since Nov of 2001, prior to that I was treating medical patients in the US as an MD.
If I count the Liver transplants, which was the original focus of Liver4you it's almost a hundred. I realize that people worry about the risk to their money. When Lawyers are involved in any financial transaction, everyone feels safer. A two lawyer approach is a viable option to protect your money and our intellectual rights.
The other options with the pros and cons:
China - transplants cost 50 % higher than the Philippines and the use executed prisoners which is legal in their country. As to how old the kidney was, I am not sure but I would wager that the primary patient for that donor was the highest price operation, like heart or lungs , while the rest of the organs sat on ice.
Pakistan- It's the cheapest place but it's illegal while it's not in-forced. Is the Philippines transplant better that the one done in Pakistan ? I got to ask that to a Pakistan ESRD patient who had contacted me. I will paste our E-mail correspondence below :
"Being on dialysis for 5 years, i have heard and seen patients returning to dialysis after transplants done in Pakistan because of various reasons. Most patients that get it done from Philippines are doing well.Thank you for your help.
Amy
----- Original Message -----
From: fast transplant
To: _________
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: Kidney Transplant - Assistance
Amy,
I will see if I can get the information you requested.
Is there a reason that you do not get the transplant in Pakistan ?
Mitch Michaelson
Dear Sir / Madam,
I live in the United Arab Emirates although i hold a Pakistani passport. I would very much like your assistance in getting the information of a doctor in Philippines.
Born with Spina Bifida and then CRF, i am now on dialysis for the past 5 years and would very much like to get a transplant.
The Doctors name is _______and he works for Transplant Institute. If you could please assist me in getting his email address or his office telephone number.
Your assistance is very much appreciated!
Warm Regards,
Amar Zahra (Amy) "
-
Zach, was the donor graft referring to only kidneys or all organs ?
Just kidneys.
-
Zach, I think part of the reason the published data I cite diverge from yours is that the data I was using refers to the projected half-life of live donor kidneys transplanted now with the current improvements in transplantation drugs and the refinement of the techniques by which they are used. The UNOS data records the already established results from the past, which would represent the outcomes from a more primitive drug regimen (i.e., still using more prednisone than necessary, still employing azathioprine, and not yet using Sirolimus).
Sandmansa, I agree that when two kidneys are present, both are being used, so one is not a 'spare' in the sense that a spare tire is an 'extra' tire. However, what is relevant for the question of the ethics of buying a kidney from a living donor is that the second kidney is 'spare' in the sense that the patient's health and renal function can be just as good as normal without it. It is also 'spare' in the sense that evolution expended all the energy in producing a second kidney mainly to protect humans against accidental destruction of just one kidney through trauma, which is today so rare an event that it does not even appear on the charts of causes of renal failure, but in the days of cavemen chasing mastadons may have been common enough for the second kidney to have been important.
-
Sandman , Mallory uses BS articles from unsavory rags. That stuff is not medical journals. Actually it's from reporters who are paid to propagandize about foreign transplants. That's how they make a living.
Mallory, when you quote to me anecdotes from a newspaper article suggesting that there are enormous health problems in donating a spare kidney in reply to my citation of articles by professors of medicine, published in prestigious, peer-reviewed, professional medical journals, backed by controlled studies and rigorous statistical analysis, then I think even you would agree that the journalist's sensationalism cannot compare with the medical opinion that donating a kidney is essentially harmless.
Mitch and Stauffenberg, Nancy Scheper-Hughes wrote the article you are both referring to as sensationalism. She is a Professor of Medical Anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley. I've never heard anyone refer to the New Internationalist as an "unsavory rag" before, and I hardly think you can question Scheper-Hughes' credentials. Should you still question her background or credibility, her is a link to her Curriculum Vitae:
http://ls.berkeley.edu/dept/anth/nshcv.pdf
Here is a link to another article (it is very long) by Scheper-Hughes on the global commerce in organs for transplant surgery:
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/biotech/organswatch/pages/endsofbody.html
And yet another on her work:
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/magazine/summer_99/feature_darkness_scheper.html
Both of the articles above are in UC Berkeley publications, certainly credible sources. Do either of you, Mitch or Stauffenberg, have comparable articles regarding organ donors in the Philippines? Anything with statistics showing the end results of the sale of organs on a person's financial and/or social status, employment or lifespan, specifically in the Philippines? Because Scheper-Hughes' articles do reference the Philippines specifically, and, the information is not positive.
Mallory, Angie, Yes you are for transplants, as long as it is FREE. The expectation of a naive altruistic free donor coming along to risk his life for a selfish person is outrageous. It's about money with you guys.
Mitch, Are you reading our posts, or just responding? Angie and I have repeatedly told you that this has nothing to do with money. Neither of us is holding out waiting for a free kidney. We are against the idea of turning poor people into commodities for rich people. We're against the dehumanizing of the people in the Philippines or anywhere else in the world. We are against kidney brokers making money from the suffering and fear of donors and recipients.
Mallory, when you do your marketing are you facing people ignorant of the facts who insult you, calling you a pimp and wanting your product for free and asking for the component address, so they can go around you ?
Yes, Mitch, people I work with every day do not understand my business, they sometimes insult us, they always want our product for free and, because we have competition, they can always go to other companies in lieu of working with us. And yet, we still do not find that insulting, demeaning or belittling our customers increases our business. It doesn't appear to be working for you, either.
-
I think this thread has reached a point of pointlessness. Just my :twocents; worth
-
Mallory, there are two classes of scientific journals -- those which are peer-reviewed, where all articles have to be read by teams of the leading experts in the relevant field and are accepted or rejected by majority vote, often after the review committee has required the author to make revisions and study certain issues in more depth, and those which are not peer-reviewed. If a well-researched, well-argued scientific article by someone with a doctoral degree appears in a well-known but not peer-reviewed publication, the scientific community would still regard it as worthless, and no treatment of a patient, no accepted truths of the discipline, would be changed on the basis of it. But the New Internationalist and the Berkeley Education News are not even up to the level of a scientific journal, since they are just newsy publications, regardless of whether a university publishes them or not.
Similarly, the author by whom you seem to set so much store IS NOT EVEN A MEDICAL DOCTOR, so her opinion on the medical effects of a person donating a kidney are utterly worthless. She holds a Ph.D. in anthropology, which makes her an expert at fitting bits of clay pottery together when they are found in the bottom of an old cave and inferring from that how the humans who lived there probably lived, but which means she has no credentials establishing her expertise in medical matters at all. In contrast, the study I quoted showing that kidney donors have a longer than normal life expectancy and suffer no medical problems beyond the average population is authored by four medical doctors, three of whom are nephrologists and one of whom is a renal transplant surgoen, and one epidemiologist.
The fact that all kidney donors in the Philippines have to be vetted by a hospital committee consisting of a nephrologist, a priest, and a psychiatrist leads me to believe that no donor would be approved to proceed to removal of the kidney if these people, who know the local social and economic circumstances quite well, if things were as some American anthropologist imagines. Certainly of the donors I spoke to, no one had any complaints of the kind described. As I have said before, in a country with a 25% unemployment rate, most kidney donors use their payment to set up a shop of their own which keeps them employed for the rest of their lives: they don't have to worry about what anyone (erroneously!) thinks of their ability to lift things.
The type of extreme poverty that exists in the Philippines dehumanizes people, especially because primary school children have to pay fees to attend, so that the poverty of their parents keeps them ignorant and poor as well for the rest of their lives. But I don't see how it dehumanizes these people when they are offered a way out of their poverty, a way to send their children to school, which involves a trade-off which they themselves consider to be a good bargain, with more advantages than disadvantages for them. On the contrary, if we paternalistically decide for them, from our position of material comfort in the West, that they are to be denied the option of making the only bargain available for them to get out of the poverty trap they are in, then it is THAT which dehumanizes them, by taking away the very same autonomy and freedom of personal choice which our own legal system values so highly.
-
I think this thread has reached a point of pointlessness. Just my :twocents; worth
I agree with you totally!
-
I think this thread has reached a point of pointlessness. Just my :twocents; worth
I agree with you totally!
I am removing the "Sticky" on this thread. I believe this thread needs to be taken out back and shot. >:D
-
I think this thread has reached a point of pointlessness. Just my :twocents; worth
I agree with you totally!
I am removing the "Sticky" on this thread. I believe this thread needs to be taken out back and shot. >:D
Grab the shotgun pa. This ones a goner. :angel;
-
This is about the only place where ESRD patients couldn't argue affectively against live Philippine transplants. Free speech in the end shows both sides to the coin. There are only one country in the world where its legal to get a live donor transplant, where the donor initiated his participation to help himself. To the people who want the donor to get more, I say, put your money where your mouth is. Give him more and more. Half your pay check every week.
I find it's worse than ironic , that the people who need a fast transplant the most , scream the loudest , against it. That is indeed trapping yourself.
The pros and the cons about Philippine transplants:
Pros : No waiting nonsense, just a few weeks of testing, one day of ethics meeting for the donor.
The Surgeons have trained in the US or with American instructors, using American methods for both the donor and the recipient. The Live kidney makes urine as soon as its attached in the recipient. Fly home in a month with full kidney function.
Cons: It costs between 70-85,000.USD. Even if your commercial insurance reimburses you, it needs to be paid ahead of surgery. There will be little peer support from forum members. You will feel nervous until you meet the Surgeon in the Hospital.
-
This is about the only place where ESRD patients couldn't argue affectively against live Philippine transplants.
So are you saying other places DID have effective and convincing arguments against transplants in the Philippines? Good to know! :thumbup;
-
No, I am saying that Epoman allows both sides to be discussed here , but the other boards would close it in the middle or tended to allow screaming against me but would delete enough of my answers to real questions, that it was not the whole picture.
-
I think this thread has reached a point of pointlessness. Just my :twocents; worth
I agree with you totally!
I am removing the "Sticky" on this thread. I believe this thread needs to be taken out back and shot. >:D
Grab the shotgun pa. This ones a goner. :angel;
I agree. We could keep trading posts on this forever and we're never going to reach consensus. And I can be quite stubborn, so, if you don't stop me, I have enough articles on this (from sources I consider legitimate!) to keep going indefinitely. Even I don't want that to happen!
-
Blam! Blam! Okay I have shot the thread already! :grouphug;
-
I'm happy for it to end, I have said what I wanted.
I'm glad that Mitch was allowed to post in full even though I disagree with him.
-
I say we all let Mitch have this thread and we will take our toys and go play somewhere else.
-
Who is eligible for a transplant in the Philippines ? Virtually all ESRD patients who want and need a kidney transplant, after our Surgeon gives the go ahead. However we don't use that non medical misleading phrase
" eligible for a transplant". Why is this phrased used in American Transplant Hospitals.? This gives them a polite way to get rid of overweight patients, elderly , past users of substances and other less than perfect people.
The US hospitals gets to cherry pick the kidney transplant patients they prefer. Remember they have a geographic monopoly and a waiting list a mile long so they create categories with artificial lines, to eliminate ESRD patents from the transplant list. They find that kidney patients accept sugar coated bullshit ("not eligible") as they get kicked off the US transplant list. If those American patients were diagnosed ESRD and their doctor recommended they get a transplant, then by golly they should.
That standard is not used for Liver transplant candidates in the US. With Liver failure patients, the one bleeding to death and figured to die moves to the head of the transplant list. Thus the sickest Liver patient is not kicked off the list as with ESRD patients. >:(
So if your American/Canadian/UK hospitals gives the " not eligible" screw job, we will save the day with a live Philippine transplant. :clap;
-
Who is eligible for a transplant in the Philippines ? Virtually all ESRD patients who want and need a kidney transplant, after our Surgeon gives the go ahead. However we don't use that non medical misleading phrase
" eligible for a transplant". Why is this phrased used in American Transplant Hospitals.? This gives them a polite way to get rid of overweight patients, elderly , past users of substances and other less than perfect people.
The US hospitals gets to cherry pick the kidney transplant patients they prefer. Remember they have a geographic monopoly and a waiting list a mile long so they create categories with artificial lines, to eliminate ESRD patents from the transplant list. They find that kidney patients accept sugar coated bullshit ("not eligible") as they get kicked off the US transplant list. If those American patients were diagnosed ESRD and their doctor recommended they get a transplant, then by golly they should.
That standard is not used for Liver transplant candidates in the US. With Liver failure patients, the one bleeding to death and figured to die moves to the head of the transplant list. Thus the sickest Liver patient is not kicked off the list as with ESRD patients. >:(
So if your American/Canadian/UK hospitals gives the " not eligible" screw job, we will save the day with a live Philippine transplant. :clap;
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mallory,Kikatz,Geoff,Sandman and lets not forget LIVECAM, Is silent sulking your appology for LYING. Using imaginary names like broker,.? Calling it Black Market cause its discreet and the dumbest of all , about informing donors of the risks, if they make money. If they are stupid enough to do it for free , the implication is then their health will be ok.
