Slashdot Mirror
Vein Grown From Her Own Stem Cells Saves 10-Year-Old
An anonymous reader writes in with a story about a milestone in stem cell medicine. "A ten year old girl became the first person in the world to get a major blood vessel replaced by one grown using her own stem cells. The 10-year-old from Sweden had a blockage of a vein from her liver. The doctors decided to give her a new vein instead of a liver transplant or giving her a vein from her own body, Associated Press reported. The team from University of Gothenburg first took 9 cm vein segment from a dead man and stripped all living cells from it, leaving behind only a protein structure. They later reconstructed the vein by using cells from the girl's own bone marrow. The new graft was then put in the girl's body two weeks later."
Since the donor vessel was stripped down to nothing but a protien structure is there any reason a non-human vein couldn't be donated? Cattle are slaughtered in bulk for instance, I don't see why a protien structure from one of those couldn't be used.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
What does it matter? There are plenty of dead people around.
I am more interested in the fact that her cells were harvested from her bone marrow, rather than gathered from umbilical cord blood and cryogenically stored at several thousand dollars a pop.
Although it can't be a good news article for their business, it gives the rest of us oldies a bit more hope that we can benefit from stem cells.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
Oh great, another "save the children" movement. When are government regulators and school boards going to learn that the children don't need saving?
I'd imagine your right but I'm not a biologist. But a human one might have a better form factor making it easier to implant. I love the 21st century.
To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
Agreed, but not all of them consent to donate.
Cattle don't get a say in the matter. If we start doing this in bulk we would be better off finding commonly slaughtered animals that can provide the structure rather than consenting humans to meet demand. Granted, even if we don't go the animal route the percentage of compatible donors just skyrocketed for those that can wait a while for an organ - such as my own cousin who is awaiting a heart.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
"I believe that children are our future..unless we stop them now." -- Homer Simpson.
To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
Prof. Hubert J. Farnsworth: Come on, stem cells, work your astounding scientific nonsense!
Philip J. Fry: Fetal stem cells? Aren't those controversial?
Prof. Hubert J. Farnsworth: In your time, yes. But nowadays... shut up! Besides, these are adult stem cells, harvested from healthy adults whom I've killed for their stem cells.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Cows would have to be slaughtered in a way to save a certain vein for a procedure like this. Current slaughterhouse practices would not lead to much useable matter for medical procedures like this. It's do-able, but would take some changes. That's assuming the cow vein is indeed compatible.
Since the donor vessel was stripped down to nothing but a protien structure is there any reason a non-human vein couldn't be donated?
I know they use animal tissues as scaffolds for some treatments. I was recently reading about the use of stripped extracellular matrix from pigs bladders for treatment on both horses and people.
http://www.acell.com/acell-products.html
Maybe she was lactose intolerant. :-)
I see three possible reasons why this was not done:
1. The vein needs to be a certain shape, and cow veins are shaped incorrectly.
2. The protein structure of cow veins is different somehow.
3. D'oh!
My guess, though, is that this is an experimental process and they went with a tissue type match to reduce the possibility of rejection. Trans-species transplants just adds way too many variables.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
This is just the kind of awful socialism that happens when the government funds scientific research.
We need more expensive and less effective procedures which ensure a steady flow of income from the patient.
The free market would have done a much better job.
I am more interested in the fact that her cells were harvested from her bone marrow, rather than gathered from umbilical cord blood and cryogenically stored at several thousand dollars a pop. Although it can't be a good news article for their business, it gives the rest of us oldies a bit more hope that we can benefit from stem cells.
You're not really old unless hassling service clerks seems to you like a great and wonderful way to spend your remaining time.
I want the heart of a LION!!!
It's actually not as amazing as it seems... adult stem cells* have been used quite extensively, and for quite awhile. It also has the added advantage of compatibility.
* yes she's a kid, but they still call 'em adult cells, to distinguish them from the embryonic ones.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Then there will be ranchers who make money slaughtering the animal to recover the vein as well as sell the meat.
However, I think it would be more likely that Pigs would be genetically altered to have the correct kind of vein.
Eventually the protein structure will just be grown or printed on demand
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You think small.
