Fewer listeners answered the next question -
but it came down as an even match between
regional and national administration. 21
regional, 21 national.
Here are some excerpts from your
mail...
bgriffin
Yes, the sickest person should get the organ
transplant first, but the transplant committee
must also keep in mind the ability of a person
to survive. Not that a mentally retarded person
(for example), should be denied. However, if
there are two people with similar a illness, and
one person is 95, and the other is 30, might the
more human use of the organ would be to
transplant the organ to the younger person?
desretwind
Yes if the choice is life or death but an
individual who has been waiting for years for an
organ should not be bumped out of the running by
someone who has just landed on the list. The
personal contact -relationship- between the
patient and the ones deciding only muddies the
water.
Gary Paternoster
I believe that due to the need and the
availability of dependable transport that
transplants should be on a national level going
to the greatest need. The only caveat that I
would include is the governance by time. If
there is not the time necessary for a distant
recepient then it should go the the next
available that meets the time criteria.
Michael (Dallas)
It depends on how sick they are. As a
medical professional, I have seen many
unnecessary transplants done because the
patient's organ donation chance has come when
he/she is actually too sick and weak to undergo
even a minor surgery. Some simply get it
because they have excellent insurance and/or can
financially afford not to wait.
Gordon E. Mallett
I think a judgment must be made taking into
account both how sick a patient is, and the
probability that the organ will allow the
patient to live. The sickest patient with a 40%
or better chance or survival should receive the
organs.
Mark Ravenscraft
There is a basic problem in allocating
donated organs to only the sickest patients:
the sicker the recipient, the shorter the
individual's life expectancy, and therefore the
shorter the transplant survival. It is often
the healthier individuals who are more able to
be rehabilitated and live longer effective
lives as a result of the transplant. Looked at
from this perspective, transplanting organs into
only the sickest individuals may be the least effective use of a
limited resource. Obviously we have to find a
balance between these extremes. This is a very
complex medical, ethical decision that has been
carefully analyzed by the organ transplant
community, UNOS, and scientific registries.
...We as a nation should support organ donation
as a common good. Education and public outreach
is the only way to reach this goal.
Elston Wyatt
Organs available for transplant have a high
value and therefore should command a price, with
the proceeds distributed to the original owner
or their estate. The recipient should be picked
from a pool of needy patients who can pay (or
their insurance can pay) for the organs. The
price should be set according to standard
guidalines by some non-governmental body. The
actual selection of recipient should consider a
number of factors such as how sick they are,
prognosis, ability to deliver the organ. The
donor or their family should have input if there
is contention in the process. I believe a
regional selection process is preferable.
Casey Kuettle
Organ transplants should go to the person
that has the best or better chance of living
past the O.R. table . If I die I would like to
think that my organs will not be wasted on
someone that odds are won't live more that 3
months . Let's keep making the most of a limited
resource .
Leon M. Steinberg
Rather than sickest, which suggests to me
someone who won't survive even with the
transplant, I would suggest selecting people,
otherwise healthy, who WILL die, unless
transplanted.
James Fisher
Now doctors will begin lying about how sick
their patients are. Rules, rules, rules. Let
nature and time evolve what should be done.
Congress does not need another 'goal'.
Thanks to all of you who took
the time to write in!
