Selling a kidney

This is the forum for the Kidney Patient Guide. We welcome feedback about the site and any information that may be of use or interest to other visitors.

IMPORTANT NOTE: This forum is not for queries that would otherwise be addressed to a doctor. If you have a question about your condition or treatment please consult your renal unit or doctor. We do not have any editorial or medical resources to answer individual queries.

Moderator: administrator

Post Reply
sammi.jo
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2004 12:25 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Selling a kidney

Post by sammi.jo »

Hi folks

I am new to this site. If my message offends anyone, please accept my apologise as that is NOT my intention.

From what I have seen, I guess most of you have kidney problems and I wanted to know what your opionions are about people selling their kidney?

There has been quite a lot of programmes on the television about live kidney donation and I have to be honest, it is something I am thinking about. I really would welcome your thoughts on this, no matter how bad or good they might be.

Once again, apologies if this message upsets anyone.
George
Posts: 133
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 3:13 pm
Location: Wakefield West Yorkshire UK

Post by George »

sammi.jo, when I saw you post I thought that you was going to offer yours for sale.
But maybe its worthy to have a debate. Myself I am against the sale of any organ because of the 'meat trade'. Sadly 3rd word people are exploited to give better off westerners a new lease of life at the expence of their own health. Organ donation needs to be regulated and controlled to safegaurd the donor and recipient. If it is given [u]freely![/u] without payment that is different, and the donor should be given the same after care as the recipient. But when money changes hands it is always for the wrong reasons.[/u]
Iain
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 10:44 am
Location: The Frozen North, UK

presumed consent

Post by Iain »

Yeah, I watched that programme last week about the transplant trade, and nothing in it really changed my mind about the whole thing. The ethical problem I've got with it is still the well being and exploitation of the donors in these third world countries. There was one donor in India who summed it up perfectly for me when he said "money comes and money goes, but your health and your life doesn't". I don't think a controlled system would work here either, wouldn't be financially sustainable in the UK for the NHS to fund such a programme.

What did interest me was the politicians here who were pushing for a presumed consent bill to be passed for cadaveric donations. That would be the route to be going down in my opinion. There was a bit when Kenneth Clark was standing up in Parliament discussing the merits of such a system. Think I might investigate where all the UK parties stand on this, and write to the local party candidates about this issue before all these elections come up. Did I pick it up right when the presenter said that in Spain where they already have a system of presumed consent that no-one dies whilst waiting on the transplant list? Now that really would be something to be proud of.
Father Dougal: Come on, Ted. A Volkswagen with a mind of its own. If that isn't scary, I don't know what is.
JMan
Posts: 3470
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 10:21 am
Location: Lives in a slightly weird bit of Shropshire called Telford!

Post by JMan »

In short..

It would work in *theory only* if it was regulated. (This is why there are some UK renal doctors who DO support it) In reality humanity/society as a whole is not yet civilised/ready enough to allow this to happen as exploitation and illegal activities are all too tempting and there will always be a few 'bad pennies' in the system as it stands currently, who would be willing to take advantage for their own personal gain.
"Dialysis! What is this? The dark ages!"
L. 'Bones' McCoy, ST"
Read my blog:)
Live to Fly
Image
http://www.flickr.com/cybercast
mandy
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:54 pm

Post by mandy »

no one dies in spain''' that has got to be the right way'''
Kiwi Andy
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:14 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by Kiwi Andy »