I want two hearts of a lion. One in my chest, the other hidden somewhere.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I thought we could already do that. A woman on Penn and Teller's Bullshit had a cow vein put in her arm to help with dialysis.
XDInd
This article touches on that in the last paragraph. In a nutshell: maybe. This is pioneering work so there are a lot of things that need to be evaluated.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
Since the donor vessel was stripped down to nothing but a protien structure is there any reason a non-human vein couldn't be donated? Cattle are slaughtered in bulk for instance, I don't see why a protien structure from one of those couldn't be used.
There could be slight differences in protein structure that would be immunologically tricky. It could also just be that(while certainly complex) the paperwork for implanting human-derived material on an experimental basis is much better defined and less risky than the paperwork for heading down to the local slaughterhouse and harvesting some donor material.
Certainly, for high-value organs that are presently in very short supply, there would be a strong incentive to develop some sort of non cadaver source(whether it be animals, 3d-printed scaffolds, or whatever); but I imagine that, in the short term, if you want it to Just Work and don't necessarily need it to scale immediately, cadaver tissue is easiest.
2. The protein structure of cow veins is different somehow.
Subtle inter-specie difference in the amino acid sequence (and more rarely protein folding) might be recognised by the child's immune system as "foreign" and rejected.
The best long term solution would be to custom 3D-print the protein structure. But that would require technology which is not available/developed under the time constrains of saving this specific child's life. Thus, the "dead body" option was picked up for being quickly usable.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Yes! Built like a Klingon.
Only, instead of battle wounds I'll need the redundancy for my future arteriosclerosis.
This is why Steam Cell research and Steam Cell usage is a good thing! So to all the opposition to it, how about you walk up to this girl and tell her that she should be dead because it's bad!
here's your sign: A criminal's pirated body can save a dozen lives. There is now no valid argument against capital punishment for any given crime; for all such argument seeks to prove that killing a man does society no good.
Nor a master of basic written English.
Thank you for your contribution. This thread would have suffered for lack of your pedantry despite the clear communication that the GP made.
Even though the researchers 'stripped' the vein, there certainly are proteins left and they may be antigenic (create an immune response, something you don't want in this instance). We use pig heart valves in humans without much problem so our little porcine friend might be a better fit.
That said, this is pretty investigational, they may have wanted to decrease the number of variables involved or may simply have had a better protocol for using a human substrate. If this turns out to work well, you can bet these sorts of things will be explored.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Yes, but she has to take immunosuppressive drugs in order to keep the cow vein.
The girl takes none.
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
The structure of the vein isn't a major issue in this particular case- the procedure was a bypass, so all that was needed was a tube of tissue that could take blood from one vein to another. This procedure, called a meso Rex bypass, has been done with a variety of vein sources already. The cadaver donor vein used here was an iliac vein, which normally returns blood from the legs. Issues of structure or size do come into play when other types of grafts or transplants are considered, but I think, as other comments have noted, that in this case generation of the vein from stem cells was done for immunological reasons, as even decellularized animal tissue can provoke an immune response.
"FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
If God wanted this child to live, he wouldn't have made her sick. I for one condemn this unchristian interference with nature.
Are the protein structures the same for non-humans?
Only thing I can think of, is that the stem cells they used are going to be looking for a particular protein structure.
Note: I am not a doctor
Who would not consent to be an organ donor? I'm curious. I want to know what kind of person says, "No, I don't want any of my parts used to save anyone's life after I die."
Is it a superstitious thing or something? I'm not joking or trying to provoke. I cannot grasp not being willing to donate one's organs after death.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Chiken used to be slaughtered in a way that left the feet usable only as ground animal feed. When http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/us-china-embroiled-in-trade-spat-over-chicken-feet/2011/12/13/gIQASphjxO_story.html they're worth $275 million per year the slaughterhouses changed they're practices.
Wave more money like that at slaughterhouses and they will JUMP to change.
Of course, the theoretical end game of this is being able to take a donor heart, strip it down to the protein structure, and grow a new heart with the recipients cells, thus drastically reducing the rejection issues.
