Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Doctors Transplant Same Kidney Twice In Two Weeks

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the reduce-reuse-recycle dept.

Medicine 130

kkleiner writes "Twenty-seven-year-old Ray Fearing suffered from focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS), a common type of kidney disease, and needed a new kidney. His 24-year-old sister, Cera Fearing, wanted to give him hers. The transplanted kidney immediately began to grow diseased, so doctors removed it. But then something happened that, according to the doctor who performed the procedure, had never been done before. The unhealthy kidney was removed from Ray, and replanted into another patient, and the kidney became healthy and has remained in this second patient ever since."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Obviously (2)

vencs (1937504) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839049)

its Ray "Fearing" Kidney.

Get me a hammer! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839055)

We'll make it fit SOMEPLACE!

Yeah.. not the attitude i want a surgeon to have... What happens when the person who ended up with it gets a new disease...

Re:Get me a hammer! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839105)

I'm gunna wager they know what they're doing.

Re:Get me a hammer! (4, Insightful)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839113)

You know that there is a always far more demand then availability.
No matter what happens it probably saved a life.

Re:Get me a hammer! (5, Insightful)

sco08y (615665) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839287)

You know that there is a always far more demand then availability.
No matter what happens it probably saved a life.

There's an adequate supply, it's just illegal to sell organs.

Re:Get me a hammer! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839525)

For something like a kidney, you only need one, so it's not too much a of stretch to allow the sale of kidneys.
I understand the fear though: Somebody get's into hawk for too much and is forced to *sell* their kidney to pay back Lenny.

I do believe that it's the religious hold that keeps these laws on the books.

Re:Get me a hammer! (5, Insightful)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839599)

I don't think that is the fear at all, I think the fear is that people will have their organs stolen while they are alive.
People get killed for their couple hundred dollar iPads, if a healthy person has dozens of saleable organs then they could be worth 10s of thousands of dollars.

Re:Get me a hammer! (1)

definate (876684) | more than 2 years ago | (#39840447)

But they are currently worth more than 10s of thousands of dollars, because people can't sell legitimately.

Making it legal, would mean the price would drop, and the very crime would likely be harder to pull off, and attract less of a reward.

Since this crime is rare now, I'd be surprised if it didn't become even rarer, unless somehow everybody's ethics go out the window, and kill a person somehow becomes moral.

Re:Get me a hammer! (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#39840611)

Yes but unlike stealing a iPad you cannot unload a bag full of human organs at every street corner.
Selling/buying them is illegal so there are very few buyers. Make it legal, and the demand and number of places you could offload goes through the roof.
Price probably would drop but a persona life is not worth that much, a few hundred dollars would make it common crime, a few thousand an epidemic.

Re:Get me a hammer! (3, Interesting)

sco08y (615665) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841083)

Selling/buying them is illegal so there are very few buyers. Make it legal, and the demand and number of places you could offload goes through the roof.

Um, how? Is there anything that could possibly be easier to trace than human organs? I mean, they're already stamped, in every single cell, with DNA. How in God's name could you fence stolen organs?

And if there are doctors willing to do it without running the checks, what's stopping them from doing it now?

Re:Get me a hammer! (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841221)

There would be more donations if it was legalised so a bigger crowd to hide in, you would not have to hide the money part just make up someone or add a organ or two onto a normal donor.

And no it would not be easy to trace. No government has very many peoples blood on file, no file no trace, and every match is non unique anyways.

Re:Get me a hammer! (1)

definate (876684) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841323)

Right now if you wanted to make money off of killing someone and harvesting their organs, you'd also have to "make up someone or add a organ or two onto a normal donor" the only difference I can see is hiding the money, however you'd have to do that in either system, as it's going to look pretty weird if the money is going to a different person.

Everything you're describing can happen in the current system.

Re:Get me a hammer! (3, Funny)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39840799)

Just don't break any traffic laws and you'll be fine.

