Yes, it’s a tragedy that Alonzo Mourning’s career has been cut short because he needs a kidney transplant. I am not pitting him.
I pit the people who have inquired about donating their kidney specifically to a multi-millionaire athlete. You’re so eager to make a noble sacrifice? Where are you for the 57,000 “average joes” who need kidneys as well? Seventeen people a day die waiting for kidneys, according to the Kidney and Urology Foundation (see linked article), why don’t you put your good intentions to use and help one of them out?
The only bright side of this is that while many have asked about donating a kidney to Mourning specifically, it appears that some people have called to inquire about donation in general.
If you wish to donate an organ, you have my utmost respect. Just do it for the right reason. The possibility of financial reward is not the right reason. http://www.kidneyurology.org/homepage.htm
Ya know, I read that article, and it doesn’t seem to indicate that the would-be donors were looking for money. I imagine that these folks (1) feel connected to this guy since he’s a star athlete; (2) want the glory of having helped save his life; or (3) never gave organ donation much thought until they heard about this guy.
None of these reasons strikes me a particularly offensive.
But they must have gotten the skinny on organ donation when they called to inquire about donating to Mourning, yet they still wish to direct that their kidney help the rich guy, not the average guy who’s been on the list for years. If someone called to donate to Mourning, then after hearing the facts, decided that their gift of life should go to the most deserving, then that’s great.
It’s like when Mickey Mantle got his liver transplant. All these people lined up for the chance to donate to him because he was The Mick, good ol’ Number 7. Nevermind that (IIRC) he continued to drink and ruined the donated liver, as well. I’m not saying that Mourning will squander his kidney like that, I’m just saying that people will make the donation simply and solely based on the fact that the recipient is famous, and that’s insulting to people who are in much more dire need of an organ.
Due to this thread, I have just registered to be an “Altruistic Stranger” with Johns Hopkins. I don’t need my whole liver, and it’ll grow back; I also have two kidneys and only need one.
I’ve always thought the prohibition of profiting from organ donations was rather silly. What makes my organs–truly my most treasured possessions–so wonderful that they shouldn’t have a monetary value?
If some rich guy wants to give me $2.5M plus medical expenses for a kidney or chunk of liver, I’d do it in a flash. I could invest that money such that I could live on my current salary (adjusted for inflation) for the rest of my life…
Suppose I need a kidney in the next 3 days or I die. I am the father of 4, quiet contributor to my church and community functions, a model citizen, loved by several, known by few, and I make less than $50,000 a year.
Also on the list, but in far less extreme condition, is a world famous athlete (or movie star, or singer, or whatever), no less a person than I am. He too, has a family, and is an upstanding member of his community. However, money is no object to this person. He and his family are financially set for the rest of their lives, and can hook you and your family up for the rest of your lives, as well.
Does his checkbook balance make him a more worthy recipient of your kidney than I am? Would you be willing to donate your kidney to me because I truly and urgently need one, or would you prostitute your kidney to the highest bidder?
The above example is ficticious, and provided as an example only. Any similarity to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.
This may sound callous, but hear me out: I’d go the prostitution route.
I think this is an issue of how you define “worth.” Currently, for pretty much everything other then organ donation, the health care system’s definition of “worth” prominently features checkbook size. People with more money get better care and live longer lives because of it. The wealthy get better care then you–it’s just the way things are–and it has nothing to do with how good a person you are. I don’t think giving my kidney to the highest bidder is any more immoral then going on a vacation instead of giving the money to a charity that will save starving Africans or something.
Am I putting my own well being ahead of yours? Of course I am–you’re a stranger whose health represents some abstract ideal, and the other guy is a stranger whose health represents me being set for life. People make choices like this in their own favor constantly, and I don’t see how organ donation should be handled any differently.
Now, I will definately agree that people who want to donate to a movie star so they’ll get an autograph and a pat on the back are worthless twinks.
<semi-hijack>I registered a long time ago with Héma-Québec to donate my bone marrow. Of course, being a sodomite, I can’t donate my blood. But they will take my bone marrow.
Odd, that.
And yes, I signed the back of my medicare card.</semi-hijack>
Here where such things are generally handled within the public system (though of course the wealthy may recover in a nicer room with more attentive nurses and pay a little on the top to the surgeon but the bulk of it is covered by the government) I am more than happy to carry a donor card and be on the relevant registries for anyone on the top of the list to get what I don’t need.
I am not sure I would feel the same in a private system where it seems everyone but the donor and recipient is making a lot of money out of organs and the waiting list is largely determined by money and insurance, not need. I think I may want a cut of the deal under that system.
Well, if Anna Kournikova needed a organ injection…
Ahem. I’ve also marked my license for donation and discussed the issue with my mother. Interestingly, there was an issue floated in this province of offering tax breaks to the estates of people who donate organs post-mortem. Considering the tax bite my RRSP (401-K to you Yankees, lifetime investment plan elsewhere), I have no problem with this. I’m not sure what its current status is, though.
Well, I am a recipient of a double-transplant from a cadaveric donor and also a recipient of a living donor (family member).
The prohibition against selling (or arranging to buy) donated organs does eliminate one’s natural desire to Cash In On The Ailing Superstar. However, it also protects the poor from unwittingly signing contracts agreeing to give over organs, or any other exploitation of that ilk. It prevents overseas organ harvests for tiny amounts of cash; it prevents Showing Up With Organs In A Free-Zee Cooler and turning them over for cash no questions asked.
Truthfully, with today’s efficient immunosuppressant medication, just about anybody could donate a kidney to Alonzo Mourning, whether or not there was a decent tissue match. Presumably most of the people who called the transplant center found out they weren’t Mr. Mourning’s bloodtype, though; also, not everyone’s health insurance would pay for elective organ donor surgery.
The way I see it, as with the Mickey Mantle thing, if it motivates a couple of people to contact the local transplant coordinating center and ask about organ transplants, it’s all good. Besides, even if there were enough kidneys to go around, some people die of kidney-related disease because they are poor candidates for transplant surgery due to other congenital or acquired conditions (such as smoking, drug use, emphysema, heart disease, HIV, cancer, or any number of other things).
Fish, it motivated me to do so. As mentioned above, I have registered to be an ‘altruistic stranger’ (their words). In other words, an unrelated living donor. I hope I’m acceptable.