How can the me-me generation afford a Philippine transplant ? They borrow on a family member's house which on the low average is worth in the most affordable markets in the country :
Market Median home price*
Minot, N.D. $132,300
Killen, Texas $140,310
Arlington, Texas $140,975
Grayling, Mich. $144,250
Topeka, Kan. $148,050
Canton, Ohio $148,333
Tulsa, Okla. $148,575
Billings, Mont. $150,141
Fort Worth, Texas $151,250
Cadillac, Mich. $151,530
*All prices for 2,200 sq-ft., 4 br, 2 1/2 bath homes; Source: Coldwell Banker's Home Price Comparison Index
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geoff , are you also admitting lying to the forum with those imaginary brokers and that with your "family business" you can afford the transplant with the higher price ? You posted again that you are depressed , and taking Xanax and Restoril and lost your job and had to move in with your parents.
Xanax is an an addicting tranquillizer, and you take double doses . Each time the doses wears off a person feels nervous and more depressed than before. The double dose Restoril adds to the nervous-depressed withdrawal effect.
If you do desire to taper down , it must be under your doctor 's supervision, otherwise you may get a seizure.
-
Alright Mitch, you crossed the line. Anyone in my situation would be depressed from time to time and this is where I discuss it. I am not lying to you, I do run my own successful business but health issues and some money issues (from trying to stay on Medicare and paying for my own group policy) have forced me to move into my parents house to make my life easier. Not that you have any right to say those things about me. I do have my problems and I deal the best I can. You started this post and were allowed to by Epoman to discuss OUR feelings on the matter, and that is what I did. I never said anything about "imaginary brokers", I was calling you a broker. I guess we define what your title is in differant ways, and that is fine. If you want to attack me go ahead. It shows the real you, next time I would perfer if you do it to me personally I would really love to meet you. I have stayed away from posting here for a week and a half and was not going to return to post anymore because I figured we would agree to disagree. I am truly disappointed in the way you have chosen to address me.. you know nothing about me, my problems or my finances. You want to call me a liar fine. I really don't care what you think. the last thing I need in my life is your negativity. So I have one request from you. Please leave this board as it is here to HELP those of us who are facing issues related to ESRD and dialysis. And if you wish to contact me my e-mail, messenger ID's are posted for all to see in my profile. The sad part of all this is you are on to a new way for the population waiting for transplants to achieve their goal. I am not saying I agree with your particular solution but it has proved effective in other areas such as heart surgery, hip replacement where private insurance is covering the costs to go abroad to get the surgeries at a heavily reduced price. You simply do not know how to talk to us... there is no room for our concerns in your way.. it is you are always right and we are "stupid" for not seeing your way. I do not appreciate the personal attack on me but I guess I should have expected it. Now in the end you have proved all my feelings about you and your methods right (to me) and tainted my views on even the possible good side of some of the options you have brought up! Thanks for all your help it has been a real eye opener for me. Next time you want to call me a liar do it to my face. Thanks Geoff
-
Mallory,Kikatz,Geoff,Sandman and lets not forget LIVECAM, Is silent sulking your apology for LYING. Using imaginary names like broker,.? Calling it Black Market cause its discreet and the dumbest of all , about informing donors of the risks, if they make money. If they are stupid enough to do it for free , the implication is then their health will be ok.
Huh ??? Are you saying your waiting for an apology from ME? For what? Calling you a shady, black marketeer? Well, I can't speak for everyone here but that is certainly my personal view of you and I will not apologize for that remark. You have insulted everyone on these forums with your belittling remarks and for that, I will have no remorse with standing behind my remarks to you.
-
where private insurance is covering the costs to go abroad to get the surgeries at a heavily reduced price. You simply do not know how to talk to us... there is no room for our concerns in your way.. it is you are always right and we are "stupid" for not seeing your way. I do not appreciate the personal attack on me but I guess I should have expected it. Now in the end you have proved all my feelings about you and your methods right (to me) and tainted my views on even the possible good side of some of the options you have brought up! Thanks for all your help it has been a real eye opener for me. Next time you want to call me a liar do it to my face. Thanks Geoff
His constant insults have made him look so bad that no one could possibly take him as a decent person. He did it to himself. He has no one to blame but himself! :thumbdown;
-
Angie, you posted an article about "Harvesting Organs for Organ Transplant Without Permission". This sounds like something from the Nazi . I doubt the moral majority would go for that. That is almost as bad as the Chinese execution of prisoners for organs. These above are about forcing organs out of people without any permission.
How can you criticize the Philippine system where donors get paid and step up to the plate with a normal type of incentive of earning money.Yet you guys turn the voluntary payment into something dirty by repeating lies made up by news rags.
Hey Guys, how about the same playing rules for all . If I am called an evil dude without concrete evidence then I can return the favor without you yelling "foul"
Angie, that other stupid article you posted twice on your board "Wealthy British buy organs from poor Philippine people on the web site www.Liver4you .org " was the title but later in the article itself they admitted that web site doesn't sell organs but arranges transplants. You guys absorb that for about five minutes, then you're back raving the first part again.
-------------------------------------------------
Geoff , you defined my title with an insult, thus you started the insults. You said you want to meet me personally, fine , but we only wear Surgical gloves to get you that live donor transplant you are crying out for. Remember talk nice, because I am the last guy on Earth who can help you. That Medical tourism thing in two yrs NEVER got anybody transplanted. The Chinese get you an old kidney, since the donor was killed last week for a heart patient. The Paks sometimes can do a transplant but don't they kill French and British Tourists in the street ? Every place else it's illegal. As for the US hospitals when they go cherry picking, what will they say to you. 5 yrs from now ?
-------------------------------------------------
Sandman : you said "an apology from ME? For what? Calling you a shady, black marketeer"
Did you reach that conclusion while you were dreaming or do you have something concrete, like proof.? And why did you spell the word "me" in capitals ?
I think some of you may turn into a Pinocchio.
-
Put an end to this madness :banghead;
Mitch ORGANBROKER you have done nothing more than insult the other members on this site with continuing the same driveling answers just changing them around with different words. You are an insult to the people here who live with CKD and live on dialysis.
Most people here have /are intelligently investigating what is best for themselves regarding medical care and you make it sound like you have all the answers when you don't. Your name says it all.
The members here have told you repeatedly that they are not buying what you are selling.
All your answers recently are personal attacks on the people who disagree with you. Everyone including you have had plenty of time to share their own ideas. It is becoming repetitive and pointless.
-
Good Grief!! This is getting ridiculous. This is obviously a sore subject to a lot of people, but life is what is is: difficult. We make decisions that are best for us for our own reasons. I have enjoyed the back and forth between all of the members; Mitch and Stauffenburg included. It is refreshing to see something so controversial spoken about with such knowledge.
It is also wonderful to know that our members, all of them, are so passionate about what they believe in. I feel informed by all of this conversation from every angle.
I think the personal attacks, from all sides, are unnecessary.
This website is always about support and information, and getting all of the information is what we need to do. Although some of us do not agree with it, buying an organ may be an option for some.
:grouphug;
-
Sandman : you said "an apology from ME? For what? Calling you a shady, black marketeer"
Did you reach that conclusion while you were dreaming or do you have something concrete, like proof.? And why did you spell the word "me" in capitals ?
I think some of you may turn into a Pinocchio.
That's right. That is what I said. Of course I researched my conclusion to my accusing you of that "black marketing" thing because the term best describes what you appear to be, according to North American laws and customs. You want proof? Try google.com (http://www.google.com/) and search for something like this. black market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_market). And this is not a dream my friend, this is just the cold, hard facts.
I used the word "me" in caps because you were accusing me of lying when I was doing nothing of the kind. You may call me mistaken but don't ever call me a lier. I take great pride in the truth, no matter how harsh it may turn out.
-
Sandman, are you saying that I am in N.America ? Angie can see that I post from the Philippines. Do you think N.American laws apply to the Philippines ?.
Sandman the quote that follows you placed an Angies board "Now, the services that you seem to be offering may apear to the rest of the world that the US deals with in this matter as a black market for organs and transplants. And contrary to popular belief" That may appear phrase is what you have leaned upon , so kindly show specific proof or back off the name calling.
The following , I though you understood but obviously not..
I look to find patients, while remaining physically in Asia to screen patients by speaking to them and looking at the records ,then we refer them to a Surgeon who is also in the Philippines, who then contacts a donor. The Donor goes before a Hospital ethics committee, still in the Philippines for approval of his compensated donation. In the Philippine, their own law applies in the Philippines ,so why do you keep bringing up N.America law ? Is it superior ?
What part of this work which is legal in the Philippines are you calling black market. ?
You know, in N. America if a donor is approved after the ethics committee , even if it took 6 months. It is legal.
So if you follow the laws of where this takes place(Philippines), its legal. Can't you understand this and not forget it in a week ?
-
That's right. That is what I said. Of course I researched my conclusion to my accusing you of that "black marketing" thing because the term best describes what you appear to be, according to North American laws and customs. You want proof? Try google.com (http://www.google.com/) and search for something like this. black market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_market). And this is not a dream my friend, this is just the cold, hard facts.
I used the word "me" in caps because you were accusing me of lying when I was doing nothing of the kind. You may call me mistaken but don't ever call me a lier. I take great pride in the truth, no matter how harsh it may turn out.
First off I do not agree with the buying and selling of organs for obvious reasons.
However if you think it is black market you are wrong. To be black market it would have to be illegal in the Philippines in the first place or the transaction would have to occur in the US.
The only way it will be black market is if the transaction occurs in the US. Since the "donor" (term used very loosly) is not in the US it is doubtful that will ever be the case. Also to my knowledge there is no US law that prohibits US citizens from traveling to such countries for such things. US law nor does Customs have any authority in what is going on unless it occurs in the US and even then the organ transfer hs to affects interstate commerce.
No I am not siding with the guy either.
-
I wonder if the new kidney is duty-free when the patient re-enters the U.S.?
-
I wonder if the new kidney is duty-free when the patient re-enters the U.S.?
lol. . . .really loud.
-
I wonder if the new kidney is duty-free when the patient re-enters the U.S.?
Only if bought at a duty-free shop. ;D
-
I know what you guys need to get in order to clinch the deal . A free tea shirt, a seasons pass to all Philippine baseball games and a trip to a white sand beach on the Island of Mindoro. Its a good site for snorkeling and scuba diving. I have been there. :)
-
I wouldnt go to the Phillapines if you paid me!
-
Sandman, are you saying that I am in N.America ? Angie can see that I post from the Philippines. Do you think N.American laws apply to the Philippines ?.
Sandman the quote that follows you placed an Angies board "Now, the services that you seem to be offering may apear to the rest of the world that the US deals with in this matter as a black market for organs and transplants. And contrary to popular belief" That may appear phrase is what you have leaned upon , so kindly show specific proof or back off the name calling.
The following , I though you understood but obviously not..
I look to find patients, while remaining physically in Asia to screen patients by speaking to them and looking at the records ,then we refer them to a Surgeon who is also in the Philippines, who then contacts a donor. The Donor goes before a Hospital ethics committee, still in the Philippines for approval of his compensated donation. In the Philippine, their own law applies in the Philippines ,so why do you keep bringing up N.America law ? Is it superior ?
What part of this work which is legal in the Philippines are you calling black market. ?
You know, in N. America if a donor is approved after the ethics committee , even if it took 6 months. It is legal.
So if you follow the laws of where this takes place(Philippines), its legal. Can't you understand this and not forget it in a week ?
Hey, did you even read my last message completely or did you just read the first sentance and start posting from there?
Stop twisting my words around. I never said you were in North America. But doesn't matter anyway because my basic means to trace route your IP fails. How Angie would be able to run a trace route on you and I can't, is beyond me. But that's besides the point. North American laws do not apply in the Philippines and visa versa BUT, North American laws DO apply to North Americans. North America would be Canada, USA and Mexico. In North America, it IS illlegal to transport many items to and from this country without the proper documentation or without paying some sort of duty fee. And there are other items that are simply prohibited to North Americans. Now, I'm not exactly up to date on US customs laws so please forgive me if my data is out of date but last I checked, it is illegal for citizens of the US to acquire human organs out side of North America unless acquired through emergency surgery. Now, I'm not sure how this pertains to the services you are offering but I can assure it, it is severely frond upon. Prove me wrong and I will retract my previous statement.
-
Yes I read your post completely, but I only want you to answer(the verb and Adverb) part of it, that why I asked about that part.
Did you read the Post from BigSky ? It stated " First off I do not agree with the buying and selling of organs for obvious reasons. However if you think it is black market you are wrong. To be black market it would have to be illegal in the Philippines in the first place or the transaction would have to occur in the US.
