I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Dialysis Discussion => Dialysis: General Discussion => Topic started by: Phraxis on August 23, 2009, 11:17:29 AM
-
Warning While controversial the ideas suggested herein are not merely for consideration and should not jusifty protests or fire bombings.
If we grant that transplant is the best treatment for renal failure while a cure is developed, and that Dialysis is expensive, intrusive and less than ideally effective, how do we solve the problem of a lack of organ donors.
Globalize the issue, if you apply for access to a country you usually go through a scoring system. If you choose to learn the language, accumulate enough wealth to reach a level, or learn a profession, you gain points. By voluneering to participate in the transplant program, a person of modest means can access language training, and other programs to make their transition to their chosen country easier. No one can be forced to participate but if there are 100,000 visa's being offered and just a fraction participate the waiting lists could be wittled down.
Now we have a parole program that recognizes a prisoners contributions, i.e. teaching other prisoners, good behavior, etc. Now what would demonstrate remorse and rehabilitation like the selfless act of organ donation. Again, for consideration of early parole a prisoner could participate in the volunteer transplant program. This Program could be expected to generate thousands of new willing donors.
The third initiative would be overturning the prohibition against payment for an organ. From my research only Iran allows payment for organ donation and coincidentally it is one of the few countries with no waiting lists for transplant. The other countries don't have the financial resources to do transplants internally and very limited access to Dialysis therefore ther is no waiting lists as patients that develop renal failure a dead. Now this last item requires additional assertions such as people have the right to do what they want with their own bodies (issues that are central to other moral questions such as prostitution, abortion, and euthanasia), protection of the poor (do I really have to mention the two refugee camps in Africa with over 1.0 million people being largely ignored), and the acknowledgement that the rich enjoy certain benefits from being rich (see Jobs gets liver to know that this is already happening).
Between these three Programs, most countries would eliminate the current waiting lists and the quality of life for thousands would be improved.
-
It's a good idea too for anyone who wants to borrow money. Banks could give better terms to borrowers with both kidneys on the basis that they have a realisable asset. One-man businesses could avoid bankrupcy when the directors are pressured to give up a kidney. No one need miss out on the best surgery in the world when it can be paid for at the same time with a kidney.
Maybe other countries would follow the lead given by the US. That would mean a global source of live donors and the price would fall. Any adverse impact on indigenous kidneys could be offset with import duties, thus reducing taxes.
Of course, there is the slight moral problem of poor populations providing the donors and rich populations taking advantage. Just shows the old song to apt yet again:
It's the same the whole world over
Ain't it all a bloody shame?
It's the rich wot gets the pleasure
And the poor wot gets the blame
-
Let us also remember that prison inmates are not usually models of good health, and neither are the folks in third world countries. Otherwise, a fairly good idea.
-
I agree with many things you have mentioned, but my favorite change that the US could make is to have people opt out of transplant verses opting in. Countries that do this have a far better transplant rate.