Slashdot Mirror
Doctors Transplant Same Kidney Twice In Two Weeks
kkleiner writes "Twenty-seven-year-old Ray Fearing suffered from focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS), a common type of kidney disease, and needed a new kidney. His 24-year-old sister, Cera Fearing, wanted to give him hers. The transplanted kidney immediately began to grow diseased, so doctors removed it. But then something happened that, according to the doctor who performed the procedure, had never been done before. The unhealthy kidney was removed from Ray, and replanted into another patient, and the kidney became healthy and has remained in this second patient ever since."
its Ray "Fearing" Kidney.
Doctor: We don't have any kidney's available but we have this diseased and rejected kidney in the fridge. Intrested?
If you're going to receive a transplant, it's best to get an organ with broad experience.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
You know that there is a always far more demand then availability.
No matter what happens it probably saved a life.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
get one patient to reject the kidney, and then, while the it's still depressed, another patient gets the kidney on the rebound.
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
His sister is hot.
>>>clinical trial
Or Dr. House breaking the rules again! (Damn him... if we wasn't so good, we'd prosecute him in court.) ;-)
I'm surprised the kidney got better. I guess the disease is located in the man's body, not in the kidney (which recovered once given a healthy environment). I feel sorry for the guy as he'll probably die soon, before he even made 30.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Well, sheesh, I thought it was commons knowledge that putting farm animals in your computer case would cause some instability, especially ones with horns.
You know that there is a always far more demand then availability.
No matter what happens it probably saved a life.
There's an adequate supply, it's just illegal to sell organs.
I think the assumption was that the brother's disease, which was genetic, was causing problems with the new kidney. But because $recipient2 did not have that disease, if transplanted to $recipient2's body, the kidney would recover and work correctly. A genetic disease not present in the kidney should not follow the kidney. The actual results would vindicate that theory.
Kidney once, shame on you. Kidney twice, shame on me.
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
But under the older care HE will be black listed with a pre existing condition but it's not that bad jail / prison care does not have pre existing conditions
You are correct -- the value of this is the discovery that when an organ is diseased it may be a symptom of a greater problem. It actually seems pretty obvious when you think about it.
Caveat Utilitor
I don't think that is the fear at all, I think the fear is that people will have their organs stolen while they are alive.
People get killed for their couple hundred dollar iPads, if a healthy person has dozens of saleable organs then they could be worth 10s of thousands of dollars.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Just goes to show that human-parts package management should be treated like a BSD Ports or Gentoo Portage installation; you need to take the entire system into consideration when looking at changes.
-IOVAR Web Dev Platform
Why didn't the girl get the kidney back? I can understand her willing to give it up for her brother, but not for some random person.
Just don't break any traffic laws and you'll be fine.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Because that libertarian attitude every one should be able to enter any contract he wishes without restriction doesn't account for the realities of power play in this world.
The realities of power are that really rich people, right now, can fly to countries to get organs from desperate people. So all we're really doing is exporting the problem.
The reality of medicine is that being put on a donor waiting list is a death sentence for the "99%".
And the reality of organ transplants is that most people suffer organ failure due to poor health, poor diet and smoking / drug abuse. You probably see more poor and middling people, per capita, needing organ transplants because wealthy people take better care of their bodies.
Only desperate people would sell their organs for money.
So it's better that they simply remain desperate? They don't seem to think so. Do they get a say in the matter? Freedom of choice? My body, not the government's? Does that only apply to abortion?
Allowing people to sell organs would give very rich people with organ failure an incentive to make the life of potential donors hell.
Sure, that would make perfect sense if rich people were all part of some vast conspiracy. In reality, any sane person, rich or poor, has every incentive to avoid hugely invasive surgery, and as much as people don't want to be donors, they want to be recipients even less.
Selling/buying them is illegal so there are very few buyers. Make it legal, and the demand and number of places you could offload goes through the roof.