The only way it will be black market is if the transaction occurs in the US. Since the "donor" (term used very loosely) is not in the US it is doubtful that will ever be the case. Also to my knowledge there is no US law that prohibits US citizens from traveling to such countries for such things. US law nor does Customs have any authority in what is going on unless it occurs in the US and even then the organ transfer has to affects interstate commerce. No I am not siding with the guy either. "
As to your last sentence " it is illegal for citizens of the US to acquire human organs out side of North America unless acquired through emergency surgery. Now, I'm not sure how this pertains to the services you are offering but I can assure it, it is severely frond upon. Prove me wrong and I will retract my previous statement. "
You said " it is severely frond upon". Sandman, do you think a Philippine hospital is under N.American jurisdiction ??
Who cares what they Frond upon. I frond upon that they don't help save Darfur.
Between your frond statement and the words of BigSky, what do you think . Did that prove you are wrong.. I don't care if you withdraw past wrong stuff. I want you to stop calling me names which infer dishonesty, pure and simple. Nothing about what someone frowns upon. You proved yourself wrong and nobody jumped up to imply Asia is under US jurisdiction.
Time for you to be fair.
-
He is in the Philippines.
23 324 ms 417 ms 321 ms cable-*-*-*-*.mydestiny.net (http://www2.mydestiny.net/corporateprofiles.php) [*.*.*.*(blocked out for privacy reasons)]
Trace complete
Solid Broadband Corp. is a broadband service company, is envisioned to be the largest provider of multimedia services in the Philippines.
Also Bigsky has a very important point regarding Mitch here.
The argument isn't about how we feel it is wrong and how in North America it is wrong .. because it is legal in the Philippines. It is comparable to when I worked for "Canadian Satellite" (which actually took money from customers and gave them American Signals) when it was seen by Americans as illegal for Canadians to have American Satellite accounts. But in Canada it was "Grey Market" until the R.C.M.P. declared it "Black Market" a few years ago causing the business to go under.
The problem I have with Mitch is that he is insulting but there have been insults thrown at him too since most of us are defensive about this issue. Why? Well, we feel Mitch is pushing it on us and calling us trapped prisoners by our own will if we don't jump on the next flight out and put up the neighbours house so we have the money to throw into something that might not even be as safely regulated as we are used to.
Let's just stick to facts and stop the fighting. We can agree to disagree but let's stop the insults as they are non-preductive!
-
While the British Parliament claims to have the capacity to legislate for the entire world, and in a famous quip among English lawyers, could "make it illegal to smoke on the streets of Paris," the American Constitution, being designed for a federal state, has to demarcate very carefully the geographical range of the legal authority of each level of government. Each state controls matters within its own boundaries, and the federal government is limited to interstate matters, matters of strictlly national concern, and certain specific topics which may extend into state jurisdiction, such as control over foreign ambassadors. But American law does not purport to control what you can do outside the country. It is also pure science fiction to imagine that customs has any control over integral or surgically integrated parts of the human body, and no one has ever had to pay an import duty for bringing in a cardiac pacemaker he had installed in his chest while he was on vacation in Germany! Generally, internationally the principle of 'comity among nations' applies, and each country respects the laws of every other country within the foreign country's jurisdiction. Just because you got married in, say, England where the marriage laws do not require a blood test for venereal disease before a marriage license is issued, does not mean that on arriving in a U.S. state that did insist on such a blood test for a marriage license your English marriage would suddenly be regarded as invalid. Similarly, how you got your new kidney abroad would also not be an issue.
For those who are still convinced that buying organs is universally wrong, despite the dozens of medical ethicists who now agree that payment for kidney donation is morally legitimate, just consider the variety of different nations' attitudes to payment. Iran instituted in 1997 a system under which the government pays live kidney donors for their donation through charitable organizations, and now the waiting list for kidney transplants has fallen to zero, so patients are transplanted as soon as they get sick, and dialysis is needed only for those medically ineligible for transplants. In British Columbia, Canada, the government now pays families which donate the organs of a deceased family member $5,500 for the funeral expenses. Pennsylvania also has a less generous system of compensating donor families for funeral expenses. In a variety of Asian and Middle Eastern countries payment of live donors is the normal procedure, even for the locals. But at the other extreme, in Japan for decades it was considered immoral to take an organ from a brain-dead person, and even today no organ can 'morally' be taken from anyone 15 and under according to Japanese law, thus producing enormous tragedies for pediatric patients in need of a small-sized organ transplant, who in the U.S., in contrast, would be given top priority for a new kidney! So you can see how arbitrary these supposedly 'God given,' 'universally necessary,' 'absolute' moral principles really are. I would say that amidst such a relativity of value judgments from one culture to another, you have a right to base your decision on your own needs, not on the prejudices of some society of mainly healthy people who don't know what you're going through.
-
Welcome back stauffenberg, I thought we lost you.
-
Okay mitch, I have one last question for you before I just give up on you completely. ( now this is just hypothetically speaking, mind you ) IF someone here was to go and get a transplant from you, and for some odd reason, the medical professionals that they deal with found out where the procedure took place. Now what if their insurance providers would refuse to pay for follow up care, how are those patients suppose to pay for continuing health care?
-
Sandman,
You said this was your last question. OK
----------------------------------------------------------
Geoff,
I owe you an apology for commenting about your meds. Now , I understand your point about the depression we get at times. Hang in there.
-
Sandman: most nephrologists, by training, by experience, and by the Hippocratic oath, are on the patient's side, and many of them I have spoken to regard the laws against paid organ donation as cruel and groundless, based on a knee-jerk reaction of the general public to a problem they don't understand. As a result, they will usually turn a blind eye to any evidence that you got a transplant under unusual circumstances, or they will even positively congratulate you for your initiative. They are healers, not policemen.
How a private or a public insurance program will respond to the fact that you got a transplant abroad by unusual means depends on the particular program and its rules, so no general answer can be given. There are many lawyers in the U.S. who specialize in getting Medicare/Medicaid claims approved, so you might want to consult one of them with your hypothetical first if you are using the public system in the U.S. In Canada and Britain, the only rule of the public healthcare system is that they treat patients for free as and when they need it, regardless of what brought them in the door of the doctor's office or the hospital. In Canada it wasn't even the law until last year that a doctor is obligated to report to the police all gunshot wounds treated, and even that has sparked protests from the medical profession. If you have private insurance, it is good to keep in mind that some private insurers will pay for a Philippine transplant, because they look at the matter purely in financial terms, and it is much cheaper to pay $80,000 once plus $10,000 a year for anti-rejection drugs than it is to pay $60,000 a year for however long the patient lives. In any case, however, you should look at the fine print of the policy first to see what is covered and what is not.
-
This is a link to a press release from the Department of Health in the Philippines:
http://www.doh.gov.ph/press/09031999.pdf
It states:
Health Secretary Alberto Romualdez Jr., today ended the moratorium on all transplant operations of living non-related donors even as he ordered the creation of an ethics committee in all institutions with transplant facilities to ensure that all transplantation conforms to legal and moral requirements.
The said moratorium did not cover transplant operations of Filipinos with foreign citizenship and all foreigners married to a Filipino national and residing in the Philippines.
According to Romualdez, the practice of acquiring an organ from a living related donor is acceptable. He added that donation from a living non-related donor is also acceptable but emphasized that there should be no form of profiteering among donor and alleged agent. Although the sale of an organ does not violate any law, the health chief said that the organized practice of organ donation for profit is against ethical standards and is not within the commerce of man. Romualdez also revealed that should a doctor be found guilty, this may result to revocation of his license.
“If we allow the practice of living non-related donors in the country, this will open doors for foreigners to buy kidney and other body parts here in our country since many of our countrymen are poor,” Romualdez said. “This will be discriminating against poor Filipinos,” he added.
The health chief disclosed that people who accepts payment for organ donation are not properly informed of the consequences. The operation on a healthy donor may be a possible source of infection and may cause excessive bleeding.
Meanwhile, the DOH reported that a kidney is sold for about P100,000 with the agent getting P 10,000 to P12,000 per deal. The sale of kidney has already happened in the past but these were done before the transplantation ethics was discussed and put into order. In the country, the first kidney transplant was done some 20 years ago.
It also states:
Commercial or for “profit” kidney donation shall not be allowed; Compensation in Living Non Related Organ Donation shall be carried out in the spirit of altruism between donor and donee; and shall not in anyway, be transacted through brokers;
And it also states:
LNRD* donation for foreigners shall temporarily be disallowed pending further deliberation.
*Living Non-Related Donor
In the U.S., The National Organ Transplant Act makes it illegal for "any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human organ for valuable consideration for use in human transplantation." While this does not prevent a U.S. citizen from obtaining a transplant outside the country, I believe it could make it more difficult to obtain care following a transplant outside the United States.
In a June 2002 article in the New England Journal of Medicine (co-authored by three MDs and three PhDs), it stated:
The fundamental truths of our society, of life and liberty, are values that should not have a monetary price. These values are degraded when a poor person feels compelled to risk death for the sole purpose of obtaining monetary payment for a body part. Physicians, whose primary responsibility is to provide care, should not support this practice. Furthermore, our society places limits on individual autonomy when it comes to protection from harm. We do not endorse as public policy the sale of the human body through prostitution of any sort, despite the purported benefits of such a sale for both the buyer and the seller.
Here is a link to the article, but you may have to subscribe:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/346/25/2002?hits=20&where=fulltext&andorexactfulltext=and&searchterm=organ+donation&sortspec=Score%2Bdesc%2BPUBDATE_SORTDATE%2Bdesc&excludeflag=TWEEK_element&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
In all my searching, and I have done a lot, I have yet to find any articles documenting the statistics specifically for organ donors in the Philippines, indicating the impact (either positive or negative) socially, physically and economically. Mitch and Stauffenberg, do you have any statistics you can share with us?
Based on everything I have seen, and based a great deal on reading Mitch's posts, I would not consider going to the Philippines for a transplant as a viable option for me. However, I agree with Stauffenberg that everyone should get to make that decision based on their own needs, and I would not fault anyone who felt it was the right decision for them.
-
Mallory , how have you been ? Nice to hear from you again. That was some nice articles but to put them into the present context in 2006, the (http://www.doh.gov.ph/press/09031999.pdf) Health Secretary Alberto Romualdez Jr., did use the word today back in 1999 . The articles from the New England Journal was also out of date (2002) and out of country ( in the US).
If you had a live unrelated donor transplant would the long term outcome of the donor have any bearing on the long term outcome of Mallory.? The donor's long term well being depends on the country he lives in. It's fair to say that with health care much better in the US than in the Philippines, your live donor's outcome would be better if YOU take him back with you to the US.
While this would be unusual , it could be your chance help improve the donor's outcome.
-
Is anyone else getting tired of seeing Mitch post things in other areas of the board? Why is this being encouraged? >:( He is not our friend, he's trying to make money off of us (you)!
-
Dear Members,
I made a deal with him that if I allow him one thread to state his case and have his say, he promised not to spam the site anymore. I set the ground rules to him, that he is ONLY allowed to post in this thread ONLY and he must not engage in a "Flame" war with another member. He must remain calm and act professionally. One of the rules was that he must create a new account with the member "mitchorganbroker" so the members would now that this is indeed the same person who was previously spamming the site.
He was given this chance on D&T (Dialysis & Transplant City) now he will have his chance here. If the members want me to just delete this thread and ban him yet again just let me know, the majority rules.
- Epoman
Owner/Admin
Okay, so if these are in fact the ground rules that have been set to mitch then why is mitch posting in other threads here? Epoman, was there a change of heart in this which I have quoted above? Is mitch now allowed to post in other threads, other then this one?
-
Is anyone else getting tired of seeing Mitch post things in other areas of the board? Why is this being encouraged? >:( He is not our friend, he's trying to make money off of us (you)!
Dear Members,
I made a deal with him that if I allow him one thread to state his case and have his say, he promised not to spam the site anymore. I set the ground rules to him, that he is ONLY allowed to post in this thread ONLY and he must not engage in a "Flame" war with another member. He must remain calm and act professionally. One of the rules was that he must create a new account with the member "mitchorganbroker" so the members would now that this is indeed the same person who was previously spamming the site.
He was given this chance on D&T (Dialysis & Transplant City) now he will have his chance here. If the members want me to just delete this thread and ban him yet again just let me know, the majority rules.
- Epoman
Owner/Admin
Okay, so if these are in fact the ground rules that have been set to mitch then why is mitch posting in other threads here? Epoman, was there a change of heart in this which I have quoted above? Is mitch now allowed to post in other threads, other then this one?
Without taking any sides here these quotes sound quite intolerant. Where is the freedom of speech? In my opinion it is good to discuss about issues including this from differnet viewpoints, even all sides seem to be sometimes very stubborn with their own opinions...
Like mentioned already earlier by some members, finally it is everybody's own decision how he or she gets his or her transplant if he or she wants one and is capable for getting one.