Re:Get me a hammer! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839905)

Because that libertarian attitude every one should be able to enter any contract he wishes without restriction doesn't account for the realities of power play in this world. Only desperate people would sell their organs for money. Very ill rich people know that, so offering money to potential donors would not likely get them very far. However, they could give money to the potential donor's employer so the potential donor gets fired is much easier, then bribe all possible employers so they don't hire that potential donor. Afterwards, they can offer money to the banks so the potential donor doesn't get any credit. Why do all that, so the potential donor becomes despeate enough to sell its organ. Allowing people to sell organs would give very rich people with organ failure an incentive to make the life of potential donors hell. By making the selling of organs illegal, this incentive disappears as there's no point in making a potential donor desperate as he cannot sell his organs.

Re:Get me a hammer! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839937)

I'm confused. What's stopping this from happening now, except with bullying the poor person to make a donation instead of a sale?

Re:Get me a hammer! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39840011)

Probably the fact that if you show up with some random guy's kidney in a cooler and say "yeah, uh, I need this implanted in me" you're going to have to bribe the entire fucking hospital to pull it off?

Re:Get me a hammer! (1)

twotailakitsune (1229480) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841141)

IF only jobs was still alive. He would know how to do it.

Re:Get me a hammer! (4, Insightful)

sco08y (615665) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841059)

Because that libertarian attitude every one should be able to enter any contract he wishes without restriction doesn't account for the realities of power play in this world.

The realities of power are that really rich people, right now, can fly to countries to get organs from desperate people. So all we're really doing is exporting the problem.

The reality of medicine is that being put on a donor waiting list is a death sentence for the "99%".

And the reality of organ transplants is that most people suffer organ failure due to poor health, poor diet and smoking / drug abuse. You probably see more poor and middling people, per capita, needing organ transplants because wealthy people take better care of their bodies.

Only desperate people would sell their organs for money.

So it's better that they simply remain desperate? They don't seem to think so. Do they get a say in the matter? Freedom of choice? My body, not the government's? Does that only apply to abortion?

Allowing people to sell organs would give very rich people with organ failure an incentive to make the life of potential donors hell.

Sure, that would make perfect sense if rich people were all part of some vast conspiracy. In reality, any sane person, rich or poor, has every incentive to avoid hugely invasive surgery, and as much as people don't want to be donors, they want to be recipients even less.

Re:Get me a hammer! (1)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841167)

Because that libertarian attitude every one should be able to enter any contract he wishes without restriction doesn't account for the realities of power play in this world.

The realities of power are that really rich people, right now, can fly to countries to get organs from desperate people. So all we're really doing is exporting the problem.

We're minimizing the number of poor people in our country who are dependent upon the benevolent due to renal failure. That's worth it right there, end of argument.

Having only one kidney is neither healthy nor safe in the long term.

Re:Get me a hammer! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39841133)

I enjoy turning any discussion into a political shitstorm as much as the next guy. But, I fear debating the chairman of the InsaneAmerican party would be futile.
How much crack will you send me for a donation?

Re:Get me a hammer! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39841435)

You know that there is a always far more demand then availability.
No matter what happens it probably saved a life.

actually is getting a little more available http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RMx31GnNXY my wife prints kidney's for a living

Re:Get me a hammer! (5, Insightful)

Morty (32057) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839329)

I think the assumption was that the brother's disease, which was genetic, was causing problems with the new kidney. But because $recipient2 did not have that disease, if transplanted to $recipient2's body, the kidney would recover and work correctly. A genetic disease not present in the kidney should not follow the kidney. The actual results would vindicate that theory.

Re:Get me a hammer! (4, Insightful)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839441)

You are correct -- the value of this is the discovery that when an organ is diseased it may be a symptom of a greater problem. It actually seems pretty obvious when you think about it.

Re:Get me a hammer! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39841187)

The value of this discovery is that the original donor girl is hot, and the story gave me an opportunity to Google her.

Re:Get me a hammer! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39842173)

A bit chubby...

Re:Get me a hammer! (2)

chooks (71012) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841577)

I think the assumption was that the brother's disease, which was genetic, was causing problems with the new kidney.

Not quite: FTFA:

Researchers have theorized that it may be caused by a factor circulating in the bloodstream.

From something a little less...mainstream:

Idiopathic or primary FSGS is postulated to result from a plasma factor that increases glomerular permeability. This hypothesis is supported by the observation that FSGS may recur in a renal allograft. However, the presence of such a permeability factor has not been confirmed although some of its characteristics have been described. Another possibility to explain the pathogenesis of FSGS is lack of an inhibitor to the permeability factor. Hence, what causes FSGS and why it may recur in a transplanted kidney is yet unknown.