/fatalism
And, as other posters have noted, it may be possible to eventually use an animal donor (such as a pig, as with the heart valves).
Imagine being able to harvest pig hearts from the normal food production process, strip them down, and make new hearts for transplant. Far enough down the line, it may be possible to tailor a re-grown heart that simply does not cause rejection issues. (not talking tomorrow, but maybe 50-100 years of research as a shot in the dark guess).
That's a pretty lofty goal, but this research is a stepping stone in that direction.
Of course, a better solution would be to train into the population a better attitude and awareness of health, leading to better lifestyle choices, increasing the overall health in the population, reducing the factors that cause heart problems such as obesity, thus reducing the load on the transplant list.
But where's the money in that?
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
Agreed, but not all of them consent to donate.
Assuming this is like the heart and bladder procedure, that I heard about, the pool of potential donors is massively increased by this technology since they no longer have to worry about rejection. That means many more of those that do consent are usable.
Everytime I hear of something really cool being done with stem cell research I cant help but wonder what we could be doing with it right now if the fucking christians didnt cock block it for like 2 decades because they are small minded peons.
There's a ranch in California that provides medical grade collagen from their cattle. Their "slaughterhouse" is comparable with a high-end operating room. They need to take extreme precautions in raising the cattle to produce the absolutely best product possible - totally organic, no contact with cattle not under the control of the ranch (they actually lease all surrounding lands and leave them unused to ensure that), etc. It's very expensive to raise cattle this way. But it is very lucrative. Lucrative enough that the meat is a by-product and only adds marginally to the bottom line. I imagine if this were to become common place, similar ranches could be set up. Granted, it moves away from the local slaughterhouse diverting part of their cull, but it's do-able.
I have not consented to be an organ donor. Mainly because I do not trust that my organs won't be prematurely harvested in the haste to save someone else's life. So I am not listed as an organ donor, and my family will be able to make the decision if I am well and truly dead.
another Slashdot article not about embryonic stem cells where the masses get confused and show their ignorance and anti-American prejudice...
Since the donor vessel was stripped down to nothing but a protien structure is there any reason a non-human vein couldn't be donated? Cattle are slaughtered in bulk for instance, I don't see why a protien structure from one of those couldn't be used.
Not necessarily required it was done to provide the structure or scaffolding if you wish for the cells to grow on, it was a faster method this time around rather than having to make one artificially from scratch.
i don't like obama..not because he is a nigga...it's just because he is a Marxist nigger.Un-American son of a nigger loving mother.
fuck all you socialist cock suckers.
That communist pig gonna have to answer to the real Americans one day. We might have to start a war to get rid of this guy.
Sorry no mod points today. +1 This fact of the process does provide hope that donor organs may be a thing of the past. I saw a documentary where whole lungs and hearts were created with this process. It would be interesting if things like liver replacements could be achieved via bone marrow harvesting.
There are also religious reasons not to be a donor. I don't think those of the Jewish or Muslim faiths can donate.
XDInd
Simply saying "it's because you're fat!" is an oversimplification. Even very healthy people get heart disease. That said, obesity itself is a medical problem; if losing weight was easy, everyone would be skinny. Obviously it's not simple case of everyone trying to live better. Regardless of 'lifestyle choice', not everyone has access to quality food or the opportunity to get the execise they need in the week (lord knows I don't!).
I think, however, that what you're trying to say is that health problems are systemic as much as random instances, and that if we solve the underlying problems we will have an easier time of it. I agree, but I would assert those systemic problems are societal as much as they are individual.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
Sounds like a problem for the Free Market to figure out.
In the same way that they always say that the right wing wants to ban stem cell research, leaving off the fetal part.
XDInd
Did I miss something? I was under the impression that there have been multiple experiments converting average cells into stem cells. Was there a conversation at some point like, "Well I suppose we could learn how to make a stem cell bath, OR we could just subject this girl to excruciating pain. To be fair, she's likely already be in a lot of pain, so it wouldn't be THAT much worse..."
(I'm a liver transplant surgeon).