-
I could care less where he posts, as long as he stays with-in reason to the forums policy rules, keeps with-in topic and doesn't contine to peddle his services out side of this thread other then a signature link. You don't have to like someone to have a conversation with them. If we let him stay, he may actually learn something. ::) Just my :twocents;
I simply wanted to know if he was breaking the ground rules set to him by Epoman or if he is allowed to post outside of this thread now.
-
If we let him stay, he may actually learn something.
Maybe a new angle on how to rip people off.
He was SPAMMING the board, even after Epoman banned him several times. That in itself is enough for permanent ban, IMO. Then Epoman was nice enough to give him one thread to state his business or whatever, and he insults and disrespects the forum members (I know there have been some not-so-nice comments toward him but I don't think it matters). Then he goes and posts about his motorcycle and shares pics of himself with his "friends". Come on people, he is not going to have a change of heart because of us. He is out there to make money. We are potential customers (possible victims is more like it, but that's just my opinion) and all he's seeing is $$$. He's not our friend, he's probably just doing this because he thinks some people may see his posts and think "maybe he's a nice guy, maybe I'll go give him thousands of dollars now." He is not using this board or its members to help people! He probably is learning how to scam us better, and we are playing into it.
-
Sara, I have stated before that I haven't charged Philippine people for my help, nor will i change that in the future.
I believe you have told us that your Husband is from the Philippines. Is he the patient.? I am not speaking for the Doctor/ Hospital, when I give charity. The Philippine Surgeon gives a discount for his own people, that are 100% Filipino. The Hospital is color blind and charges everybody the same, if the service is the same.
So in that case your Philippine husband is not my potential customer.
-
Oh, wow, he gets a discount? Oh that changes things. Nevermind, I now think you are a great person, and what you are doing is so worthwhile!
(your computer screen should be dripping with sarcasm by now ::) )
-
If we let him stay, he may actually learn something.
Maybe a new angle on how to rip people off.
He was SPAMMING the board, even after Epoman banned him several times. That in itself is enough for permanent ban, IMO. Then Epoman was nice enough to give him one thread to state his business or whatever, and he insults and disrespects the forum members (I know there have been some not-so-nice comments toward him but I don't think it matters). Then he goes and posts about his motorcycle and shares pics of himself with his "friends". Come on people, he is not going to have a change of heart because of us. He is out there to make money. We are potential customers (possible victims is more like it, but that's just my opinion) and all he's seeing is $$$. He's not our friend, he's probably just doing this because he thinks some people may see his posts and think "maybe he's a nice guy, maybe I'll go give him thousands of dollars now." He is not using this board or its members to help people! He probably is learning how to scam us better, and we are playing into it.
The comments made from him matter, but not the ones towards him?
I found it interesting to see the pics. That does not mean that I, or anyone else, will be giving him thousands of dollars. I doubt we have anyone here naive enough to throw him money because he's being nice. If he's following Epoman's rules, I don't see why he shouldn't be able to post. If he's not, Epoman will give him the deserved boot.
We all get passionate about certain topics, but sometimes we need to take a breath and realize what may be a good decision for one person may not be a good one for everyone else. If someone here had exhausted all of their options, and made the informed decision to go to a person like Mitch, I hope they will feel comfortable enough to come to this wonderful group for support.
-
He started this, vandie. He was the one spamming the board, spamming people's emails. If he cared about patients and wanted to learn, he would have come to this board like a normal person, introduced himself, NOT tried to sell people on his service, definitely would not have spammed the board or its members, and would be asking appropriate questions about how to better help his clients. None of this has happened. If a person decides to buy a kidney, that's their own personal choice. I don't happen to agree with it, but then again I am not the one with kidney failure. I would also hope they came here to find kidney failure-related support. I just don't think we need to or should put up with Mitch and his crap.
-
I do agree that he seems to on the "sale." However, I do feel with his intial posts that I have gained a lot of knowledge on this subject from a lot of posts; both prons and cons.
That's why I love this board..... :clap;
-
Mitch actually is a nice person. From the two transplant patients of his I have gotten to know and spoken to on the telephone, I learned that a) there were periods when he was holding large amounts of money they had sent him and, even though he could have run off with it and not been caught, he followed through on the deal and kept his promises scrupulously; b) he takes a personal interest in his clients, calls them every day while they are in the hospital, and even helps them out with advice on renal or non-medical problems that arise. The two kidney donors I met personally also had no complaints about the way they had been treated in the process. If you actually go to the Philippines you will see that paid organ donation in that country is the NORMAL way people get kidney transplants and the whole process is quite friendly, relaxed, and casual -- there are no men in trenchcoats whispering about deals in dark alleys. The only unpleasant part is the actual haggling with the doctors over their price, but as long as you let Mitch take care of that part of the matter for you -- and that is what you hire him to do -- then your experience of the transplant is smooth and simple.
-
Mallory , how have you been ? Nice to hear from you again. That was some nice articles but to put them into the present context in 2006, the (http://www.doh.gov.ph/press/09031999.pdf) Health Secretary Alberto Romualdez Jr., did use the word today back in 1999 . The articles from the New England Journal was also out of date (2002) and out of country ( in the US).
Yes, Mitch, I am well aware of the dates of the articles I posted. Where are the articles supporting your statements? Oh, that's right, you haven't provided any! You haven't provided any support for your views, you have just continued to belittle and demean everything we say and to tried to intimidate us into listening to you. Do you have any update to Romualdez's statement to indicate that he has changed his opinion? You do not. Do you have any articles from the New England Journal of Medicine stating that selling organs is ethically acceptable? You do not. Do you have any statistics on the social, physical and/or economic impacts of kidney donation in the Philippines? You do not. You have provided no documented facts at all to support your position.
I'm sick of you, I'm sick of your opinions, and I'm sick of listening to you. I'm not going to try to discuss things with you reasonably, or provide information, because you are not willing to do the same.
Put up or shut up, Mitch. Provide documented facts that support buying a kidney in the Philippines. That's all I ask, provide the facts.
-
I don't believe that statistics are even collected regarding the number of people who have had transplants in the Philippines through paid organ donation, nor do I think the data even exist on the outcomes of paid organ donors there. The Philippines is a Third World country, where people are still struggling to get the potholes in the streets fixed: data collection of the sort you are looking for is not high on the priority list of the local epidemiologists, who have other concerns.
What i can tell you is that all the data from Western countries show that altruistic organ donors suffer no shortening of life expectancy and no greater rates of disease or incapacity than the general population. Just because selling or giving away an organ is a serious issue ETHICALLY for many people does not mean that nature cooperates and also makes it a serious issue MEDICALLY, since it does not. In Sweden the practice is to have only ONE SINGLE follow-up medical appointment for an organ donor within two months after donation, since the procedure is so harmless. Some now recommend a check-up of donors every two or three years by a general practitioner, as I posted earlier. What this amounts to is that a Philippine donor would not be in a dangerous position because of the need for elaborate, high-tech, and highly-sophisticated, intensive medical check-ups after donation. Also, since the donor is paid US $7000 and a check-up by a general practitioner in the Philippines costs anywhere from $6 to $10, the paid donor should be quite able to take care of his follow-up care if he wishes.
As for the statement you quoted, it is of no significance, because the police in the Philippines are so corrupt they obey only bribes and not the law, and the judicial system is so inefficient and chaotic that the average fender-bender case takes more than a decade to make its way through the courts. Every person of any means has a huge fence around his house and his own team of private security guards, as do all the hotels for tourists from First-World countries, since that is that is the only operative law. When I was in the Philippines looking into the option of Mitch's service a few years ago -- that is, AFTER the passage you quoted -- the first thing every dialysis nurse and nephrologist said on meeting me was, "Oh, you must be here for a transplant," as though it were the most ordinary thing in the world. There was no whispering, no winking, no nodding, but it was all above-board and no one was concerned about any legal problems. I understand how you might worry about the whole adventure when looking at it from the outside and trying to imagine what it would be like, but once you actually go there, if you ever do, you would feel foolish for having made such a big deal of it, since foreigners getting transplants there by paid organ donation is regarded as the most natural thing in the world, and everything functions naturally, smoothly, and automatically. You go in on dialysis and you come out two weeks later with a new kidney and you wonder why it ever seemed so impossible and why you waited so long.
-
Yale Professor Urges Payment For Organ Donation
October 9, 2006 12:32 p.m. EST
Mary K. Brunskill - All Headline News Staff Writer
New Haven, CT (AHN) - A Yale University School of Medicine professor says a regulated system for paying people to donate organs would diminish the "desperate" need for organs and counter exploitation.
Professor Amy Friedman, who has worked as a transplant surgeon for 15 years, believes paying organ donors through a government-supervised system would help bridge the gap of access to transplants between those who have money and those who do not. Even though there currently are laws prohibiting the sale of organs, some wealthy people are able travel to other countries to buy organs such as kidneys.
Friedman says all laws would have to be monitored, most likely by the government, and supervised by medical and transplant professionals, representatives of patients and donors, and social workers.
Friedman says, "Bringing these activities out of the closet by introducing governmental supervision and funding will provide equity to the poor, who will have equal access to such a transplant."
However, other experts believe such a system would inevitably create more exploitation and would end up hurting the very people Friedman aims to help - low-income people who are desperate for money.
Professor Stephen Wigmore, chairman of the British Transplantation Society Ethics Committee, tells BBC News, "The problem still remains that nobody is going to sell a kidney unless they need the money. Even if you give a kidney to a poor person, it's still going to be a vulnerable person who donated it."
He said, " ... people don't really know what happens to living kidney donors in the long term - do they have normal mortality or do they develop kidney failure at 60 and need a transplant themselves?"
-
From Nature Clinical Practice Nephrology
The Case Against a Regulated System of Living Kidney Sales
Posted 09/29/2006
Vivekanand Jha; Kirpal S Chugh
The number of individuals on a waiting list to receive a kidney currently exceeds 100,000 globally. In the developing world, access to health care and financial issues are the major barriers to renal replacement therapy, but in the advanced industrialized nations, shortage of transplantable organs is the chief reason for continued growth of the waiting list. This gap between supply and demand could be reduced by allowing willing individuals to sell their organs. Donation of organs for money, however, was made illegal in most countries following the emergence of large-scale organ marketing operations supported by unscrupulous brokers and middlemen, especially in the developing countries of South Asia.
The arguments supporting organ sale need to be examined carefully. The differences between the sale of irreplaceable organs and that of essentially renewable tissues such as blood or sperm must be appreciated. Removal of a kidney involves major surgery under anesthetic, which is far more invasive than obtaining any of the aforementioned tissues. Furthermore, it is imperative that we recognize the immorality of allowing people to do serious damage to themselves for the sole purpose of making money. In some instances, individuals who have already sold a kidney have expressed their willingness to donate a second one and take the risk of living on dialysis.[1]
Unacceptably high recipient mortality and transmission of infections, including HIV and hepatitis, have been consistently reported following transplantation of purchased kidneys.[2-4] There is, however, a remarkable paucity of outcome data from such transplantations. Some reports from Iran have claimed success rates equivalent to living related donor transplantations;[5] however, these have been published only in review papers, and the data not rigorously peer-reviewed.
There are few data to show that the financial compensation received by organ donors in developing countries has helped improve their lives. It is common knowledge that donors are underpaid, and that their postoperative medical care is absent or suboptimal. Reports in the lay press have documented high rates of donor mortality and morbidity. Interviews with over 300 kidney sellers near Chennai, India[6] revealed that about 75% of participants whose motive for selling the kidney was payment of debts continued to be in debt and almost 90% reported significant deterioration in their health after donation. Zargooshi[7] documented widespread practice of extralegal financial transactions, coercion and blackmail between donors and recipients in Iran, where financial reward through an independent agency is legal. Although others dispute Zargooshi's observations, independent observations have supported his findings.[8]
So far, financial compensation for kidney donors in most places has been arbitrary, subject to bargaining between the donor and the middleman and dependent on the donor's level of awareness about the value of a kidney. Accurate figures are not available, but in South Asian countries it is estimated that of US$2,000-2,500 paid by the recipient for a kidney, only about $1,000-1,200 reaches the donor. US estimates of appropriate purchase price of a kidney vary from $45,000 to $90,000.[9,10] Once money enters the equation, the argument of allotting the purchased kidney only on medical grounds in an open market economy stands on thin ice. Why should a desperate recipient willing to pay the price not be allowed to go to the top of the waiting list, or the degree of 'matching' between the donor and the recipient not decide the price? Why should the price not be decided at auction so that the seller gets the highest value for an asset that he or she can sell but once?
Enforcement of current transplantation legislation is uneven in many countries. The presence of illegal middlemen or brokers is not doubted.[8] There have been allegations of active collusion of transplant surgeons, nephrologists and members of the regulatory bodies in facilitating commercial transplantations, often with the help of forged documents, and the failure of the law in preventing this activity is well-documented.[11,12] A charitable view could be that these transplantations are performed out of a sense of pity for the recipients; however, there is a strong suspicion that financial gain is the main motivation. It is hard to imagine that in societies where there is a combination of desperate individuals, greedy and unscrupulous facilitators and poorly developed justice systems, transplantation would remain untouched by all-pervasive corruption.
