What exactly were you told about your future renal function due to donation? Were you given any sort of scientific data or statistics?
Ah ... no, not specifically, but I did know that there was a chance that my kidney function would deteriorate. (Great, now I sound ill-prepared; I did know all the other risks though!)
Would it matter to you that your donor, if it was someone who anonymously sold their kidney to a central bank at a set fee, might spend eternity patting themselves on the back, never knowing who you were?
When I was writing that I was actually thinking of Blokey, and I was thinking that he wouldn't care because he would have a shiny new kidney. But I also know that Blokey has a different mindset to me, so maybe there would be folk who would need some sort of personal connection with a living donor and who would be horrified by that. But I assume some people worry about the cadaveric transplants they receive, perhaps for similar reasons so it may make my argument null and void.
If the "product" wasn't fit for purpose, it shouldn't have been allowed to be donated in the first place. Any and all potential donors should still be put through rigorous testing just as they are now. Again, in my little mind, when I picture a regulated market, I picture a central bank or transplant center being the purchaser, not an individual recipient, so no, a recipient wouldn't be getting their money back just as the NHS doesn't get their money back should a transplant fail.
Oh absolutely; I would hope that testing would remain as rigorous (if not more so). I was thinking of the statistic involving (only) 90-95% live donor kidneys still being successful one year after transplant; obviously fit for purpose at the point of sale, but developed a fault later (and I did mean it mostly in jest!). Society these days always seems to require some form of recompense when a product unexpectedly breaks down and I simply wondered if in a world where organs are for sale, the same would apply.
I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Author
