A heart-warming story about an 'altruistic' (or live) kidney donor receiving a letter of thanks from the family she helped here. It's good to see donation get regular good press, rather than only being covered when there are scandals.
For the record, the scare quotes round 'altruistic' in the first sentence are not intended to question Ms Pretty's obvious altruism; rather, I find it odd that live donors who donate to strangers (rather than relatives) are referred to as 'altruistic donors', given the commonplace belief that all donations should be altruistic - a reasoning which is often appealed to in order to resist incentives for donors.
If you're interested in this issue, there's a nice piece by Greg Moorlock discussing the altruism requirement in the Journal of Medical Ethics (open access). The next meeting of the RSE project, on Saturday 14th September, will focus on incentives and inducements, so look out for further posts on that theme.
Showing posts with label kidneys. Show all posts
Showing posts with label kidneys. Show all posts
Wednesday, 4 September 2013
Monday, 15 April 2013
Lab-grown Kidney
The reason for encouraging organ donation is to enable life-saving (and life-improving) transplants, but future technological breakthroughs might make this unnecessary. If scientists could produce artificial organs in labs, then we wouldn't need other people to donate their organs, since it would be possible to grow new organs to meet the demand.
This optimistic image may have come a step closer today, with the news that scientists have successfully grown a rat kidney. This is, however, only one step along a rather long road. The BBC article points to several unknowns, such as how long this artificial kidney will last. There's also the issue of cost: even if organs could be grown on-demand, if the technology is much more expensive than traditional transplants, then the latter are likely to continue. Finally, it seems that this particular mechanism requires an old organ in order to grow a new one, so this method will never avoid the need for donation in any case. That, I assume, is something that scientists will keep working on; in the meantime, donation is as useful as ever.
This optimistic image may have come a step closer today, with the news that scientists have successfully grown a rat kidney. This is, however, only one step along a rather long road. The BBC article points to several unknowns, such as how long this artificial kidney will last. There's also the issue of cost: even if organs could be grown on-demand, if the technology is much more expensive than traditional transplants, then the latter are likely to continue. Finally, it seems that this particular mechanism requires an old organ in order to grow a new one, so this method will never avoid the need for donation in any case. That, I assume, is something that scientists will keep working on; in the meantime, donation is as useful as ever.
Sunday, 27 January 2013
Mixed Defaults
Since organ policy is a devolved matter, the Welsh Assembly has been pushing ahead with plans to switch to an opt-out policy. It emerged recently, however, that certain body parts - including hands, limbs, and faces - will not be included.
What does this mean? As far as I can see, it means that if you die without having registered any preferences over the use of your bodily remains, then your kidneys may be used but your hand may not be used. If you object to the use of your kidney, then you need to opt out of kidney donation. But if you're happy to have your hand used, then you need to opt in to hand donation. And, if for some reason, you're happy for your hand but not your kidney to be used, you need to opt in for hand donation and opt out of kidney donation.
There's no logical or principled reason why the default shouldn't take this mixed form but it seems to me to be undesirable in practice. Firstly, many people are now going to have to register preferences if they want their bodies treated according to their wishes (though this may not be such a bad thing). But it seems to invite potential confusion over what body parts will and will not be used and under what conditions.
Traditional opt in and opt out systems have a clear default: either everything will not be used or everything may be used (respectively). It's fair enough to allow individuals a choice over which parts to opt out or in, so that they can if they wish register as a kidney donor but not a hand donor. But I don't see the point of mixed defaults, which merely complicate and confuse the status quo.
What does this mean? As far as I can see, it means that if you die without having registered any preferences over the use of your bodily remains, then your kidneys may be used but your hand may not be used. If you object to the use of your kidney, then you need to opt out of kidney donation. But if you're happy to have your hand used, then you need to opt in to hand donation. And, if for some reason, you're happy for your hand but not your kidney to be used, you need to opt in for hand donation and opt out of kidney donation.
There's no logical or principled reason why the default shouldn't take this mixed form but it seems to me to be undesirable in practice. Firstly, many people are now going to have to register preferences if they want their bodies treated according to their wishes (though this may not be such a bad thing). But it seems to invite potential confusion over what body parts will and will not be used and under what conditions.
Traditional opt in and opt out systems have a clear default: either everything will not be used or everything may be used (respectively). It's fair enough to allow individuals a choice over which parts to opt out or in, so that they can if they wish register as a kidney donor but not a hand donor. But I don't see the point of mixed defaults, which merely complicate and confuse the status quo.
Saturday, 5 January 2013
A Sad, But Positive, Story
One person's death can help many others, as this example of a Norfolk man whose heart, lungs, and kidneys were donated, saving one life and improving the quality of three others. It's good to see positive coverage of the benefits of organ donation - hopefully it will encourage more people to register as donors.
Wednesday, 26 December 2012
The Gift of Life
I didn't see this is the national news, so it's fortunate that I happened to be visiting relatives, since it was on the front page of the local newspaper on Christmas Eve. A 62 year old woman, Sue Dawson, donated a kidney to an anonymous recipient. It's good to see positive coverage of such acts, to reinforce the message that organ donation can do a lot of good.
That said, I think live donation, at least to a stranger (as here), is more than ought to be expected from anyone. It's what philosophers call supererogatory, which means basically beyond the call of duty. Those like Mrs Dawson who want to do this should rightly be praised for their generosity and the good that they do, but others shouldn't feel bad about not volunteering their live organs.
The issue of posthumous (after death) donation, however, is different. Morally speaking, I'm inclined to think that most people act wrongly by refusing to donate posthumous organs.
That said, I think live donation, at least to a stranger (as here), is more than ought to be expected from anyone. It's what philosophers call supererogatory, which means basically beyond the call of duty. Those like Mrs Dawson who want to do this should rightly be praised for their generosity and the good that they do, but others shouldn't feel bad about not volunteering their live organs.
The issue of posthumous (after death) donation, however, is different. Morally speaking, I'm inclined to think that most people act wrongly by refusing to donate posthumous organs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)