Schemes for setting up government-funded and regulated paid kidney donation programs that give equal opportunity to rich and poor people, and guarantee health care to the donors, have been proposed. Getting such programs to work, however, would be a major challenge. Even the proponents of regulated sales concede that such models can apply only to Western countries that have well-established systems of implementation and monitoring to ensure fair and equitable distribution through existing domestic networks. Inherent in such schemes is the assumption that strict geographical containment is possible.
Once the initial rush of domestic donors is exhausted, the globalization of organ trade, whereby donors would come in large numbers from the developing world to supply organs to the industrialized world, is inevitable. The acceptance of even a limited domestic organ market in the advanced nations will act as the proverbial thin end of the wedge and encourage adoption of commercial donation in the developing world. This view was endorsed by the National Kidney Foundation in a testimony to the US Congress where Dr Francis Delmonico argued that "...a US congressional endorsement for payment would propel other countries to sanction unethical and unjust standards...".
Paid transplantations negatively affect living related and cadaveric transplantation in developing countries.[13] When cheap organs are available, people often opt to buy one rather than subject a loved one to the risk of donation. There are other strategies apart from organ sales that can increase donation rates, such as public awareness campaigns, a 'presumed consent' law, use of marginal donors and performing ABO-incompatible or paired-exchange transplantations. An element of reciprocity could also be injected into the system, so that—for example—people can choose to donate organs only to those who have in turn indicated their willingness for the same.
The arguments supporting a regulated organ market are extremely simplistic, and ignore the ground realities. Allowing such an activity in any corner of the world would open the doors for rampant exploitation of the underprivileged in areas that are already plagued by vast economic inequalities. It is important that the transplant community approaches this issue with a sense of responsibility towards society that is equal to the compassion it shows towards its patients.
CLICK HERE for subscription information about this journal.
References
Broumand B (1997) Living donors: the Iran experience. Nephrol Dial Transplant 12: 1830-1831
Higgins R et al. (2003) Kidney transplantation in patients travelling from the UK to India or Pakistan. Nephrol Dial Transplant 18: 851-852
Ivanovski N et al. (1997) Renal transplantation from paid, unrelated donors in India—it is not only unethical, it is also medically unsafe. Nephrol Dial Transplant 12: 2028-2029
Inston NG et al. (2005) Living paid organ transplantation results in unacceptably high recipient morbidity and mortality. Transplant Proc 37: 560-562
Ghods AJ (2002) Renal transplantation in Iran. Nephrol Dial Transplant 17: 222-228
Goyal M et al. (2002) Economic and health consequences of selling a kidney in India. JAMA 288: 1589-1593
Zargooshi J (2001) Iranian kidney donors: motivations and relations with recipients. J Urol 165: 386-392
Scheper-Hughes N (2003) Keeping an eye on the global traffic in human organs. Lancet 361: 1645-1648
Becker GS and Elias JJ (2003) Introducing incentives in the market for live and cadaveric organ donations. Conference on Organ Transplantation: Economic, Ethical and Policy Issues: 16 May 2003; University of Chicago, IL, USA.
Matas AJ and Schnitzler M (2004) Payment for living donor (vendor) kidneys: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Am J Transplant 4: 216-221
Mudur G (2004) Kidney trade arrest exposes loopholes in India's transplant laws. BMJ 328: 246
Passarinho LE et al. (2003) Bioethical study of kidney transplantation in Brazil involving unrelated living donors: the inefficiency of law to prevent organ commercialism. Rev Assoc Med Bras 49: 382-388
Mani MK (2002) Development of cadaver renal transplantation in India. Nephrology 7: 177-182
Reprint Address
National Kidney Clinic and Research Centre, 601, Sector 18, Chandigarh 160 018, India. chughks_chd@dataone.in
Vivekanand Jha is Additional Professor of Nephrology at the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh, India.
Kirpal S Chugh is Emeritus Professor of Nephrology at the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh, India.
-
Remember if we don't respond further on this thread, then Mitch will have to carry on with himself. Those that are in disagreement should just refrain from posting because it just brings this thread to the top everytime to the amusement of Mitch.
I for one am done with this thread. :bump;
-
Unfortunately he is now posting in other areas of the board. :thumbdown;
-
Hate to say it but whether he makes money or not plays no role in the matter and has nothing to do with it.
Just for the reason every transplant center and doctor doing them in the US makes money also from transplants. In fact they make sure they are going to get payment before you are even worked up. This was the very first thing they asked me before anything was else was mentioned.
The only part that plays into this is the ethics on the what if's that could happen if organ selling was widespread.
-
Unfortunately he is now posting in other areas of the board. :thumbdown;
He has just posted in 2 other threads, the member pics thread and the motorcycle thread in off-topic, he asked my permission to post in the motorcycle thread and I let him since he told me he was a motorcycle rider and since he had been playing by the rules that I set with him when I allowed him this one thread. I did NOT however give him permission to post in the "Members Pictures" thread. I have emailed him and gave him a warning not to post outside of this thread any further or he will be banned. I apologize to the members if him posting his pictures or posting outside of this thread upsetted you and it will not happen again. I gave him this one thread to allow people to make their own decision on his practices and to judge him and his service for themselves.
Mitch, as you read this understand this is your last warning to stay within this thread, you are not allowed to post in any other thread, you doing so has upsetted several members. Please understand that I was very generous to allow you to have your "say" and let the members hear your side of the story even after you spammed this site and even resorted to calling "me" names. Please respect me and my members or I promise you will never be allowed on this site again. I will do everything in my power to stop you even if that includes going back to having to "Approve" members before their account is active and they can make their first post.
- Epoman
Owner/Admin
-
Thank you, Epoman.
-
To those who were upset that I posted photos, I apologize. After I learned how to resize photos I jumped at what I thought was an open invitation to all members to post pictures. I didn't realize at that moment that I wasn't invited
. As for my fondness to motorcycles , I shared that with the motorcycle group. I learned from Sandman and Sluff with our different tastes in 2 wheel riding. I almost became a cadaver donor on three occasions.
Sluff, i guess I can't show my other 3 ( Norton 500, BSA 650, FN 175) past motorcycles.
I read it somewhere that laughing and feeling happiness helps our immune system fight diseases.
Hey guys, Sorry for the difference of opinions, but I do believe that pursuing hobbies or motorcycle riding can help people with ESRD stay healthier and certainly happier.
Epoman, that's one fine looking Epokid , you got.
-
Thanks Epoman.
-
Man he is one ugly p*ck even with the hairpiece.
-
Goofynina 1000 posts is that like the mile high club? lol 8)
-
Man he is one ugly p*ck even with the hairpiece.
Very emotional subject, but was this necessary?
-
Philippine dialysis units were both inside the Transplant Hospitals and stand alone centers. They had a high ratio of staff to patients. Some Units had 7 Nephrologists rotating daily and alot of RNs who did the sticking. When I compared my American patients to the Philippine patients the differences became apparent. The American patients had a much higher flow rate with either a good fistula or a central access.. The local patients used a simple needle to a vein, although some used that plastic sheith which slides over the needle .
Since most were only coming once a week they were not doing to well but staying alive. Many had a slght greenish tint to their complextion. The American patient by comparison looked normal all around and had a much deeper knowledge than the Filipino patients.
The situation for ESRD patients in Thailand is worse as far as access to dialysis, since the units are mostly "in-patient" and expensive. They do related donor transplants but only with Thai citizens.
Both of these countries have some fancy private hospital rooms. I have been a patient a few times and was fine with my experience.
-
Man he is one ugly p*ck even with the hairpiece.
Livecam, that was not called for, must i remind you that name calling is against the rules and it is a banable offense. I would've never thought i would hear someone such as yourself say something like that :-\
Goofynina/Moderator
-
Should unrelated donors in the Philippines ( or elsewhere) be given Health insurance ? Should their long term well being be assured and documented ? Is this done for donors in the US/UK, or in any place ? ???
:2thumbsup; We will be giving our donors major Medical insurance, Disability Insurance, Life Insurance .
We will have a donor informed consent form listing known risks, signed by both the donor and the Doctor.
We shall make public a donor testing check list including all the tests preformed in the American/ Canadian/ UK Transplant Hospitals .
Our new Health Insurance provider shall keep a copy of the Medical follow up records of the donor.
This can be made public with the donor's signed consent.
-
Should unrelated donors in the Philippines ( or elsewhere) be given Health insurance ? Should their long term well being be assured and documented ? Is this done for donors in the US/UK, or in any place ? ???
:2thumbsup; We will be giving our donors major Medical insurance, Disability Insurance, Life Insurance .
We will have a donor informed consent form listing known risks, signed by both the donor and the Doctor.
We shall make public a donor testing check list including all the tests preformed in the American/ Canadian/ UK Transplant Hospitals .
Our new Health Insurance provider shall keep a copy of the Medical follow up records of the donor.
This can be made public with the donor's signed consent.
It is good to know you are doing SOMETHING that doesn't benefit just yourself ;)
How are you able to provide this service for your people?
-
Should unrelated donors in the Philippines ( or elsewhere) be given Health insurance ? Should their long term well being be assured and documented ? Is this done for donors in the US/UK, or in any place ? ???
:2thumbsup; We will be giving our donors major Medical insurance, Disability Insurance, Life Insurance .
We will have a donor informed consent form listing known risks, signed by both the donor and the Doctor.
We shall make public a donor testing check list including all the tests preformed in the American/ Canadian/ UK Transplant Hospitals .
Our new Health Insurance provider shall keep a copy of the Medical follow up records of the donor.
This can be made public with the donor's signed consent.
It is good to know you are doing SOMETHING that doesn't benefit just yourself ;)
How are you able to provide this service for your people?
Why is this being done all of a sudden?
-
We will be giving our donors major Medical insurance, Disability Insurance, Life Insurance .
We will have a donor informed consent form listing known risks, signed by both the donor and the Doctor.
We shall make public a donor testing check list including all the tests preformed in the American/ Canadian/ UK Transplant Hospitals .
Our new Health Insurance provider shall keep a copy of the Medical follow up records of the donor.
This can be made public with the donor's signed consent.
That is something the US lacks and should be doing itself to those that are living donors.
-
I remember when I was living in Belgium I had national health insurance which they called Mutuality. It was somewhat similar to what the British have (NHS). This was the best Health Insurance I ever had. In the US I had Blue Shield /Blue Cross and some additional type of Hospital coverage. When I was on staff at a Hospital, most of the other Doctors would give me professional courtesy.
I still have insurance coverage here from American Insurance but the deductable 20 % is always higher than I pay here, so I don't even bother submitting forms.
Recently, with all the discussions here and on Angie's board it dawned on me that the subject that came up the most frequent was the "donor well being". Questions concerning his health into the future was mentioned in one way or an other , alot more often then even the ESRD patient's concerns for himself/herself.
I was also hearing alot about the Canadian Universal health system. This meant that all altruistic Canadian donors are under that health Umbrella forever. What about the Philippine donors, I asked myself.? Was it best to depend on the Surgeon alone to keep his promise even after I saw some of the promises broken, regarding money.?
So , it was time to put my money where my mouth is. I also believe that in the long run , money used to protect the donors, will create more good will and trust even if its very indirect and not tangible. I also feel proud for the first time comparing what I have helped create compared to the American system.
The catalyst to getting my mind to think about this was reading the Angie Transplant story from 1991. I figure that this way the donor is covered even if he moves far from the Surgeon and it will be my job to make sure he is taken care of. If anything goes wrong , then I am to blame, personally.
-
Right, and this has nothing to do with you being chastised and decreasing attention to your thread, huh?
-
Getting people Health Insurance is a win win situation. :clap;
Too bad this is not done in America for those altruisttic donors. :thumbdown;
I don't recall being chastised . Are you sure you mean me ? and not that other guy ? I get enough attention and the right kind. Most of my critics were overly concerned with the Philippine donor's well being and not very concerned about the transplant cost. This showed me that it would makes sense to listen and learn from others.
Sara, remember your questions about adoption that nobody on the forum could tell you how to do it ? Guess who will show you the way. Sara , first stop asking stupid agencies in the US. You can do it yourself in the Philippines without a broker, without middlemen. There are so many Philippines kids put up for adoption. The younger kids don't understand English so this is where your husbands Tagalog will make the day. The Philippine people would want you guys come and adopt a kid. I bet your Philippine relatives know of many young single moms who need to put the baby into a good home like you two can provide.
In the Philippines you also ask the Barangay Captain, they know the people well.
-
Sara, remember your questions about adoption that nobody on the forum could tell you how to do it ? Guess who will show you the way.
