Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What encouragement would you support for ORGAN donations?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
serryjw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 01:42 AM
Original message
What encouragement would you support for ORGAN donations?
There is obviously a big problem that is only going to get worse as the country gets older. What would you suggest?
quote.......
June 12, 2006 -- Should would-be donors be allowed to sell their organs for money as a way to ease growing waiting lists for transplants?

Some experts think so, and the idea is causing some controversy as policy makers struggle to find ways to cut the number of Americans now dying on transplant waiting lists.

U.S. law forbids any money from changing hands in exchange for an organ donation. The law, on the books since 1984, was seen as an important protection against the development of a market in human body parts.

But since then, the waiting list for organs has grown by leaps and bounds. More than 92,000 Americans are currently awaiting a donated kidney, liver, pancreas, or other organ, while in 2005, just more than 30,000 organs were transplanted nationwide, according to the United Network for Organ Sharing.

end quote......
http://www.webmd.com/content/article/123/115143.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 01:45 AM
Response to Original message
1. Would I sacrifice a kidney to clear my debt?
Am I hearing this correctly?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
diamondsndust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. I think what the OP means by this statement
U.S. law forbids any money from changing hands in exchange for an organ donation. The law, on the books since 1984, was seen as an important protection against the development of a market in human body parts. <--- Is that it would encourage a market where we would actually have roving thugs snatching the poor and homeless of the streets, killing them, and selling their organs. I may be wrong in my reading of it though. That's just the way I took it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 01:50 AM
Response to Original message
2. Slippery slope. Money for organs. Not a good idea.
Edited on Tue Jun-13-06 01:51 AM by BrklynLiberal
The poor are expendable so the rich can survive???? That is what it truly boils down to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 02:10 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. That's the way I see it.
Someone tried to sell a kidney several years back. He had two, so thought he could sell one to get out of debt. (Someone found out, and the sale was prevented.)

That's a terrible thing. Aside from all the obvious horrors, what happens when some years in the future, his only remaining kidney fails? That's a potential problem for all kidney donors, including the ones who donate to their relatives.

Crops? Is that what poor people will become?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robbien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 01:52 AM
Response to Original message
3. Just one more sign that it is getting to be acceptable to prey on the poor
in this rich takes all country. Getting the poor to sell you their organs would not even have been an acceptable topic of discussion a decade ago.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrcheerful Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 01:53 AM
Response to Original message
4. Your forgetting that those at the top of donor lists are rich fat white
pukes. The only way I would be behind giving organs for pay is if I could pick the person thats getting my organs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalVoice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 02:31 AM
Response to Reply #4
11. You might not sell it to a rich repug.
But what happens when they themselves start going out and looking for some poor repug idiot who needs some money?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Digit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 02:02 AM
Response to Original message
5. I don't trust the doctors here down south to wait until you are "done"
At age 54, I doubt whether anyone would want any of my organs, but I have a sense of distrust in my government which I never had before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 02:04 AM
Response to Original message
7. Just use the organs from dead iraqis
The military surely can provide these a dime a dozen and the problem is solved!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 02:06 AM
Response to Original message
8. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 02:29 AM
Response to Original message
10. Keep Wealthy and/or Famous Recipients from Going to the Top of the List
Recently there was a well-reported story of wealthy foreigners paying for organs at a US hospital and receiving them ahead of US patients who were sicker and on the list longer. Most people remember Mickey Mantle receiving an organ; had he been Joe Anonymous, he would have been excluded from UNOS due to his ongoing alcohol abuse. Many people are leery of the donation process, wondering if they'll really be dead when their organs are harvested, and when stories like these hit the media, these fear are heightened, and I do not blame them. I say this as a person with kidney failure from primary idiopathic FSGS with blood type B- (the worst group for organ tx).

http://www.californiahealthline.org/index.cfm?Action=dspItem&itemID=115427
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
man4allcats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 03:44 AM
Response to Reply #10
17. I think the "rules" are skirted all the time.
Edited on Tue Jun-13-06 04:17 AM by anotheryellowdog
My brother died in 1995 at the age of 44 while awaiting a heart transplant. He was diagnosed with idiopathic (meaning the cause of his illness was unknown) cardiomyopathy. His doctor, a member of a world renowned cardiology clinic, stated openly that cost (my brother lacked insurance) was a factor. In other words, if my brother had had some cash, he might be alive today. This happened during the time when Mickey Mantle received an organ transplant, and I distinctly remember my brother asking why this guy was receiving a transplant when the rules at the time, according to my brother's physician, again a member of an elitist clinic, specifically forbade transplanting patients whose lifestyles led to their illnesses. For legal reasons, I cannot mention here the name of the famous clinic that my brother's doctor was associated with at the time of his illness or the name of the famous clinic that this doctor went to after he left the earlier famous clinic. My point is that the transplant program, necessary though it is, is as subject to corruption as any other bureaucracy. In short, money talks and shit walks. Blunt as it is, that's the way it is. My own opinion is that stem cell research, with its potential for producing new organs from the patient's own cells, is the best answer to organs that have failed due to disease or that have aged, for whatever reason, prematurely. Of course, we all know Bushco's take on stem cell research.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 03:53 AM
Response to Reply #17
21. The Rules Are Also Unfair
I have primary idiopathic FSGS. That means that even if I wanted to have children, I couldn't since pregnancy is contraindicated in patients with FSGS (I decided I was Child-Free long before my diagnosis, though).