They could have done this procedure with cadaver iliac vein without the fancy bioprocessing, without immunosuppression. I've done that operation. Allograft vessels and other tissue grafts have been available for years. It's an interesting idea to see if the autologous endothelial cells improve patency, but the procedure itself is nothing remotely newsworthy. I can't believe Lancet accepted the statement that this processing avoided the need for liver transplantation.
Also, decellularized bovine carotid grafts have also been used in human surgery for many years, usually for dialysis access surgery. The trade name is Artegraft, and I think they are marketed by Johnson and Johnson, but not sure. I don't know if bovine carotid has ever been used for a meso-rex shunt (what this kid had - an uncommon procedure), but they have been used many thousands of times for other vascular surgery.
A year and a half ago I watched a public television show which documented the creation of compatible organs. They stripped an incompatible mouse heart of all but the scaffold which was translucent and then seeded it with stem sells from the mouse they wanted to transplant it into. The cells grew into heart cells and the heart started beating in the lab environment. When transplanted into the mouse it worked fine. They suggested that the same thing could be done with pigs hearts to make them compatible with humans as the scaffold was not what the immune system of the body attacked. Not sure if this has already been done. They also used an inkjet head on a 3D printer to print a mouse heart of the scaffold material, seeded it with stem cells, and it started beating in the lab environment. As I recall, they had also done the similar things with lungs, kidneys, and other body parts. This was the show. "Replacing Body Parts" Aired January 26, 2011 on PBS http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/replacing-body-parts.html Transcript on the website.
Cow protein != Human protein
It might work, but in the realm of unknown unknowns, it's probably best to not introduce unnecessary additional risks.
"...first took 9 cm vein segment from a dead man and stripped all living cells "... "The new graft was then put in the girl's body two weeks later." Can we call it Frankenvein?
I used to consent on my drivers license, the people at the DMV were so used to hitting "No" they hit "No" on mine even though I answered "Yes".
It is no longer an option on the Texas drivers license.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
'Oh Lucky Man' - great movie. It used to be chilling because it was the future. Now it's chilling because it's the present.
There are some Christian sects (?cults?) who can't donate or accept donated cells. From memory the (inaccurately named) Christian Scientists are one. I think (but I'm too tired right now to check) they can accept blood plasma because there's no cells in it.
Honestly I think this is one of those areas where we can play god and get away with it. If it helps people, and hurts no one, then do it. Science is a beatufiul thing, and it shouldn't be shafted when it helps people.
"You're not a person until you're in my phonebook." -- Bill Hicks
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
Moreover, they probably had *easier* access to dead human bodies. They're a hospital. They have good ties with the morgue. They probably even have their own mini morgue downstairs, if House (TV) has taught me anything.
About a few hundred reasons, the most important of which are
1. the much larger likelihood of an immune reaction to the collagen-elastin matrix. Human collagen =! Cattle collagen , mainly in terms of glycosylation etc.
2. Large blood vessels of the body have some degree of specialization, they aren't just pipes. Finding an anatomically compatible cattle vein can be a problem, what with cattle liver being a completely different shape and all that.
3. As a matter of principle, you really don't want to expose cattle pathogens deep into the human peritoneum, it only encourages them to jump species. and before you say Sterilization, remember that is only a probabilistic process which you can't do too much of non-destructively.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
"Is it necessary the vien come from a dead human?"
Well, not necessary, but a live human is hard to hold down when you try to cut away a piece of their major blood vessels.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Pigs are a lot closer to us than cows, and we slaughter a lot of them!
You want the heart of a PUSSY ?
Yes, the GP clearly communicated to be a lawyer.
How's it clear?
I was imagining his right, (should that be my right?) and wondering why the left, top, bottom or any other part of his body was left out. Does his right have anything to do with not being a biologist?
Imagine my car but I'm not a rocket surgeon.
Make an effort or stop typing.
If it was only a protein structure, couldn't we just print one from a 3D printer?
So you're potentially giving away someone else's life to avoid a tiny improbable danger to your own?
It already does and Im only in my 40s.
Fear the hospital would stop trying to save them once they learned they are on the donor list.
Regardless of 'lifestyle choice', not everyone has access to quality food or the opportunity to get the execise they need in the week (lord knows I don't!).