When I read this I physically shuddered......now you're in the child selling business?? You got your filthy fingers in all the cookie jars, haven't you? Epoman--you just can't let this joker advertise his "services" here can you? This is getting really offensive now.
Donna
-
This is beyond ridiculous now. Mitch this just shows you know absolutely nothing. I have researched a great deal and know what the process is and what is required and I highly doubt the ICAB would deal with people like you, especially when it comes down to children. In fact they might be interested to know the types of things you propose.
This guy needs to go.
-
Sara, remember your questions about adoption that nobody on the forum could tell you how to do it ? Guess who will show you the way.
When I read this I physically shuddered......now you're in the child selling business?? You got your filthy fingers in all the cookie jars, haven't you? Epoman--you just can't let this joker advertise his "services" here can you? This is getting really offensive now.
Donna
Seems he told her just what she needs to do. As shown by:
You can do it yourself in the Philippines without a broker, without middlemen.
Seems to be alot of asinine accusations being thrown around in this thread. ::)
Facts and only the facts. :banghead;. There is no need for people to try and emotionally charge the issues. :chillpill;
-
I agree entirely with BigSky. Mitch specifically pointed out that private adoptions could be easily arranged in the Philippines WITHOUT A BROKER, and then everyone started crticizing him for selling children, which was exactly what he was NOT doing. This shows how much irrational prejudice there is arising from the unthinking, automatic, knee-jerk revulsion people have against the idea of buying an organ from someone, even though, when you calm down and consider the whole matter logically, what seems revolting is the way renal patients are left to languish and die on dialysis, when their plight could be answered by a method that simultaneously lifts people in the Third World out of poverty.
-
Mitch was suggesting things that were illegal. Don't you ever get tired of being so buddy-buddy with Mitch? Is there some sort of financial incentive for you vouching for his services?
-
Like I said before... quit responding, then Mitch and Stauffenberg would be left talking to eachother. Simple plan really.
-
This is my last post in this thread. I did a little research just for fun the other day and found a couple of interesting facts. Transplants in the Philippines are available without going through your organ broker Mitch or anyone like him. I'm talking about reputable medical facilities where there is no middleman involved. Just for the record the price is less than half what our buddy is quoting. I in no way would ever suggest that anyone here would consider such a thing but it was time to separate the facts from the... Now with that said I hope this thread goes quietly into the night, never to be heard from again.
-
This is my last post in this thread. I did a little research just for fun the other day and found a couple of interesting facts. Transplants in the Philippines are available without going through your organ broker Mitch or anyone like him. I'm talking about reputable medical facilities where there is no middleman involved. Just for the record the price is less than half what our buddy is quoting. I in no way would ever suggest that anyone here would consider such a thing but it was time to separate the facts from the... Now with that said I hope this thread goes quietly into the night, never to be heard from again.
Mind if I quote this on angies forums sir?
-
To Sara and Meadowlands,
Stop imagining things. My help was only to tell you what I wrote. I said to ask your Philippine relatives and the Barangay( neighborhood) captain(leader). That's it. That was my help. Now I am beginning to think that the starving Philippine baby is better off not being adopted by you both.
Sara- the next time you want to post nonsense, first take the Pope's picture off your page.
____________________________________________________________
Sandman, did you notice that guy didn't provide names, phone numbers or the link to his internet research on Philippine Transplants . ?
____________________________________________________________________________________
Livecam , "you say you ain't coming back to this thread ?" Fine, but can you take Sara and Meadowlands with you.?
You said something about "I'm talking about reputable medical facilities ". Prove it with names , phone numbers or admit that you are ,among other things, a liar.
---------------------------------------------
-
Livecam, as I explained at length in an earlier post, if you try to deal with poor Philippine doctors and hospital officials on your own, you have absolutely no leverage to keep them from taking you for every penny they can get. I heard their price triple in less than five minutes after my wife accidentally revealed how much money we had to spend. The local doctors will assume that because you are from the West and in desperate need of a kidney, you can and will spend anything. The main thing you are paying a transplant facilitator like Mitch for is his extensive network of contacts with a variety of transplant doctors and hospitals in the Philippines which permits him to have some bargaining leverage with the Filipinos in order to keep the price under the amount he has agreed with you will be your fee. Alone you have no leverage: you are a dying renal patient who is a 'millionaire' by local standards, and the surgeons have access to the life-saving kidney you need. With Mitch you have someone who is not desperate, not exploitable, has extensive contacts, knows how the local culture and medical world operates, and has the power to tell a greedy surgeon he will lose his deal entirely unless he accepts Mitch's offer, since Mitch has other contacts he can use instead.
-
As far as Im concerned there is a major lack of any form of law or authority in the philliphines from what Ive heard. I would never ever ever seek a transplant from there. Now if I were a drug smuggler that would be an entirely different story!
-
Seems to be a lot of asinine accusations being thrown around in this thread. ::)
Facts and only the facts. :banghead;. There is no need for people to try and emotionally charge the issues. :chillpill;
BigSky,
This is the whole problem with this entire thread. There are no facts only opinions. Mitch can not show us his facts for fear that we will by pass his services and go directly to the surgeons and make our own deal and as far as I know (please correct me if I am wrong and provide the facts) there are no case studies or statistics for any of the services Mitch is offering. So all we have to go by is our emotions. And the fact that Mitch is now going though our old posts and using them to continue discussion, flaming and just plain interest in this thread is going to get some highly charged defensive reactions (in my opinion exactly what Mitch wants). In fact a long time ago in this tread I asked for just the facts but there are none. There are a lot of credible (to some) articles in medical and non-medical journals as Mallory has provided but other then that facts seem very scarce here. I hope you don't take this wrong but I am merely saying that when given the idea that no raw data from credible sources can be provided by Mitch and then the fact that he is using our posts from other sections to continue interest in this thread it is no wonder why members get hurt, angry and down right mad and make some of the posts you have read. I have learned and I am sure others will very soon that we have all the information we are going to get and we will make up our minds accordingly. I have chosen to agree to disagree with Mitch even though he has a new possibly viable option (with some obvious work that needs to be done to fine tune the idea) because we just can not seem to have a decent discussion here mostly due to the reason no true facts are available.
I do want to make one comment to Mitch... the plan to give lifetime medical benefits to donors is a wonderful idea and to me looks like a start to making this a "mainstream" choice in transplantation. Good idea. It just might make the private insurance companies and the US government look at this and allow it as an alternative or emulate this program make more living donors available in the US.
EDITED: Fixed Quote Tag Error - Epoman, Owner/Admin
-
The facts, in terms of large-scale, reputable, statistical analyses of transplants for foreigners in the Philippines do not exist, and anyone who claims to have them is simply inventing them. There are two reasons for this lack of statistical data: 1) We are talking about a socially disorganized, desperately poor, third-world country, where the only interest of the government is in getting as much tax income into private bank accounts as quickly as possible, so sophisticated statistical studies of social phenomena, such as you have in industrialized countries, simply don't exist. 2) There is a huge amount of prejudice among foreign governments and non-governmental organizations, such as Organ Watch, against paid organ donation, and this induces all those involved in the business to keep a low profile, since they know that every time they come to public attention, sensationalist, yellow journalist media stories start appearing about people waking up in a dumpster with their kidneys removed after someone spiked their drink at a bar, etc. (which is medically impossible, given the high tech equipment and narrow time frame needed for a live donor transplant, but never mind, the story sells advertizing space.)
The next best thing you can do to find out the reality of the situation, given the absence of data, is to go to the Philippines yourself and check out the way things actually work. Then you will see for yourself that 1) Almost all transplants, for foreigners as well as Filipinos, in the Philippines occur through paid organ donation -- there is next to NO cadaver transplant program there; 2) It regularly happens that foreigners go to the Philippines for a kidney transplant -- they are mainly Americans and Arabs -- and their operations go well and their grafts function just fine. Renal transplant surgery is now a 50-year-old procedure and has become quite routine; 3) It is impossible to arrange for a transplant on your own by dealing directly with a surgeon, nephrologist, or hospital, since they all tend to go beserk with greed and would rather ruin their deal entirely than get anything less than your cars, your house, and the fillings in your teeth; 4) You need some transplant facilitator who knows how to deal with these impossible people to do the bargaining for you. I've been there, I've lived through all of this, and the only way to prove it to you is if you make the investment and go yourself, which now, during the off-season, would only cost you a few thousand dollars for the round trip.
-
Only a few thousand? I could think of a million better things to spend that on. Like money towards a gym membership to get me fit for a transplant in AUSTRALIA!!!
-
BigSky,
This is the whole problem with this entire thread. There are no facts only opinions. Mitch can not show us his facts for fear that we will by pass his services and go directly to the surgeons and make our own deal and as far as I know (please correct me if I am wrong and provide the facts) there are no case studies or statistics for any of the services Mitch is offering.
That may very well be true. However in my observations in life people tend to go through 3rd parties when it comes to dealing with stuff like this in foreign 3 rd world countries.
I am not sure what you mean by "facts" would enable you to bypass him and go there directly yourself? Explain?
-
Facts are hard data that proves an idea. Such as case studies, mortality rates, how many transplants have been performed to PROVE through reputable sources that this indeed does work and there is a high success rate or not. I am not sure why you don't understand what I mean by facts! Go to any transplant center or hospital in your area and ask for the facts on transplantation look at them then ask Mitch for the same documentation. Is that clear enough??
And Mitch himself said, and this is a quote from one of his posts about why he can not give the facts I am asking for:
Why don't we shout from the roof tops that we do live legal kidney donor transplants fast and give the Doctor/Hospital name ,address and all the confidential FACTS ? Three concerns.
1) I get eliminated by the Surgeon to keep my commission and takes control away from me.
2) The Surgeon may lose his American license when his American colleagues hear that he does paid donor transplant which some consider immoral and unethical. They can easily be pushed out of Honorary Transplant Societies, which in turn means they can't check all the boxes on the MD license renewal application. So the shit piles on them if I don't protect them in the early stage. Initially, I would gets lots more business if I put their career on the block.
3) The Hospital would get lots of normal type overseas phone calls from worried American patients seeking reassurance for their transplant Surgery. The Hospital in the Philippines does not have a dept. to handle normal transplant questions on the Phone. The caller would get passed around or hung up on. In this country I don't call a switchboard , I go in person. The caller and his frustrated (from not getting answers)family would call even more.
Then word would get out to the newspapers ( it caused a hospital problems in 2001).It may suprise you but the local population here does not want you, better off Americans, coming here for transplants, while they can't even afford dialysis.
The citizens have voting clout and the newspapers sell more with sensational headlines, like wealthy foreigners come for Philippine organs. In 2001 an church run hospital had to stop transplanting foreigners, when that story named them.
If I caused the Hospitals or the Surgeons to get screwed , guess who would get black listed. So , I screen carefully for the long term good. Even if I lose patients (and I am sure I do ) I need to be protective of the system here. I am sure you understand.
Geoff, your insurance Will pay just like it does now. Medicare will pay 3 yrs of anti rejection meds if prescribed by a US doctor. The prescription pad does not say where surgery was done. The Pharmacist will not ask. Don't volunteer it.
As for failure, stay here as long as you need to be sure of it. If it fails because it's our negligence , you can get a free one, on the house..
-
Facts are hard data that proves an idea. Such as case studies, mortality rates, how many transplants have been performed to PROVE through reputable sources that this indeed does work and there is a high success rate or not. I am not sure why you don't understand what I mean by facts! Go to any transplant center or hospital in your area and ask for the facts on transplantation look at them then ask Mitch for the same documentation. Is that clear enough??
So in other words if the facts were provided you would go buy a kidney. Otherwise it doesnt matter does it.
His services do not appeal to people like you. They most likely appeal to those that the centers in the US and other countries refuse to give transplants to because of age or other factors or those that have been on the lists for long past most because of there blood types.
-
Did you actually READ any of my posts??? Did I say i would buy a kidney if I had the facts??? Would I consider it to be a more viable "mainstream" option... probably. You asked me to explain and I did. If you don't like the answer then too bad. I explained as you asked me to do. I already said in the post that you questioned "what I mean by facts?", that I agree to disagree with Mitch and also said that he does seem to be working toward a new option in getting more living donors but that in my personal opinion it needs some refinement. I have already said this in the last 15 pages of posts too... did you read any of them?? I have stated my opinion multiple times so now I am done!! I have tried every way I can to get the most information I can and have not been convinced yet. I am certainly not saying everyone should feel the way I do or that something good will not come out of Mitch's ideas eventually.
I can't say it any more ways!! I think I have been crystal clear... I am done here!
Geoff
-
Facts are hard data that proves an idea. Such as case studies, mortality rates, how many transplants have been performed to PROVE through reputable sources that this indeed does work and there is a high success rate or not. I am not sure why you don't understand what I mean by facts! Go to any transplant center or hospital in your area and ask for the facts on transplantation look at them then ask Mitch for the same documentation. Is that clear enough??
So in other words if the facts were provided you would go buy a kidney. Otherwise it doesnt matter does it.
His services do not appeal to people like you. They most likely appeal to those that the centers in the US and other countries refuse to give transplants to because of age or other factors or those that have been on the lists for long past most because of there blood types.
That was the whole reason I let him post on my forums. But it seems the majority want him out so he won't be posting on my forums anymore. Here is the first time I have heard anyone WANT him to post.
But I have found some things that Mitch has said to be contradictory. Like him saying that filipinos don't want Americans to come and get kidneys .. yet in another he said they welcome Americans.
I could point out more but I don't think it will make any issues resolved or clearer.
I just thought that some people wanted to hear what he had to say since it is legal over there.
I myself won't ever go because I can't afford one and even though I have been waiting 5 years, I am not desperate for a kidney transplant even though I hate dialysis. At least I am not as bad off as I could be. And I have the notion that I will get a kidney again one day to keep me patient.
But I do feel for the people who are told they can't have one. I mean .. I HATE DIALYSIS! That is the whole reason we are all on this site right? Even though it enables us to live and if this was even 50 years ago we wouldn't be this lucky. Still .. I could never imagine being told that I must live the remainder of my days stuck to and dependant on a machine. I guess I will worry about that in the future.
But I definately want the facts as well because I don't like to judge without knowing.
-
One more thing... I forgot to mention the major reason I am not considering Mitch's solution. Here it is: If (as we have been told by Mitch) the surgeons are will to take you for everything you have how on earth could I possibly trust them with my life?? I understand that reason we need Mitch to be in the process is because these surgeons are so unethical that they will change the price and do everything in their power to get every cent they can. I am sorry but for me I choose to wait here in the US and not take chances with my life in a person who acts that way hands.
-
Geoff, there are two issues here. Lets separate them, and think logical here , not emotional from the gut.
First a little story, one of my wealthy patient went and volunteered to a Surgeon that the price of the donor doesn't matter. While the Surgeon and Nephrologist were speaking in Tagalog near the patient, I sent my Philippine girlfriend across the dialysis room to easedrop on their conversation. She told me in private that the Nephrologist asked the Surgeon why he wanted to charge this American patient $25,000 extra for the donor ( while in the waiting room Philippine people said they were charged only $3000.) The Surgeon told the Nephrologist in Tagalog that the overcharge was because he was a rich foreigner.
So the next morning I told the patient and the family will get a second opinion from an other Transplant Surgeon and that he will no longer tell these people that price doesn't matter.
Geoff , if you was this Surgeon, knowing that all of your family and friends would laugh and have a party for getting extra money from naive Americans BUT if you messed up on the Surgery and the patient died, you would be kicked off the Hospital staff, no longer get referrals from anybody, would read about it in the newspapers and
lose your chance to return to the US to make very big bucks.
Understand now why he would like your money but do perfect surgery just like the past 300 transplants he did perfectly. In the US the big name Surgeon Charge extra , but only at the start , whereas the Philippines Surgeon would raise it up in the middle if they think they got you by the balls. But the Surgery will be perfect since this protects their career.
Yes they are unethical about money but they are not stupid about their future career. See the difference.?
Also , they use that famous live donor everybody wants, after only two weeks of testing. How does this compare to the screw job you get in the US ? I allow a little cheating so Surgeons are happy and don't lose face.
Geoff you have noticed in the reports of poor results overseas, they only mentioned China,Pakistan and Iran, so it is indeed safe here.
Angie you and Sandman, both of you takes quotes from me and an other person here, and say I said them both. The other people here paste the quote. Would you mind doing the same so we avoid confusion.
-
Did you actually READ any of my posts??? Did I say i would buy a kidney if I had the facts??? Would I consider it to be a more viable "mainstream" option... probably. You asked me to explain and I did. If you don't like the answer then too bad. I explained as you asked me to do. I already said in the post that you questioned "what I mean by facts?", that I agree to disagree with Mitch and also said that he does seem to be working toward a new option in getting more living donors but that in my personal opinion it needs some refinement. I have already said this in the last 15 pages of posts too... did you read any of them?? I have stated my opinion multiple times so now I am done!! I have tried every way I can to get the most information I can and have not been convinced yet. I am certainly not saying everyone should feel the way I do or that something good will not come out of Mitch's ideas eventually.
I can't say it any more ways!! I think I have been crystal clear... I am done here!
Geoff
Well that was a rhetorical question. You are evidently too emotional to have understood that.
So like I said it really doesnt matter does it!
No matter what was provided you would not have one over there.
Ohhh and I have read some of you posts. Found them to be emotionaly charged.
-
I went to 6 differerent Transplant centers in the Philippines to get the Facts.
In total I spoke with 8 Different Transplant Surgeons to get more facts.
Statements from well known and certified Transplant Surgeons as well as well respected Hospital administrators were given freely.
The report :
1 The heart Transplant Surgeon- did one transplant in Manila 1996. Patient survived 4 months.
2 Two Liver Transplant Surgeons-
a) American Trained Surgeon- More than 200 transplants, both Kidney and Liver.
Kidney-no operational deaths, zero rejections after one year.
Liver - no operational deaths , 10% deaths after one yr ( rejection and Liver failure)
b) Japanese Trained Surgeon- More than one hundred, almost all kidneys
Kidney-no operational deaths, zero rejections after one year.
Liver- one death during Surgery, two more deaths in less than three months, from acute rejection and liver failure.
4. Five kidney transplant Surgeons of which 2 trained in the US while the other 3 trained under a American Surgeon in
the Philippines.
The two US trained kidney Transplant Surgeons, both had a background in General Surgery and Urology before going to the US to train as Kidney Transplant Surgeons.
a) One died last year at the age of 41- I used to question him at Starbucks. His patients came from Japan, Arabian countries and Korea. No American. He had a perfect success rate with no rejections after one year, with more than 90 transplants.
b) The Second one has transplanted more than 140 patients without any rejections, after one year.
5. The three Transplant Surgeons who trained under an American Transplant Surgeon.
a) The youngest Transplant Surgeon (a)- has done 48 transplants , however one patient rejected his kidney after 3 months because he wanted to save money by taking the anti rejection medications every three days. He is now back on dialysis
b) Kidney transplant Surgeon (b) - more than 300 successful transplants of which more than 200 were cadaver transplants. Zero Rejections after one year.
c) Transplant Surgeon (c) works far from Manila , in a lower density province. He has transplanted a couple of American patients.
He uses nothing less than a 2 donor match , but one must be a DR.
He has transplanted about 70, without any rejections , at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The General parameters : No patient under 14 nor older than 70. Most but not all were on dialysis. Donors included Cadavers, live related and live unrelated.
Future surveys will contain complete donor data before and after one year as well as more parameters for the recipient, % of antigen match, any induction therapy used and the different medications used to prevent long term rejection..
-
Angie you and Sandman, both of you takes quotes from me and an other person here, and say I said them both. The other people here paste the quote. Would you mind doing the same so we avoid confusion.
Excuse me but can you show me where I have done what you said I did? Each post I quote has a link to where I got the quote from.
-
Sandman, what you and Angie do as team work is you answer each other's questions in a conciliatory tone when you get caught in a lie. Since you posted your assumption of what I do, after you gave a definition of broker on ANGIE'S FORUM , NOT in IHD , I can't repost (at Angie's) a second time, since I am no longer a member there.
When you were caught in a lie, on Angie's forum , last week, you chose to wait until now to acknowledge seeing a question. In the past you were proved wrong by Big Sky that it was not black market. Then you call me a broker and give a dictionary definition which is OK. But then you wrongly add your assumption to it. I called you on it, asked for an apology. No answer given by you, until I can no longer log on to (Angie's Board) copy your statement. When you post " I found it" but you don't copy it into your post and then Angie writes " that's what I wanted" it is still NOT an answer but a cover up.
Since you are posting here, tell it here. You either admit that you were wrong to call me a broker or post complete proof if you disagree.
This time don't hide behind Angie's apron strings . Apologize like a man. :clap;
_Below I have a comment to Angie, let her answer for herself.______________________________________________________________________
Angie , you wrote "But I have found some things that Mitch has said to be contradictory. Like him saying that filipinos don't want Americans to come and get kidneys .. yet in another he said they welcome Americans."
Angie, I asked you to copy and post like other people do at IHD , because while I did write the first phrase, I did not write the second. Copy your proof here at IHD, without Sandman answering for you. Then either you apologize :clap; or me, if you posted correctly.
-
Sandman, what you and Angie do as team work is you answer each other's questions in a conciliatory tone when you get caught in a lie. Since you posted your assumption of what I do, after you gave a definition of broker on ANGIE'S FORUM , NOT in IHD , I can't repost (at Angie's) a second time, since I am no longer a member there.
When you were caught in a lie, on Angie's forum , last week, you chose to wait until now to acknowledge seeing a question. In the past you were proved wrong by Big Sky that it was not black market. Then you call me a broker and give a dictionary definition which is OK. But then you wrongly add your assumption to it. I called you on it, asked for an apology. No answer given by you, until I can no longer log on to (Angie's Board) copy your statement. When you post " I found it" but you don't copy it into your post and then Angie writes " that's what I wanted" it is still NOT an answer but a cover up.
Since you are posting here, tell it here. You either admit that you were wrong to call me a broker or post complete proof if you disagree.
This time don't hide behind Angie's apron strings . Apologize like a man. :clap;
I am not going to drag out a debate that we had on Angies boards here.
But agreed. I did make reference to you as a black marketeer but was corrected because your actions are legal where you are. Over and done with as far as I am concerned. Then I made a comment to you being a organ broker and again, you took offense. Many others in this community have referred to you as such and you agreed to use the name mitchorganbroker so with every post you make with that name, you suggest that you are an organ broker.
There were others here that called you and organ broker. For example.....
Organbroker,
and
Organ Broker.
Two women on this forum with whom I trust to speak the truth, especially rerun. But you have not hammered them because of their comments. But you are with me. The dictionary definition of the word "broker" is an accurate description of what you do. If my calling you an organ broker, when you yourself agreed to name yourself the same, then how does that make me a lier???
What would YOU like us to call you?
-
Sandman, what you and Angie do as team work is you answer each other's questions in a conciliatory tone when you get caught in a lie. Since you posted your assumption of what I do, after you gave a definition of broker on ANGIE'S FORUM , NOT in IHD , I can't repost (at Angie's) a second time, since I am no longer a member there.
When you post " I found it" but you don't copy it into your post and then Angie writes " that's what I wanted" it is still NOT an answer but a cover up.
Wth are you talking about Mitch? When I said, "That was what I wanted" it was because he went back and linked to the exact quotes so you can see he wasn't making it up. And your account was voted on. People were threatening to leave my forums if you stayed and I still gave 5 days notice and kept your posts with your sig linking to your site. Yet you never thanked me. IF you look back in the first page of this thread Epoman even said how because of you so many forums have went down. My forum is too small to survive how you talk so insulting of other members. But I have even put a link to here so that people could continue this conversation with you. And we have been linking to quotes you have said but damn it man I am not about to read 15 pages just to quote you..
We have given so much proof and yet you have given so little. You say you have talked to people. BRING those people here! Anyone who has had a transplant through your help! If they are so proud of their transplant and hated dialysis so much IHATEDIALYSIS is the PERFECT place for them to sign up!!
Also I notice that when you are confronted you turn the focus on someone else and off yourself. That doesn't work for selling cars so don't do that with trying to get us to the Philippines.
This time don't hide behind Angie's apron strings . Apologize like a man. :clap;
_Below I have a comment to Angie, let her answer for herself.______________________________________________________________________
Angie , you wrote "But I have found some things that Mitch has said to be contradictory. Like him saying that filipinos don't want Americans to come and get kidneys .. * yet in another he said they welcome Americans."
Angie, I asked you to copy and post like other people do at IHD , because while I did write the first phrase, I did not write the second. Copy your proof here at IHD, without Sandman answering for you. Then either you apologize :clap; or me, if you posted correctly.
* Here is proof you said the first one:
It may suprise you but the local population here does not want you, better off Americans, coming here for transplants, while they can't even afford dialysis.
* And here is the quote for the second one:
When I first arrived in the Philippines I thought I would have to be very careful about saying anything about organ purchases, but to my surprise, everyone, from the dialysis staff to the doctors, from the other dialysis patients to the patients at the renal transplant follow-up center, said the same thing: "Oh, you must be here to buy a kidney transplant!" In the Phillipines this is considered a normal, everyday thing to do, since almost no one ever gets a kidney transplant other than by buying it, and the Filipinos are a very friendly people who appreciate the foreign money coming into their country with the transplant business and never think of it as immoral, which is a Western idea.
I am sorry that Angie's kidney did not last longer, but by arranging a transplant from a live donor well in advance, the Philippine doctors can sort through the HLA data on a large pool of potential donors and select a very good, often a three HLA group match with the all-important DR site, for the overseas client. A well-matched organ from a living donor with a three-point match should normally last for around 15 to 20 years.