The debate is currently on here in NZ regarding organ donation etc. We currently have a system in which your drivers license states whether you are a donor or not. However, I can be a donor on my license but in the event of my untimely death, any member of my family can object and overide my wishes.This not only includes wives, partners or children objecting, but also brothers or sisters. It is currently important over here to make it clear to your family what your wishes are. There is also talk of a one off payment, from the government health system to cover a donors loss of income etc after the donation. The payment would only be given if a donor had passed all the criteria to be deemed a genuine donor. Because I've been through the process of being a donor here, I'm in favour of this. I'm thinking along the lines of: if I donated to Jenny, and had to have six weeks off work, then it is fair that I get reimbursed. I'm sure there are people in this country who have a brother/sister who could be a donor but are reluctant to do so because they will have no income for the recovery time. I'm definitley against the straight sale of organs but believe those who genuinely donate, should be reimbursed at least for their time off work. One positive thing over here at the moment is that Jonah Lomu ( All Black rugby player ) is now on dialysis and has raised the profile of the organ donor debate in this country. We also have the added problem here with our Maori and Pacific Island population. They believe they should be buried with their bodies intact and yet they have the highest percentage of kidney problems here. They are happy to take a donated organ but not so keen to donate one. I'm not knocking their beliefs but it's a catch22 situation for them. They are extremely short of compatible donors compared to us pakeha's. (NZ'ers of european desent)
oldborris
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Fulham, London, U.K.

Post by oldborris »

KIWI ANDY WROTE; "We also have the added problem here with our Maori and Pacific Island population. They believe they should be buried with their bodies intact and yet they have the highest percentage of kidney problems here. They are happy to take a donated organ but not so keen to donate one. I'm not knocking their beliefs but it's a catch22 situation for them. They are extremely short of compatible donors compared to us pakeha's. (NZ'ers of european desent)"

[color=blue]The simple answer to this problem would be to limit organ transplants to such people to organs donated by those who share their beliefs. This might seem harsh but it would certainly make these people aware that if they don't give they can't expect to receive[/color][list][/list]
amanda in CA
Posts: 1806
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 5:14 pm
Location: Georgia, USA

I agree

Post by amanda in CA »

I have gradually come to agree with people being able to sell a kidney should they so wish, albeit in a highly regulated manner. To prevent against 3rd world country exploitation the organs it could be legal to only procure them from the country of the recipient - maybe that is naive to think that it would work, maybe not. A cost-benefit analysis of purchased-donated kidneys versus dialysis could easily determine if this would be a cost effective option. It seems a little odd that in this day and age when people can sell sperm and eggs, which are after all the starting point of a new life that a consenting adult is not able to make decisions about parts of their own body. I am a little suspicious about the statements regarding Spain, since I imagine that there is a higher death rate on the roads compared and possibly a smaller population(?) for renal failure to occur in in Spain than in the UK. Such discrepancies could go partially towards explaining the zero waiting list for transplants. As with any statistics, all factors need to be considered before a conclusion can be made. However, I am heartily in agreement that donation should be automatically assumed. I am pretty sure that a lot of organs are simply wasted because medical staff are reluctant to increase the suffering of those grieving from the loss of a loved one, and it is not something that the latter probably want to think about unless asked. amanda
jooms
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 4:22 pm
Location: Inverness, Scotland

Post by jooms »

I am very much against someone going to a 3rd world country and purchasing a kidney. However, I don't see the problem of the state giving a cash payment or some other form of compensation to a family if the relative's organ(s) could be used - either from cadaver or living. It may help to persuade consent for donation. In some countries, the state buys blood?
Looking at the situation in economic terms, it is cheaper to treat a transplanted kidney patient than one on haemodialysis by a factor of 5 to 6.

Kiwi and Old Borris brought up an interesting fact about Maoris not wanting to donate kidneys but expecting to receive. This one sided attitude I feel is particularly selfish. I respect everyone's right to freedom of expression and choice but if people are part of society then they have to expect to pay just as they expect to receive. My argument is people are either part of the organ donor scheme or they are out. You can't sit on the fence and then suddenly jump in when you think that you need a new organ. The UK voluntary organ donor scheme as it stands now allows people to sit on the fence. If we don't have presumed consent then we should have registration either Yes or No. You are either in or out. Citizens should be obliged, at some adult stage, to decide. The arguments against presumed consent seem to be based on "safeguards". These safeguards are equally at risk or protected whether there is presumed consent or voluntary donation. Whatever system is adopted, the family, I imagine, still has to be notified and permission sought.
Post Reply