Um, how? Is there anything that could possibly be easier to trace than human organs? I mean, they're already stamped, in every single cell, with DNA. How in God's name could you fence stolen organs?
And if there are doctors willing to do it without running the checks, what's stopping them from doing it now?
Medicare. Double-billed at 1/5 of the cost to do the work still has the Doctors losing money. .... And people ask me why Hospitals near large elderly housing are closing down.
I think the assumption was that the brother's disease, which was genetic, was causing problems with the new kidney.
Not quite: FTFA:
Researchers have theorized that it may be caused by a factor circulating in the bloodstream.
From something a little less...mainstream:
Idiopathic or primary FSGS is postulated to result from a plasma factor that increases glomerular permeability. This hypothesis is supported by the observation that FSGS may recur in a renal allograft. However, the presence of such a permeability factor has not been confirmed although some of its characteristics have been described. Another possibility to explain the pathogenesis of FSGS is lack of an inhibitor to the permeability factor. Hence, what causes FSGS and why it may recur in a transplanted kidney is yet unknown.
(Szczepiorkowski ZM, Winters JL, Bandarenko N, et al. Guidelines on the use of therapeutic apheresis in clinical practice--evidence-based approach from the Apheresis Applications Committee of the American Society for Apheresis. Journal of clinical apheresis. 2010;25(3):83-177.)
Usually FSGS is thought to be acquired (e.g. HIV or heroin use) rather than genetic. Of course, underlying genetics or haplotypes may play a role, but I too lazy to look that up :).
-- The Genesis project? What's that?
Actually, end stage renal disease (ESRD) including both dialysis and transplants, is covered by Medicare regardless of age. The only other condition that enjoys this status is amyotrophic lateral schlerosis (ALS). I have no idea why ALS is handled this way, especially since there are several similar motor neurone diseases that aren't covered, but in the case of ESRD, it's because when dialysis was first developed it was extremely expensive and insurance refused to cover it. The result was few dialysis machines were built and the costs remained very high. ESRD was and is very common, so laws were passed to extend medicare to cover it. (And the costs did drop, but it's still expensive.) And when transplants became available, the coverage was extended again to cover that.
There is, however, a little gotcha in all this. The drugs needed to prevent rejection of a transplant are also expensive. And once you have a transplant, you don't have ESRD any more, so your Medicare coverage ends. This was addressed by extending the coverage for 18 months, which I guess is how long transplants used to last. But these days the average is more like 9 years. So what happens is someone gets a transplant that's paid for by Medicare, their meds are paid for for 18 months, then the coverage stops, they can't afford the meds and the transplant stops working. So they go back into ESRD and need dialysis, at which point they're covered again.
This is absolutely insane no matter how you look at it, since the meds are typically around $10K/year whereas dialysis is closer to $50K/year. So not only do you waste a precious organ, it ends up costing more.
The good news is that one of the provision of the AHA that goes into effect in 2014 is to extend medicare to cover the meds indefinitely.
On QI: H Series - Episode 4 they calculated the approximate total cost for a human body to be about £500,000 including the organs, meat (£1.32/Kg), leather, carbon (coal), bone meal (fertiliser) as well as the various metals the body contains; QIXL Series H S08E04 Humans
I though that the whole "wake up in a bathtub full of ice after being the victim of illegal organ theft" thing was pretty much just a cool internet rumour, for several reasons:
1. transplants have to be matched. Not just blood type but also MHC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_histocompatibility_complex, which narrows the compatibility even more.
2. Organs don't last long outside the body. The recipient has to be right there waiting for the organ, it can't just be tossed in the fridge waiting for a compatible customer to show up.
3. Anti-rejection drugs don't just grow on trees. Securing a LIFETIME supply of these things can't be easy if you're not on record as having had a transplant... And surely they're not in as much demand as other prescription drugs.
In summary, there are practical and biological reasons that there really isn't a massive black market for organs.
I may well be wrong, can anybody correct me?
sustainable living