But it seems I owe you an apology as you didn't say that they want Americans. It seems that stauffenberg said it and you never said he was wrong so I assumed that was correct.
Copy your proof here at IHD, without Sandman answering for you. Then either you apologize :clap; or me, if you posted correctly.
Sandman and I don't answer FOR each other. We are individual people in 2 different countries. Meanwhile it seems that stauffenberg has answered for YOU in the past but I never said anything about that because he is allowed to say what ever he wishes. Just like Sandman can say what ever he wishes. We do NOT talk FOR each other. We just think a like.
Basically it looks like you never said "they welcome Americans" and that is fine. Does this mean that they would rather us NOT go over there?
I don't really care if anyone goes over there or not. Each person must do what they feel is best for theirself. I just don't want to see it ever legal here to BUY a kidney as soon it would be only the rich getting organs while the poor stay on dialysis or die waiting for other organs. I don't think that would be fair.
But as long as what you are doing is legit over there, then fine. We would just like to see more proof to make us feel more secure in any decision to go over seas to you. What security can you provide?
What would YOU like us to call you?
I am curious what you call yourself as well Mitch. We don't know what to call you so we call you whatever we think fits.
-
Your point is well taken. I have seen all the good support that you two have provides to many.
Good luck with Angie's Forum and your up and coming transplant. Thanks for allowing my post and those links.
It's was a neat idea.
Sandman , you answered the age old mystery on my FN 175.
-
Your point is well taken. I have seen all the good support that you two have provides to many.
Good luck with Angie's Forum and your up and coming transplant. Thanks for allowing my post and those links.
It's was a neat idea.
Sandman , you answered the age old mystery on my FN 175.
So does that mean you are done here Mitch? Have you had your chance to state your case? I really hope you appreciate all that I have done for you. I have received numerous emails demanding I ban you and numerous emails concerning this infamous thread asking it be locked or deleted. I have let this thread be viewed over 3,000+ times and have nearly 300 replies. I believe I have been very fair to you by allowing you to state case and debate all you wanted. But it is now at the point where this is just turning in to tiny flame wars and I can not allow this to continue much longer, your time here on IHD.COM is coming to an end soon. And I hope you will have enough self respect to give me some back and not spam the site any longer. How you react now will show your TRUE character.
ALL MEMBERS: Please give your final thoughts (replies) as this thread will be LOCKED shortly.
- Epoman
Owner/Admin
-
Epoman, You have been an inspiration to so many people. You are a believer in free speech while considerate to peoples feelings from the group. I agree with you to close this thread when you are ready to. Now I got to know and understand your struggle and how you help others. I will not spam nor annoy any good people like you.
Nor will I spam nor annoy Angie. Good luck with you and Epokid.
There is a saying, enjoy them while they are young.
-
Mitch, it was good to hear you side too. I am for organ sales.....but only in my own country. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Rerun
-
Both sides have been exhausted and fairly exposed. Overall Mitch had the right to post here as much as anybody and was allowed to do so.
I think fairness was awarded to both sides by Epoman.
No matter your position on this subject, I hope after reviewing all the posts that everyone gets something positive from it.
-
No matter your position on this subject, I hope after reviewing all the posts that everyone gets something positive from it.
Agreed! Good luck with your site Mitch and all the information you have supplied.
I myself am more for what BigSky said on my forums which was:
there is a need for some sort of inbetween the two of organ buying and non paid donation to where people can donate but yet receive some sort of limited compensation to make up for lost wages.
I think that is a great idea and I also really like the idea of health care!
This thread has given us perspective and ideas.
-
My final thought: Buh-bye.
-
My final thought: Buh-bye.
/me repeats that same statement.
-
You all have noticed I took my toys and played elsewhere and refused to say anything to this thread.
Because Epoman asked for our opinion of this thread I will answer here today. I would say Bye, bye to Mitch as soon as possible. The rudeness he has displayed towards member of our community make me want to listen to him less and less. If I came upon this thread as a new person looking for a transplant option, I would have run screaming away from him and his services very quickly. He often does not make sense in his replies. He is out to make a buck. While that is not bad, unfortunately that buck is going to come from a very gullible sick person, who may or may not get what he needs-a new working kidney at a reasonable price, with doctors who care, and followup care in their home country afterwards. Final vote: Get rid of him!
-
Kitkatz, I understand your feelings. If i have offended you , I am sorry. I have learned so much from everyone, especially those of a different opinion. This is how I learned the intensity of the the donors fragile future and how good Health Insurance was his right, rather than a privilege.
I am not the enemy , ignorance is the enemy of all of us? The Philippines was an American possession and shares many American values, in time of war or peacetime.
-
Kitkatz, I am not a punching bag. The rudeness always starts from one of you guys. I simply responded back in kind which seems to be all you remembered. NOW is it me or you being rude FIRST?
What , happens is , you guys show temporary insanity as soon as I say," hello, I can get you a live donor transplant in 2 weeks at a cost of 50% the US cost", Many of you start calling me names FIRST. Then comes the slander out of ignorance. But for the most part here I have been swallowing insults.
Five years from now with gradual education I bet your view turns 180 degrees.
What is the worse that I ever said to you ? While you in your post above are very negative hinting that I may or may not give the patients what they need. I guess you don't need proof to slander me. Don't you think you are being rude FIRST ?
But in reality isn't it your transplant center which has refused to list you. Are you running away screaming from them. ?
I am not the enemy , ignorance is the enemy . There are many smart people here who are well educated on every aspect of kidney disease. But how many of them know alot about live donor transplants in the Philippines ? The Philippines was an American possession and shares many American values, in time of war or peacetime.
Why then Mitch do you feel the need to respond in an attacking mode? We were asked to state our final opinions and that is exactly what we are doing. You have stated yours so move on. We have listened, you have spoken so it's time to pack up and leave with a positive attitude as some here have listened and spoke well of you and your services, don't be so quick to pounce on our respected members for speaking what they feel. This thread will be locked very soon, is this the way you want it to be remembered? How about a simple thank you to the ones who gave you the opportunity to voice your services. You thanked Epoman as you should but what about everyone else who listened? Anyway without rambling on about this I just think this thread could be ended on a positive instead of a negative. Good Luck in your future endeavors.
-
Sluff , you are correct. Thank you for your help. Geoff Thanks for making me put on my thinking cap. and finding some stats,Angie , thanks for your help about the donors health needs Rerun, thanks for teaching me to strive for what i believe in,Mallory, Meadowlands and Sara thanks for showing me what people go through. Livecam I want to apologize for insinuating that you may be e-mailing me virus attachments. I tracked the sender to a part of Manila. Goofynina, Thanks for showing me your efforts to achieve with a big heart. Sandman, thanks for all your help and sacrifice for kidney patients, you are a better man than me. Kitkatz, you showed me what a real fighter does by helping all those kids , while struggling with your medical issues.. Zach , you are a real impressive guy along with Epoman , leading and encouraging people in need. Big Sky, I learned alot from you, thanks.
Glitter, thanks for putting things in perspective.
The members of IHD are the real heroes.
-
And thank you, Mitch, for providing a possible option for the dialysis patient.
Salamat po.
-
I think it's always a good thing to understand what options are available to you. Thanks, Epoman, for letting Mitch post so that we could explore other options. Mitch, thanks for the information.
-
Sluff , you are correct. Thank you for your help. Geoff Thanks for making me put on my thinking cap. and finding some stats,Angie , thanks for your help about the donors health needs Rerun, thanks for teaching me to strive for what i believe in,Mallory, Meadowlands and Sara thanks for showing me what people go through. Livecam I want to apologize for insinuating that you may be e-mailing me virus attachments. I tracked the sender to a part of Manila. Goofynina, Thanks for showing me your efforts to achieve with a big heart. Sandman, thanks for all your help and sacrifice for kidney patients, you are a better man than me. Kitkatz, you showed me what a real fighter does by helping all those kids , while struggling with your medical issues.. Zach , you are a real impressive guy along with Epoman , leading and encouraging people in need. Big Sky, I learned alot from you, thanks.
Glitter, thanks for putting things in perspective.
The members of IHD are the real heroes.
Salamat po.
Salamat po. (that is thanks right? I learned the meaning on a sick kids show on Canadian TV where a little girl came from the Philippines for face tumor removal surgey). :thx;
-
Both sides have been exhausted and fairly exposed. Overall Mitch had the right to post here as much as anybody and was allowed to do so.
I agree. There's nothing wrong with debating an issue or hearing different sides of it Have an open mind (but not so open your brain falls out). Thanks Epoman for having this forum available.
Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too.
Voltaire, Essay on Tolerance
French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)
Donna T
-
Sandman, thanks for all your help and sacrifice for kidney patients, you are a better man than me.
Well, I don't know if I am better then anyone but I am much wiser then I use to be thanks to everyone involved with this community. But thanks for the kind, parting words. One thing I am happy to see come from this discussion. Thanks to this community and Mitch, the people living in the Philippines will some day be provided with better health care services.
-
Get your finally thoughts in, as this thread will be LOCKED in 48 hours. Remember this is FINAL thoughts, don't ask questions or start a new debate, simply state you final thoughts on the matter so others can use this thread and make their own decision.
- Epoman
Owner/Admin
-
Thanks Mich for bringing this subject to light and debate. It was informative and a learning experience. I do hope one day we (the US) will do something about compensating living donors family, friends and strangers. Could be done with a tax break or maybe a combination of tax incentive and some kind of payment. Maybe a list of willing living donors that have been tested and approved too. The ideas are endless and I do hope we truly take a look at all options and find a way to make things better. I also believe we are not far away from doing exactly what you. We already routinely send people overseas for procedures for the simple matter it is cheaper for the insurance companies, so how far can we really be from doing it with transplantation?? Anyway to quote the Dead "What a long strange trip it has been".
Cheers, Geoff
-
Geoff, You have some advanced thinking regarding the insurance connection for transplant patients.
The other important thing that I have learned, from you guys talking about your fistula and the central line being put in , you all on HD .
This is exactly what the Philippine dialysis patients lack. Since they do dialysis on good German equipment but less frequent because of money problems, putting in a central line or fistula would allow their flow rate to increase from less than 100 to more than 400 without increasing the dialysis cost.
I wonder if I can get some of the Surgeons here to volunteer to at least put in a central line. After all there are already a bunch of Nephrologists in Manila who volunteer their services at the one free Dialysis center.
-
What a well read topic,
I'm glad it was brought up as we need to push the boundaries as to what is ethical and what is required to treat kidney failure. With the problem becoming an ever bigger issue, we need to look at new treatment options to increase the level of health care available. All options should be considered.
Best of luck Mitch,
Cheers Alasdair.
-
23 Oct 2006 Page 1
Flaws Reported in overview of US organ transplants
The United Network for Organ Sharing which oversees the U.S. organ transplant system often fails to detect or fix problems at the hospitals that it is assigned to supervise according to the Los Angeles Times on Sunday.
According to the newspaper when it does act, its findings are usually kept a secret leaving patients and their families unaware of potential risks, such as including excessive death rates.
http://www.medindia.org/news/view_news_main.asp?x=15288
-
Get your finally thoughts in, as this thread will be LOCKED in 48 hours. Remember this is FINAL thoughts, don't ask questions or start a new debate, simply state you final thoughts on the matter so others can use this thread and make their own decision.
- Epoman
Owner/Admin
:bump;
-
23 Oct 2006 Page 1
Flaws Reported in overview of US organ transplants
The United Network for Organ Sharing which oversees the U.S. organ transplant system often fails to detect or fix problems at the hospitals that it is assigned to supervise according to the Los Angeles Times on Sunday.
According to the newspaper when it does act, its findings are usually kept a secret leaving patients and their families unaware of potential risks, such as including excessive death rates.
http://www.medindia.org/news/view_news_main.asp?x=15288
You didn't add the link to D&T City (http://groups.msn.com/DialysisTransplantCity/cautiondonors.msnw?action=get_message&mview=1&ID_Message=6506) when you posted this :P
-
OK, Time is up this thread is LOCKED and I hope you all understand why I left it open for so long and allowed it in the first place. Now when a member or visitor comes to this site, they can read 322 replies to this matter and hear BOTH sides of the story and make their own decision when it comes to using the services of someone like Mitch. We had a peaceful debate and thankfully it stayed relatively calm.
Here is the link to Mitch's website and the services he offers: http://www.liver4you.org/ for those of you who are looking for more answers.
ihatedialysis.com,.org,.net and any of IHD.com sister sites, do not endorse www.liver4you.org in any manner what so ever.
- Epoman
Owner/Admin
-
This thread will remain LOCKED - but for news about the status of Mitch go to http://ihatedialysis.com/forum/index.php?topic=12971.0
okarol/admin