Highly recommended: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUaInS6HIGo - bottom line, you probably do have that opportunity, and a little movement goes a very (very) long way.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
It is no longer an option on the Texas drivers license.
Weird... it was just a few months ago when I renewed mine.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
"Current slaughterhouse practices would not lead to much useable matter for medical procedures like this."
Who needs a slaughterhouse? Millions of male milk cattle get shot in the head a day or two after birth, shreddered and transformed into bio-gas because veal use went down after the publishing of the raising conditions in the eighties and never recovered.
if losing weight was easy, everyone would be skinny.
Actually, that's a myth. Losing weight IS easy. Its just that humans are inherently lazy and instant gratification seekers. Both of which directly conflict with losing and maintaining weight.
In case its not clear, laziness prevents people from doing things which burn calories. The need for instant gratification causes people to actively seek out that peice of pie, cake, or cookie. Of course, laziness and the need for instant gratification frequently also causes people to not prepare their own foods.
Adding to that, most people, especially Americans, eat garbage. Almost without exception, when I've spoken to people about the foods they consume, they assure me they eat very well. When you hear the details, its very clear they eat garbage. And I mean really crappy foods. Usually they don't know any better. Its amazing how well one can eat when not eating garbage.
The combination of things is why few Americans lose weight. Just the same, losing weight for most people, is actually VERY easy. For most people, its a simple matter of getting off your ass and eating right. And absolutely do not "diet." Dieting is for idiots who want to gain weight.
Long story short, losing weight is easy. Very easy. People are lazy. And people actively seek out instant gratification. The vast, vast, majority of people who are fat, should be looked down upon for being fat, lazy, self absorbed people - because almost all research proves this to be true.
Granted, its not politically correct to say it, but its true regardless of however much brainwashing you've had on the subject.
Now, having the body of a Greek God, that's hard.
Hahaha, Informative. "I always thought, uhm, dogs lay eggs, and I learned something new today". - Sir Peter Griffin
She needs to be cleaned by fire! Burn down her body quicky!
This isn't a Monty Python sketch....
To receive a transplant, you'd have to go on anti-rejection drugs which have a lot of problems.
Website Just Down For Me? Find out
"Real Americans" don't start a war because they're the sore losers of a democratic election. He can't server more than a second term, there's really no reason to believe you're going to have to fight "to get rid of" him.
"My God man, drilling holes in his head is not the answer! The artery must be repaired!" - McCoy
Simply saying "it's because you're fat!" is an oversimplification. Even very healthy people get heart disease. That said, obesity itself is a medical problem; if losing weight was easy, everyone would be skinny.
Indeed, your genetic makeup is as important as lifestyle, maybe even moreso. I've been thin all my life except when I was on Paxil and gained 40 pounds. When I got off the Paxil it just came off, not only did I never diet, it was an effort to keep some of the weight I'd gained on.
A friend of mine was a construction worker, so he got plenty of excersize and was by no means overweight. Yet he died three years ago at age 42 from a sudden heart attack. Niether my lack of obesity or his heart attack were from lifestyle.
If your grandparents all died of heart disease before age 60, you're not likely to live to be 70 no matter how healthy your lifestyle.
Free Martian Whores!
Well, not necessary, but a live human is hard to hold down when you try to cut away a piece of their major blood vessels.
That's what the anesthesiologist is for, silly.
Stefan Axelsson
I'm placing the decision in the hands of my family, who have my best interests at heart.
Who would not consent to be an organ donor? I'm curious. I want to know what kind of person says, "No, I don't want any of my parts used to save anyone's life after I die."
Is it a superstitious thing or something? I'm not joking or trying to provoke. I cannot grasp not being willing to donate one's organs after death.
There are religious groups that discourage it. It's an area of active argument in Judaism. Here's an article that discusses some different religious opposition. Generally speaking, a lot of religions that posit an afterlife, have individuals within that religion who come to the conclusion that they'll be reincarnated missing their body parts, even though apparently no religions actually say anything like that.
