The issue of donating the college while it is still alive

Have you ever donated a reserve member of another while they are still alive? Perhaps not, given a few of the living organs these days.

The kidneys, recently a liver, are some of the only parts of the body that can be donated. Our bodies can work well with the kidneys one, while the liver can grow again (doctors only take out a piece of planting).

While there are some short-term risks-as is the case with any surgery-and rare complications, studies have shown that average kidney donor They live as long as they are usually It is possible that there are long -term health effects, if any, (some studies have suggested a Possible risks higher Of cases such as high blood pressure or diabetes). The live kidneys also tend to stay longer in its new recipients than those who receive a donor available, More than 20 years In some cases.

Although live kidney donations have increased over time, they are still not very common. Only about 6500 people In the United States, it donates a living college every year, among the about 25,000 kidney transplants that were performed in total.

Last December, authors Mario Masis and Elizabeth Blammer Published Article in JAMA internal medicine aims to change this reality. Plummer is a professor of health care and tax policy at the University of Texas Christianity, while Macis is an applied economist at Johns Hopkins Carey Business College. Their paper is a personal article, which explains in the detail of the relatively easy Blammer experience to donate to the College of her cousin in January 2024, and an exploration led by the research of factors that discourage others from doing the same.

We talked to the spouses about the myths and barriers surrounding the donation of the living kidneys, as well as how to persuade more people in the footsteps of Plamor. The next conversation was lightly edited for clarity and rules.

Gizmodo: What forced you to cooperate in this unique mixture?

Blamor: I never thought about donating the college, and the entire donation experience was to open the eye – from start to finish. It was like seeing a world that most of us did not know. But there are many people who are on dialysis only to survive, and there is a huge need for donors in the live kidney. This was an opportunity to increase awareness and understanding. Mario’s knowledge of the donation process and its system is great. It looked like a great partnership.

Masis: As an economist, I was always very interested in understanding the markets as there is a constant deficiency. This is the case for blood donations in many countries and organ donation around the world. One of the main reasons for this deficiency is that in these contexts, the price mechanism is not allowed to work due to moral considerations. While prohibiting financial transactions in these markets aims to support moral values ​​and prevent exploitation, it also comes with great costs – whether in terms of human life or non -economic efficiency.

In the event of a kidney donation, the ban on compensation means that the number of available organs depends entirely on altruism, which is not enough to fulfill the demand. As a result, tens of thousands of patients remain in the waiting lists, many of them die or become very sick on the transplant before receiving one. From the perspective of general financing, this deficiency also imposes a great burden on taxpayers. The alternative to implants – dialysis – not only the imposition of physical taxes for patients but also expensive, as medical care covers a large part of these costs. Each kidney transplant provides a healthcare system about $ 150,000, however, policies that fail to address financial inhibitors for donors limits the number of independence operations that were conducted.

The removal of financial inhibitors to donate can increase, while stopping the direct payments of the organs, while respecting moral fears. My interest in exploring these bodies lies – how moral restrictions constitute the markets, what are the consequences they enjoy, and how policies can be designed to improve the balance of moral concerns with the urgent need to save lives.

Gizmodo: What are some of the biggest misconceptions that people about donating live kidney, in your opinion?

Blamor: Most people remember the old days when the surgery was “worse for the giving of the recipient.” But now, donor surgery is laparoscopic, and most donors are emptied after 2 to 3 nights in the hospital. Although everyone’s experience is different, I felt little pain and returned to work a week. People who have physically required jobs will, of course, need to be out of work for a longer period.

Another wrong belief is that you need to know a person who needs a college and must be a match for this person. But this is not the case at all. The transplant centers now allow a giving chain for the college, a series of transplants where many donors and beneficiaries participate. For example, if my kidneys do not match my cousin, I still donate to a stranger that he corresponded to, and my cousin will get the kidneys from a stranger to match her. Donor chains can be between different transplant centers and can include any number of donors and recipients. You can also be a completely altruistic donor – that is, you don’t know anyone who needs to be totally. You just want to donate. You will find the transplant centers a person who is matching with him – and there will definitely be someone.

Another wrong belief is that you should be a young man. Healthy people over the age of 60 can be excellent for donors. In fact, some things are more in their favor. Many retired and have no children who care about it. The possibilities of their life from kidney disease can be less than the risk of a younger person. The donor medical teams do a wide work to evaluate whether you are a medical qualification to donate, but age is not necessarily a deterrent.

Finally, the medical teams that evaluate donor candidates independently work from the teams that evaluate the recipient. This helps to prevent any pressure that is applied to the donor or the medical team for the donor. Several times, the medical team assured me that I can withdraw from the donation process at any time and for any reason, and they were legally obligated not to tell anyone the reason for my withdrawal.

Gizmodo: What are some practical steps that American policy makers or planting organizations such as the National Center for Assistants can make these types of donations more common?

Masis: Removing all financial intellectuals to donating live kidney is necessary to increase the number of transplants and reduce the continuous deficiency.

While the membership of the members of the members cover the medical and surgical costs, the donors often face large expenses outside the pocket, including lost wages, travel costs and approved care. These financial burdens can amount to tens of thousands of dollars and inhibit many donors who wish to follow up. A more comprehensive system that removes all these inhibitors would make the alive total donation as a truly financially neutral action, ensuring that there is no mismanagement of their decision to save life.

The main repair is to expand the payment to cover all direct and indirect costs of donation, regardless of the level of donor or recipient. We must provide complete compensation for lost profits, affiliated care, and travel expenses without restrictions on the means of means (but with the exception of highly highly high -income donors). Although the direct payments of members remain morally controversial, compensation for donors for all costs has wide support from the transplant community and the public. In addition, donors must receive long -term health insurance coverage for any future complications related to kidney donation, and to protect them from uncertainty about possible medical costs (some of the United States are paid to donors to receive them Free health care for lifelong).

In addition to paying the direct cost, additional protection is necessary to eliminate financial and non -financial risks of donors. For example, recognition of non -financial burdens of donation, such as pain, anxiety, and inconvenience, tax credit should be provided to recognize the personal sacrifice concerned.

Estimates indicate that each additional kidney transplant provides US taxpayers about $ 150,000. The increase in the number of live kidney transplants would significantly reduce the number of patients on dialysis, which may lead to billions of dollars in medical care savings while improving health results. The bold policy that eliminates all financial inhibitors will not only improve the lives of thousands of patients who need a transplant, but also providing taxpayer funds and enhancing the overall efficiency of the health care system.

Given the wide range that the donors should not have financial costs, the implementation of these changes will be in line with both moral and practical considerations.

Gizmodo: How are Elizabeth these days? And her cousin?

Blamor: I’m fine. The entire donation process looks like it has passed. You forget that largely, and the pattern of my life has not changed at all – except that I could no longer take NSAIDs (for example, ibuprofen and metal). I used to love these!

My cousin is well -off – or at least her kidney. She no longer needed dialysis, which took 12 hours every night and required her husband’s help. She feels better and stronger. But people with sufficient patients need the new kidney often suffer from other medical problems, so it is a budget act. She has to take several medications for the rest of her life (antibiotics and antibiotics), and it has frequent dates for the test. But so far, it seems that her body loves his new kidney. We are both happy that we did that.