(Szczepiorkowski ZM, Winters JL, Bandarenko N, et al. Guidelines on the use of therapeutic apheresis in clinical practice--evidence-based approach from the Apheresis Applications Committee of the American Society for Apheresis. Journal of clinical apheresis. 2010;25(3):83-177.)

Usually FSGS is thought to be acquired (e.g. HIV or heroin use) rather than genetic. Of course, underlying genetics or haplotypes may play a role, but I too lazy to look that up :).

Kidney-Sharing thanks to Obamacare (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839065)

A new low point in health care.

Re:Kidney-Sharing thanks to Obamacare (0)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839127)

So you are implying that without Obamacare they would of just thrown away the functioning organ and allowed the other patient to die?

Re:Kidney-Sharing thanks to Obamacare (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839277)

Whoosh

Re:Kidney-Sharing thanks to Obamacare (1)

NemosomeN (670035) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839641)

These days it's hard to tell the difference between real idiocy and humor via absurdity. If you walk like a duck and talk like a duck, most non-ducks will assume you are a duck.

But under the older care HE will be black listed (2)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839405)

But under the older care HE will be black listed with a pre existing condition but it's not that bad jail / prison care does not have pre existing conditions

Re:Kidney-Sharing thanks to Obamacare (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839199)

Rather, a new low point in intelligence.... You ignorant petty fool.

Re:Kidney-Sharing thanks to Obamacare (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839323)

Obama?

Plah-ease! It's obviously Bush's fault!

Re:Kidney-Sharing thanks to Obamacare (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839327)

-1? Really? You people seriously don't realize this was a joke? What a bunch of retards.

Re:Kidney-Sharing thanks to Obamacare (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39840355)

Poe's Law [wikipedia.org] , and the staggering amount [youtube.com] of unironic things [youtube.com] coming from that side.

uHHH.. (2)

EchoRomeo (2582713) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839073)

Doctor: We don't have any kidney's available but we have this diseased and rejected kidney in the fridge. Intrested? Patient: Umm... F*** it. Dieing anyway right? Throw it in!

Re:uHHH.. (4, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839107)

Doctor: We don't have any kidney's available but we have this diseased and rejected kidney in the fridge. Intrested?

If you're going to receive a transplant, it's best to get an organ with broad experience.

Re:uHHH.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839253)

it's best to get an organ with broad experience.

I see what you did there.

(But I don't agree (Yeah I'm still a virgin.))

Re:uHHH.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39841875)

it's best to get an organ with broad experience.

And a nice Chianti.

Re:uHHH.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839657)

Actually, when you're on the kidney transplant list (at least in the USA) you have the choice between optimal and suboptimal kidneys. In other words, if you're really hating dialysis, you can get whatever the first kidney is that comes along that will match your blood group, even though it might be from someone old and with a potential disease. If you want to hold out for a good one, you can.

So, there's hope for Locke? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839075)

Err, well, except for his dad being dead. And him being dead, too, I suppose.

CNN deleted their comments? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839081)

This story was on CNN.com a few days ago.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/25/health/kidney-transplanted-twice/index.html?hpt=hp_bn12

They seem to have cleaned out the comment though. I remember looking at the story 2 days ago and seeing over 400 comments -- virtually all about how hot Ms. Fearing is. Now there are only 96. Still all about how hot Ms. Fearing is.

Re:CNN deleted their comments? (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839097)

They seem to have cleaned out the comment though. I remember looking at the story 2 days ago and seeing over 400 comments -- virtually all about how hot Ms. Fearing is. Now there are only 96. Still all about how hot Ms. Fearing is.

The Internet: Vindicating misanthropy since 1993.

Re:CNN deleted their comments? (1)

tibit (1762298) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839373)

Pray tell, if you imply that such comments are misanthropic, why do would think that? How is it hating the humankind to comment like that? It may be objectification the woman, but hey, objectively, she is one nice looking object. Perhaps I just missed your cleverly disguised point.

Re:CNN deleted their comments? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839567)

Cleverly disguised? Do you not know what the word "vindicating" means?

Morons on the Internet who miss the point: Vindicating misanthropy since 1993.