But it's my belief the main reason is because people think maybe a miracle will happen and they'll recover from the coma/brain death/whatever but that instead they'll have life support switched off to have their organs removed.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
People are understandably worried that if they were injured and unable to speak for themselves, they would be allowed to die so that their organs could be harvested. Unlikely, but possible.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Indeed, your genetic makeup is as important as lifestyle, maybe even moreso.
I wouldn't go overboard; genetics is important, but lifestyle is as important or even more so. The three most common causes of premature death in the United States: tobacco, sedentary lifestyle/poor diet, and alcohol.
I've been thin all my life except when I was on Paxil and gained 40 pounds. When I got off the Paxil it just came off, not only did I never diet, it was an effort to keep some of the weight I'd gained on.
A friend of mine was a construction worker, so he got plenty of excersize and was by no means overweight. Yet he died three years ago at age 42 from a sudden heart attack. Niether my lack of obesity or his heart attack were from lifestyle.
If your grandparents all died of heart disease before age 60, you're not likely to live to be 70 no matter how healthy your lifestyle.
Let me amend that; if all your grandparents all died of heart disease before age 60, you're likely to have coronary artery disease and will need to be treated, or you're not likely to live to be 70. Medical sciences, especially in cardiology, has advanced significantly since your grandparents' time. (And even in the last 10 years.)
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
We have enough trouble training good anesthesiologists, there's no reason to cut veins out of them as well!
According to TFA, this procedure removes the problem of rejection since the organ is made from the patients own cells.
"I am somebody!" - Navin Johnson
What's a phonebook?
It has to do with the Antigen/Antibody marker - which are protein-based. Non-human markers would get picked by the immune system and the structure would eventually decay without immunosupression. The risk of cadaveric graft rejection is probably lower, than the risks of a lifetime of immunosupression with a non-human graft. The interesting thing here, is would the vein grow as the organ ages (matures). Given that its her native stem cells, the answer is "likely yes" for it would respond to native growth hormone.
All religions are cults, some are just good(smart?) enough to brainwash the general public that their not...
That hadn't occurred to me. It makes sense how that might be a fear of some folks.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I have to agree with the GP, whose post I didn't see because it was modded to oblivion. One expects "I'd imagine your right" to preface something about your right to do or not do something, and when it's followed by "but I'm not a biologist" there's a bit of brain lag that sets in; "I'd imagine your right butt, I'm not a biologist."
It's only clear communication if you have to move your lips when you read. To those of us who are literate, it slows reading speed and takes away comprehension. it's annoying and we wish you aliterates would read a few books now and then. As Twain said, someone who doesn't read has no advantage over someone who can't read.
Free Martian Whores!
Actually, that's a myth. Losing weight IS easy. Its just that humans are inherently lazy and instant gratification seekers. Both of which directly conflict with losing and maintaining weight.
What you said is partially correct, but to look at it as a whole, it is subjective. Yes, humans are likely to be lazy, but not ALL humans are lazy and not ALL who are diligently work out to be skinny can be skinny. Genetic can prevent one to be skinny or to be fat.
When I said it is subjective, it means that what you feel "easy" is you. The level of difficulty to keep oneself weight is depended on each individual. One may feel that it is easier than the other. Think of it as a math class, two students in the class may have different view of difficulty toward a math question. It is not that the question is different, but it is the students who decide the difficulty of the question.
Also, the definition of the word "skinny" or "thin" is different in different part of the world. For example, I am thin or slender in the U.S.; whereas, I am fat in my home country. My current weight is within the normal BMI range, but my friends back in my home country look at me and tell me that I am very fat. Why's that? Because each region may have different way to define it.
In conclusion, making an assumption that those who can't lose weight are "lazy" is very subjective and incorrect. You could have said that a partial reason would be from "laziness" but should not impose it to everybody.
Same here. There is a little heart that says "donor" on the bottom right corner next to your eye color.
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
[block] I wouldn't go overboard; genetics is important, but lifestyle is as important or even more so. The three most common causes of premature death in the United States: tobacco, sedentary lifestyle/poor diet, and alcohol [nih.gov].[/block]
I think that the assignment of cause here is a little rash. Most likely it's tobacco+genetics, poor diet+genetics, alcohol+genetics. Look at George Burns, for example, died at 100, cigar smoker, drinker, and not an exerciser, or healthy eater.