The UNOS rules puts patients with children as higher priority than patients without children ... even in the case of a disease like mine, which means I couldn't get pregnant without dying. Fair, huh?

Primary idiopathic FSGS is different from other forms of FSGS; the cause of my form is unknown, but is thought to genetic/autoimmune. It is not caused by "lifestyle" choices - other than choosing the wrong kidneys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
man4allcats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 04:12 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. I logged out then logged back in just to edit my post
when I saw your reply. All that I wanted to add was to wish you my best. It is true that the rules are unfair, but fortunately, because of greater public awareness, things are not quite as draconian as they were in 1995. Take care of yourself and stay positive. I will be thinking of you, REP. Contact me anytime.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viva_La_Revolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 02:38 AM
Response to Original message
12. I have a friend on the kidney transplant list
If I could just give a kidney to the bank, and have the med. bills paid I would be ecstatic.

Not that they would necessarily take one of my broken down (and well used) kidneys. :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 03:47 AM
Response to Reply #12
19. You Can Be Tested as a Donor for Your Friend
If you are a match, there's no money in it, but your friend's insurance will pay your medical expenses. Live kidney donation has gotten a lot simpler and safer; it's done laparscopically now, instead of with the large incision.

I have a a very rare blood group (the worst for organ tx) and will probably only get a kidney if someone donates for me. If your friend is O- or B-, a friend or family member could make the difference for him/her (O- is in the most demand; B- is the rarest, since AB- is Universal Recipient).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viva_La_Revolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #19
26. she doesn't have insurance
:(

Her family is being tested now, we all have our fingers crossed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #26
31. Medicare Cover The Costs For the Donor If The Recipient Has Medicare
Dialysis patients are almost always qualified for Medicare. Contact the National Kidney Foundation at kidney.org for help/information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 02:57 AM
Response to Original message
13. Complete different take here

Human Tissue Industry Becomes Big Business


NEW YORK (AP) - Like a gallon of gasoline, the price of a human leg is all about supply and demand. And it's a seller's market. "There's a lot of money to be made on corpses,'' said Joshua Slocum, executive director of the nonprofit Funeral Consumers Alliance.
Read More...


It seems that Big Business simply charges Big Fees of various kinds, carefully never calling them "charges for the organ" or something similar, thereby skirting the rules.

To me it somehow seems another theft from the family of the deceased. Anybody and everybody makes a buck, except for the relatives, who likely even have to pay for a funeral. Laws on the books against it? Likely that was so these parasites could make theirs.

I bet that if the deceased left instructions for no donation of body parts, the relatives wouldn't even be allowed to maintain physical custody of the body until it's incinerated or buried. "Trust us!" they'd likely say, while they passed a law prohibing the selling of organs, "See, we've taken care of the issue. It's now against the law to sell any body parts, no business would be stupid enough to break that law. Now give the coronor the body like you're told, or we'll arrest you."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EST Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 03:17 AM
Response to Original message
14. This crap makes me so da** angry!
I have had an organ donor sticker on my driver's license ever since the option became available and instructions to the responsible parties even before that.

This would not even be an issue if our stupid, illogical, maggot brained public servants would have spent half the money that has been expended on killing innocent Iraqis on stem cell research.
Disgusting!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kutjara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 03:21 AM
Response to Original message
15. In parts of Europe, they've merged organ donor cards...
...with driving licenses. When you renew your license, you automatically go on the donor register unless you check a box asking to be taken off. The number of registered donors has increased tenfold in just a few years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 03:31 AM
Response to Original message
16. This may sound nutty, but allow people to choose what organs they donate
I tried to convince my girlfriend to be an organ donor when she renewed her driver's license, but she refused. Her reason? She didn't care about her heart, liver, lungs, etc, but didn't want anyone cutting out her eyes. It doesn't make any sense, since A) she'll be DEAD, and B) she's ok with them cutting out her friggin heart! Still, she's steadfast on her refusal to be a donor.

If you could offer an organ checklist of what you do and don't want removed, maybe that would help?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
justice1 Donating Member (483 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 03:46 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. That is already done in my state.
You could submit the idea to the DMV where you reside.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KitchenWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 03:48 AM
Response to Original message
20. