From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Correction on kidney transplants, Heather.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 17:50:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.021555.23107@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>From article by mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran):
>> In article forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
>>>From article by hsims@vax.clarku.edu:
>>>> 
>>>> People die waiting for kidney transplants, 
>>>
>>>No, they die waiting for liver and heart transplants.  
>>>People waiting for kidney transplants have dialysis or a fairly new process
>>>which uses the abdominal cavity as a kidney.   (BTW - more and more people
>>>waiting for heart transplants are getting artificial hearts too.)
>>>
>> No, they die waiting for kidney transplants as well. Dialysis -
>> whether machine or peritoneal - is *not* a safe procedure. It is
>> not at all uncommon for people to arrrest during treatment. 
>
>These are all limitations of medical science, and not because the
>kidneys themselves have failed.
>
They die because the kidneys themselves have failed Suzzie... If they
had not failed, they would neither be on dialysis, nor waiting for
transplants.
BUt you stated quite plainly that peopel don't die waiting for kidney
transplants. Are you admitting now that you were wrong?

>
>> Nor can it be continued indefinatly. The body wears out, and they die,
>> waiting for a transplant, despite what you think.
>
>We all wear out and die, Mark.  Did you miss that in your medical training?
>
Hardly. But they die sooner then necessary. If organs were available,
the body would last much longer. In the case of kidney failure, the
body is destroyed by the build up of toxins between dialysis
treatments. Were a transplant available, the body would not wear out,
and the patient can live a longer, fuller life.

>
>> And those who receive artificial hearts are kept in the hopsital until
>> they too eventually die. Unless they find a human donor.
>> So are you ready to donate your organs Suzzie?
>
>Like I said, they have been refused.
>
So you are under the impression that organ donations are limited to
family members?
How heartless.
You would refuse to donate your kidney to save another life, mearly
because they aren't part of your immediate family?
Very christian of you....

> 
>>>> and you have two.  
>>>
>>>Ya know Heather, there are kidney patients who refuse a live donor, and
>>>insist on a cadaver kidney.   Donating a kidney is much more dangerous than
>>>receiving one, and you cannot force a kidney on someone.
>>>
>> *cough* *Gasp* Excuse me??? May we see a source for this bilge please?
>
>My own father's kidney doctors.
>
>
>> Donating a kidney is nowhere *near* as dangerous as receiving one.
>> Donors are at risk, yes, but it's about the same amount of risk that
>> you would see in an appendectomy. 
>
>I'm sorry, but your appendix is not up in your rib cage.  Your kidney
>is.  It's MUCH more major surgery.  The recipient does not have have his
>rib cage opened up to receive the kidney.   The donor does, in order to
>give it.
>
>
>> The recipient, on the other hand,
>> gets to deal with such fun things as graft-vs-host disease. To prevent
>> this, recipients get to be chemicaly immunosuppressed. While
>> suppressed, they can die from just about any pathogenic organism they
>> happen to come in contact with. Graft-vs-host occurs in anywhere from
>> 30-70% of all transplant patients to varying degrees. At it's worst,
>> it can kill themdespite all efforts to save them.
>> More dangerous then receiving... Give us a break...
>
>You have not denied that donating a kidney is extremely dangerous.
>
An amazing leap of (non)logic. How do you get from donating a kidney
being dangerous (any surgical procedure is dangerous) to donating a
kidney being more dangerous then receiving one?
Lets see some morbidity and mortality figures for donors vs recipients
Suzzie...

>
>>>I am a mother myself and know whereof I speak.   In the vast majority of
>>>cases, pregnancy is neither life threatening, nor unavoidable.   Unless you
>>>are willfully stupid, everyone knows that pregnancy is both temporary and
>>>avoidable.
>>>
>> In this particular case (as in so many others) you obviously *don't*
>> know whereof you speak.
>
>
>So then prove it.   Your mere statement of your disbelief in the obvious only
>makes you look stupid.
>
Anybody who wants proof need only read your posts.

>
>
>>>Have you thanked your own mother for donating the use of her uterus to you?
>>>Your debts will go unpaid if you don't.  If you're not willing to acknowledge
>>>that someone donated the temporary use of an organ to give you, Heather, life,
>>>it's a bit hypocritical of you to insist you don't owe the same courtesy to
>>>any child you conceive.
>>>
>> I called my mother on the other line just now and thanked her for the
>> loan. But I'm awfully glad it was by *choice* and not force that she
>> *chose* to lend me her womb.
>
>When a woman _chooses_ to take the action that makes her pregnant, she has
>defacto _chosen_ to let a child use her womb.
>
I think you better go check your mucous. It seems to have backed up
into your brain again...

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.