Re:CNN deleted their comments? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839111)

This image from her Twitter account:

http://a2.twimg.com/profile_images/1619006270/halloween2011.jpg

jesuschrist...

Re:CNN deleted their comments? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839119)

OK, so I had to see for myself. Good Lord, she is smoking hot. Somebody please dig up a Skinemax movie that she had a role in, or at least some bikini modeling pics!

Re:CNN deleted their comments? (1)

tibit (1762298) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839379)

What did they expect?!

Re:CNN deleted their comments? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839427)

I don't know... freedom of speech, maybe?
Ah ah, fools!

Re:CNN deleted their comments? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839891)

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/25/health/kidney-transplanted-twice/index.html?hpt=hp_bn12

Still all about how hot Ms. Fearing is.

Yeah, you made me look. ;)

Hawt donor (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839085)

The donor chick (Cera Fearing) is smoking hawt.

Fitting, the anti-bot phrase I was asked to type to submit this was "groped".

Interesting (1)

arse maker (1058608) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839103)

The article doesn't give much detail.
I assume this is part of a clinical trial being done. Otherwise it would seem odd logically or ethically to do this.
You can live without a kidney(ies) but a transplant is a major surgery with real risks. Judging by the talk about the theory of the blood born cause it must have been a clinical trial.

If someone here is a surgeon maybe they could explain the ethics involved when approving this type of novel operation?

Re:Interesting (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839159)

I would bang his sister so hard her other kidney would fall out

That is one hot piece of poussoir

Re:Interesting (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839183)

Actually the first linked TFA gives just the right amount of detail:

"To me giving it to someone else seemed like the right thing to do," said Ray Fearing, who undergoes dialysis several times a week and is not currently a candidate for another kidney. "This was a gift to me, and I wanted to pass along the gift. I didn't realize what a big thing it was at the time."

Re:Interesting (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839231)

>>>clinical trial

Or Dr. House breaking the rules again! (Damn him... if we wasn't so good, we'd prosecute him in court.) ;-)

I'm surprised the kidney got better. I guess the disease is located in the man's body, not in the kidney (which recovered once given a healthy environment). I feel sorry for the guy as he'll probably die soon, before he even made 30.

this is a good strategy for all transplants (4, Funny)

bitt3n (941736) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839135)

get one patient to reject the kidney, and then, while the it's still depressed, another patient gets the kidney on the rebound.

Well, that was stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839151)

Couldn't they 3D print a better kidney? Or private space grow one in orbit or something? I mean a vacuum in free-fall must be very useful.

Most Importantly (5, Informative)

Thinine (869482) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839155)

His sister is hot.

Re:Most Importantly (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839397)

I bet the click through rate on the article just quadrupled thanks to this 4 word post.

Re:Most Importantly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39840613)

This news story was posted on cnn.com about a week ago.. Even the majority of CNN comments were about how hot his sister is.

Re:Most Importantly (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839511)

And thanks to the miracle of modern medicine, she's keeping her weight down as well.

Hopefully (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839167)

one day, the world will not be ruled by god fearing, pro lifers who are slowing the efforts of ethical science in utilising stem cell research so we can 'grow our own organs'.

Re:Hopefully (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39841287)

you couldn't grow an eggplant, you hedonist.

Kidneys = Ram (1)

Master Moose (1243274) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839197)

I had some Ram that did that once. Placed it in one PC and I had an unstable system constantly crashing.

take it out and put it in another box. Both machines running perfectly.

Re:Kidneys = Ram (2)

EnsilZah (575600) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839269)

Well, sheesh, I thought it was commons knowledge that putting farm animals in your computer case would cause some instability, especially ones with horns.

Re:Kidneys = Ram (1)

Master Moose (1243274) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839911)

I think it was the wool. It created too much fuzzy logic within the chips.

Sloppy seconds from the sister? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839219)

Based on the cnn comments... or at least, the removed ones...

Monty Python (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839263)

The Meaning of Life Part V: Live Organ Donor Transpants

Wow she's aged (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839313)

In USA today, she's 21. In Singularity Hub she's 24. Yeah, that's what I get for RT2FAs.
On a side note, the doctors have now noticed that the X ray photo was the wrong way around.

And on a more serious note, I hope that they try such things in future rather than letting an organ go to waste, if there's one about to be removed.

