Slashdot Mirror


The DIY Dialysis Machine

Millie Kelly was born with a condition that required an immediate operation. During this operation her kidneys started to fail and since she was too small for dialysis machines, doctors told her parents that she was unlikely to live. Luckily for Millie, Dr. Malcolm Coulthard and a colleague tried to build a much smaller kidney machine on their own and they were successful. Her mother said, "It was a green metal box with a few paint marks on it with quite a few wires coming out of it into my daughter - it didn't look like a normal NHS one." The girl was hooked up to the machine over a seven day period to allow her kidneys to recover. Two years later, her mother Rebecca says she is "fit as a fiddle." You should see what Dr. Coulthard can build using a postage stamp, a tuning fork, a lawn chair and a jellyfish.

9 of 476 comments (clear)

  1. Award, and Patant. by scubamage · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The doctors deserve to receive some sort of notice from whatever professional association they belong to, and also a Patent for the smaller size machine that they created. Thats some pretty amazing work - and they already have a human test trial to back it.

  2. Re:Wow by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You might be right there that in the US there are obstacles to cutting-edge medicine. At Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children, they've been doing cross blood type transplants for years for newborns. At first one would think that it violates a rule of basic organ transplants that the blood types must match. But what they've found is that newborns have not yet developed the antibodies that would cause rejection. The first child to have the operation was 7 as of the report in 2004.

    These kinds of transplants were necessary because of the scarcity of donor organs and only performed when there were no other options. First of all, most parents, understandably, do not want to/do not think to donate the organs of their new infant out of grief. Secondly, most newborns die of diseases that might cause them to be eliminated for consideration. Lastly, infants when born are different sizes and their organs also vary in size. Getting a suitable organ that was an exact blood and size match is extremely difficult.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  3. Re:Cut the fat, cut the risk. by hansamurai · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What? When a woman is pregnant she is not only carrying a baby, but a very large uterus, enlarged breasts, and probably other stuff that I can't remember. Maybe your wife only gained the baby's weight but that honestly sounds unhealthy for the mom and child as she was net losing weight during the pregnancy due to other things adding necessary mass.

    And if you could tell me what minerals and vitamins are in chocolate fudge brownies (my wife's latest craving at 7 and a half months) I'd love to know.

    Maybe you have info to back your claims up, but none of this is in line with my current experience.

  4. Re:Wow by jbeaupre · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not really. It is judged against standard of care. If, as in this case, the standard of care is to wait for the patient to die, then anything that doesn't make things worse could be ok.

    On a related note, I worked on a dialysis project. The method was so simple, cheap and easily duplicated (unpatentable), we couldn't figure out how to justify working on it as a company (and we really tried). So we donated the research and a large wad of cash to an outside researcher we had hired as a consultant. He was enthusiastic because he was tired of traditional methods failing his patients (literally telling parents their kids had a week to live). I have no doubt that he would seriously consider using this alternate method rather than watch a patient die, and this is a method far less proven than traditional dialysis. And I firmly believe parents would be eternally grateful for him taking the chance. If this doc ever thought of liability, it was the liability of losing a bit of his soul if he didn't do everything he could for a patient.

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  5. Truly, medical geeks are the alpha geeks. by hey! · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's got to take serious balls to whip something like this up and plug somebody's baby into it, even if the baby was going to die.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  6. Re:Cut the fat, cut the risk. by Ross+D+Anderson · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Strangely, my mum craved the smell of petrol... To be honest, I'm kinda glad she didn't pay too much attention to it.

  7. Re:Wow by Marillion · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, yes and no.

    Quite often pediatricians are at the mercy of the equipment makers. One of the doctors at the pediatric hospital where I work explained an example: They bought an MRI machine. The machine needs to know the patient weight so that it can make adjustments to energy levels accordingly. The machine as installed refused to allow patient weights under about 6 pounds (3kg). They went back and forth with the manufacture. The manufacturer was like "Who's under 6 pounds?" The hospital was like "We have a level 3 neo-natal intensive care unit. On any given week, we have dozens of patients under six pounds."

    --
    This is a boring sig
  8. Re:For that matter... by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Interesting
    and to rub it in a bit more, the USA spends a higher percentage of it's GDP than any other country (something like 15% I believe), and the UK spends just 6% of it's GDP on healthcare.

    You've got to be kidding. They spend MORE than we do? I'd got the idea that they put up with having no health service because it meant they could spend more money on, er... I think the term they use is 'defending freedom'. I'd never imagined they spent anything like as much. I mean, the common wisdom in the UK is that the NHS is a colossal money pit. The American system is even more expensive?

    Jesus. So, 15% GDP in the US, versus 6% in the UK... and adjust for the higher per capita wealth of the US... that's just horrible. Where the hell is all the money going?

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  9. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion