No, this is not a thread about which part of a chicken you’d rather eat deep-fried.
Scenario 1: You have an accident and your left leg turns gangenous. It needs to be amputated. Due to confusion in the OR, the surgeons remove your right leg by mistake. You end up losing both.
Scenario 2: You get a tumorous mass on your left kidney. It needs to be removed. Due to confusion in the OR, the surgeons remove your right kidney by mistake. You end up losing both.
Pick one.
I would go the kidney route. There are home dialysis machines. I know there are problems inherent in dialysis, but the no legs thing would be more difficult for me.
Legs for me. The advances in modern prosthetics make it an easy choice. Check out these gams.
The build up of toxins and waste products between dialysis sessions, I would assume have a long term impact on overall health.
You’d basically be confined to your house, though, not to mention all the side effects that dialysis can cause, and all the problems not having any functioning kidneys will cause that dialysis can’t fix.
Would you be higher up on the transplant list for not having any kidneys at all, as opposed to a lot of people that jsut have very poorly functioning kidneys…and two of them to boot?
I’d go with legs. Much easier to demonstrate to a jury. And there would most definitely be a jury involved, unless the various malpractice carriers all tendered policy limits to settle…
The left kidney is all I’ve got, so I choose the legs.
Kidneys can be transplanted, legs not so much. I have a sister with two good ones.
True, after I bankrupt the hospital I could just buy a new kidney.
The reason I posted this thread was because I got into this argument with my GF last night. She made the same claim.
Let’s get one myth out of the way. Being on dialysis does NOT confine you to your house. If you are on hemodialysis, you need to go to the hospital 2-3 times per week for a couple of hours at a time. If you are on peritonealdialysis, you need to hook yourself up to an IV pole 4-5 times per day for 30 minutes at a time. When you are done with either, you are free to go anywhere you like. You can even go on vacation. You just need to arrange things in advance.
Kidneys, because I’m ridiculously vain. People can’t see a lack of internal organs.
What I was going to say.
I have a friend who had a kidney transplant which lasted about 9 years. He’s now been on dialysis (first peritoneal, currently hemo) for several years, waiting for a kidney (he has a rare blood type).
His long-term experience would make this an easy decision for me: I’d sacrifice the legs. I think it comes down to whether or not you fancy constant dependence on hospitals and doctors.
My father is a nephrologist (kidney doctor) who runs a dialysis clinic. According to him, long-term dialysis is like long-term diabetes. The machines and drugs can keep you alive, but patients inevitably decline in health due to various complications.
Dialysis is not a perfect substitute for functioning kidneys, any more than insulin shots are a perfect substitute for a functioning pancreas.
On the other hand, kidneys can be transplanted. Legs can not.
I think I’d rather lose my legs than my kidneys, unless I could be reasonably certain that I was a candidate for a kidney transplant.
Barring a perfect match (like from your identical twin) the big problem with a kidney transplant is the anti-rejection drugs you must constantly take. They have nasty side effects. Strides have been made in recent years, but this is a grim way to live.
I would have to go with the leg amputations. (And, yes, I’d sue the surgeon - you’d have to be a pretty horrible doctor to not be able to tell a gangrenous limb from a normal one).
You could get around okay with a wheelchair if your arms were functional. Kidney problems are harder to deal with and more likely to negatively affect your lifespan.
Lose the legs. Douglas Bader overcame that handicap, so why shouldn’t I?
The pragmatic scientist in my coldly analyzes; lack of legs poses little long-term health risk (perhaps blood clots?) while lack of kidneys immediately requires transplantation or dialysis - and having just finished the prion discussion in lecture I’m not keen on amyloidosis.
The emotive human says: No legs? How would I play soccer? 
How would I get into my apartment? 
How would I fuck?! :mad:
You can has kidneys plz.
Legs, definitely.
Life on dialysis is not good at all, and has a very reduced life expectancy. Even after a transplant (which would improve the situation and life expectancy considerably) you still have to take anti-rejection drugs which are potentially dangerous in themselves. It’s possible to walk on artificial legs if you have enough leg left and I suspect even life in a wheelchair would be less restrictive than dialysis.
My driver side leg had gangrene once, but after much “debreeding” it was able to be saved. Tough question, that. But I guess I’d rather be dead than wear a bag.
We are facing dialysis in our family. The impact on the patient and family is far more than leg loss and being confined to a wheelchair or wearing prosthetics.
I would keep my kidneys, without any doubt.