Genetics are really about 70%.
The point is: If you have poor genes, you can have a healthy lifestyle, and still die young . . . OR, you could live longer than you would otherwise have lived. Lifestyle is still 30%!
If you have GOOD genes, you could have a crappy lifestyle and live a very long time. But it's still a crapshoot. There are a lot of genetic factors that are unknown, and even if they were all known, a genetic test would not tell-all, because there are factors that control which genes are expressed, so it's STILL a crapshoot.
Genes are sort of an unfair advantage, because they really do make it easier for those who choose "good lifestyles" - (it's far easier to exercise if you're not already overweight, don't have arthritis, sleep disorders, or other health issues. . . etc.)
There are also studies that indicate a relationship between maternal weight-gain and weight-control issues. (ie. if your mother was "heavy" while pregnant with you, or your prior siblings, you're more likely to have weight-control issues; possibly some mitochondrial dna inheritance mechanism affecting metabolism, possibly to do with famine-response); which means there's a genetic factor in how effective dieting can be, but it's not "genetic" in the way that most people would think. (direct inheritance from both parents, based on chromosomal dna).
The only thing a person CAN control is lifestyle.
So - one can either choose to live a crappy lifestyle, and increase one's risk, and be more likely to die young, (whether or not there is a family history indicating "good genes").
Or - one can choose to live a good lifestyle - and decrease risk. One could still die young - from a lifestyle or health-related issue.
Or - even with good genes, good lifestyle and good luck with health issues, a 20 ton weight could drop out of the sky on your head.
There is a fear that if unethical for-profit hospital staff know that you are a donor, they will not act to prolong your life, but rather, allow you to die prematurely, in order to harvest your organs (and therefore, profit from their business). Not necessarily the emergency-room or surgical staff, but by executive corporate policy.
It's a reasonable fear.
I think it also depends on what kind of legal/family situation you have in terms of people you trust to make the right decisions.
Wow, sparked quite the discussion on that one. I made that statement as a fat person myself, and i gotta say, you are right, its not a 'lifestyle choice' for all fat people. Myself, i work 9+ hours a day on my feet, walking all day, I avoid ice cream and other sweets as much as i can, buy my weakness for sugary caffeinated drinks seems to be my down-falling. However, there are plenty of people that i see every day (working in a grocery store.) that would loose 50 lbs if they would stop buying hostess cupcakes, frozen pizza, ice cream and hot-wings, and buy a few vegetables instead.
The point I'm trying to make is, if those of is that CAN make adjustments to alleviate preventable future health problems, it increases the availability of donor hearts to people that need them because of unpreventable things. Its sort of a "fix it because it WILL be broken soon if we don't." attitude.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
This has never happened to me either.
The human WASN'T dead until they took the vein.
Consent to donate is regarding living tissue which bears the risk of them submitting you to painkillerless torture while they remove your organs if there is a misdiagnosis. In this particular instance they used a completely dead person. In the future they should maybe have 2 check boxes to specify which sort of donation you're willing to do. I won't donate my living tissue but after I'm dead I don't really care.
You mean those people that are going to get your inheritance when you die?
Does "bone marrow extraction" sound like a pleasant experience to you?
Interesting that you refer to those who can successfully process a spurious transient in the communication channel as "aliterate". The phrase in question is clear communication when you realize that while the other proposed potential parsings of the sentence are syntactically valid none of them make any sense semantically in the context of the post. Furthermore, this is an incredibly common class of error—one that should be automatically, subconsciously considered when parsing an otherwise semantically ambiguous sentence.
Yes, it's a typo. Yes, these should not be encouraged. No, it doesn't add to the discussion to mock the typo. No, it doesn't doesn't help that you further disingenuously mock those with more robust written communication parsing skill than yours. Yes, the communication is clear.
PS. Bravo for going straight to the ad hominem fallacy; stay classy!
Cattle not getting a say in the matter seems like more of an argument for NOT using them...
Maybe it's back? I didn't see it on the form last renewal.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.