Actually RTFA this one guys (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839321)

The girl that donated the kidney is SMOKING hot.

Re:Actually RTFA this one guys (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839387)

+1 Informative
(That's what you would get if I had mod points)

Silly Doctors (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839341)

It's obvious that Ray is cursed.

It's that old saying (5, Funny)

cvtan (752695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839353)

Kidney once, shame on you. Kidney twice, shame on me.

Change the rules (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839571)

I still don't understand why not everybody is considered as donor.

In Luxembourg, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Czechoslovakia and Hungary (Wikipedia page only lists European countries) you have to actively exclude yourself.

Re:Change the rules (1)

twotailakitsune (1229480) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841191)

Do they force all healthy 21+ to "donate" a kidney? Obama, you may take our freedom by the TSA, but you won't take our Kidneys!!!

Ports (3, Insightful)

lannocc (568669) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839603)

Just goes to show that human-parts package management should be treated like a BSD Ports or Gentoo Portage installation; you need to take the entire system into consideration when looking at changes.

Kidney Nazi Suffers No Complaints (1)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839637)

You no like the kidney??
No kidney for you!

Why wasn't it returned? (4, Interesting)

countach (534280) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839749)

Why didn't the girl get the kidney back? I can understand her willing to give it up for her brother, but not for some random person.

Re:Why wasn't it returned? (1)

mpoulton (689851) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839879)

Why didn't the girl get the kidney back? I can understand her willing to give it up for her brother, but not for some random person.

Because she's fine with only one kidney, and the risks of reinstalling the other one are very substantial for almost no benefit.

Re:Why wasn't it returned? (3, Interesting)

EdwinFreed (1084059) | more than 2 years ago | (#39842143)

Substantial risk understates the situation if anything. The fact is removing a kidney is a pretty big deal whereas putting one into someone is a lot simpler. This is because they put transplanted kidneys into the lower abdomen inside the muscle layer but outside the peritoneal wall. (The old failed or failing kidneys are only removed if absolutely necessary.) Removing a kidney, OTOH, means going through the abdomen to the other side. Even though it's done laparoscopically, it's still fairly traumatic, to the point where altruistic donors (that's what they are called) have a significantly worse time of it than the recipient in the first couple of weeks post-transplant. Because of this, there is no way in hell any remotely competent surgeon would agree to put back a kidney they are sure she doesn't need so soon after the original procedure. (Donors undergo extensive testing before such procedures. And it's actually surgeons plural, since reattaching blood vessels and hooking up ureters are actually different specialties.)

For that matter, they would not have removed the transplanted kidney from the original recipient were it not for the small matter that according to the article, it was killing him. (When a transplanted kidney fails and another transplant is done they don't remove it unless absolutely necessary, with the result that someone can end up with four or more kidneys.) So they were going to end up with a kidney and no place to put it. Rather than toss it in the garbage, my guess is they started calling people at the top of the list who were type compatible until they found one willing to give it a go.

I'll also point out that one of the side benefits of being a donor is that in the unlikely event that your remaining kidney fails, you automatically go to the top of the transplant list. And in most cases 100% of the donor's costs are paid for.

Re:Why wasn't it returned? (4, Informative)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839989)

They removed the kidney from her brother because they believed it was already broken. So, they instead transplanted it to the desperate 67 year old guy who prefered getting a diseased kidney, hoping it could extend his life for a little bit, instead of passing it to a perfecly healthy person, which might put her life in jeopardy.

Or so I believe.

Re:Why wasn't it returned? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39840633)

She didn't get her kidney back because the doctors asked her and her brother and they both agreed to a retransplant to the 3rd person.

Probably some combination of not wanting to undergo surgery again and being a Good Human Being

Re:Why wasn't it returned? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39841531)

I'm blown away that you think they'd just grab some random person and stuff a kidney into them.
Person : But I already have two healthy kidneys!
Surgeon : Shut him up and get him sedated. I want to shove a rotting kidney into this guy's torso!

Ewww... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39839901)

Gross.

His poor sister must be pissed. (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839913)

His 24-year-old sister, Cera Fearing, wanted to give him hers.

- she wanted to give him hers, well, if they could transplant it into another patient, then she should be suing the shit out of them for not transplanting it BACK INTO HER.

Re:His poor sister must be pissed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39840283)

That's one of the problem with America. You can sue people for doing sensible and logical things.

Re:His poor sister must be pissed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39840969)

RTFA. The world's a much better place when you realize not everyone is a selfish piece of shit.

Discount (1)

Dan East (318230) | more than 2 years ago | (#39839929)

Did the 2nd recipient get it at a discount?

Re:Discount (1)

erice (13380) | more than 2 years ago | (#39840529)

Did the 2nd recipient get it at a discount?

In a sense, yes. Organs are always in short supply and priority is given to the young and healthy (aside from needing an organ, that is). The second recipient was a 67 year old diabetic. Through normal channels, he probably could not get a kidney at any price.

That's not how it works (1)

EdwinFreed (1084059) | more than 2 years ago | (#39842051)

That may be true for other organs, but not kidneys. And this is for good reason: With, say, a heart or lung or liver, you either get one or you die in fairly short order. But we have an acceptable substitute for a kidney: Dialysis. So, issues of compatibility and availability aside, kidneys are allocated on a first-come-first-served basis,

What this translates to in practice is that if you're blood type O, expect a *long* wait. This is mostly because type Os can only get a type O kidney, meaning about 60% of the kidneys that show up aren't going to be compatible. (This actually isn't true - there's a therapy that allows transplants against type - but since it requires extensive preparation in advance it isn't really practical for cadaveric transplants.) It, OTOH, you're type AB, your wait time is likely to be much less, mostly because any kidney that shows up will work for you.

Re:Discount (1)

VickiM (920888) | more than 2 years ago | (#39840985)

A 67 year old man would probably be on Medicare. So it was more likely double-billed than discounted.

Re:Discount (2)

twotailakitsune (1229480) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841213)

Medicare. Double-billed at 1/5 of the cost to do the work still has the Doctors losing money. .... And people ask me why Hospitals near large elderly housing are closing down.

Re:Discount (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39841699)

Actually, almost kidney transplant patients are become elgible for Medicare day of transplant. For those who have been on dialysis previously, there is either a 30 day(?) or shorter waiting period depending upon the type of dailysis chosen.

Medicare age exceptions (2)

EdwinFreed (1084059) | more than 2 years ago | (#39842233)

Actually, end stage renal disease (ESRD) including both dialysis and transplants, is covered by Medicare regardless of age. The only other condition that enjoys this status is amyotrophic lateral schlerosis (ALS). I have no idea why ALS is handled this way, especially since there are several similar motor neurone diseases that aren't covered, but in the case of ESRD, it's because when dialysis was first developed it was extremely expensive and insurance refused to cover it. The result was few dialysis machines were built and the costs remained very high. ESRD was and is very common, so laws were passed to extend medicare to cover it. (And the costs did drop, but it's still expensive.) And when transplants became available, the coverage was extended again to cover that.

There is, however, a little gotcha in all this. The drugs needed to prevent rejection of a transplant are also expensive. And once you have a transplant, you don't have ESRD any more, so your Medicare coverage ends. This was addressed by extending the coverage for 18 months, which I guess is how long transplants used to last. But these days the average is more like 9 years. So what happens is someone gets a transplant that's paid for by Medicare, their meds are paid for for 18 months, then the coverage stops, they can't afford the meds and the transplant stops working. So they go back into ESRD and need dialysis, at which point they're covered again.

This is absolutely insane no matter how you look at it, since the meds are typically around $10K/year whereas dialysis is closer to $50K/year. So not only do you waste a precious organ, it ends up costing more.

The good news is that one of the provision of the AHA that goes into effect in 2014 is to extend medicare to cover the meds indefinitely.

How long before video processors are external? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39840405)

I'd really appreciate having this as an external device even if it cost $100 more.

I read about external pciexpress years ago, is it still happening?

Re:How long before video processors are external? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39840647)

External? I think they already have that.. [wikipedia.org]

Only the Best (1)

virgnarus (1949790) | more than 2 years ago | (#39840745)

If I was going to get a kidney, it'd better be from myself [wikipedia.org] .

4 day old (1)

AlienIntelligence (1184493) | more than 2 years ago | (#39841713)

4 day old receives transplant and new life on Slashdot.

-AI

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?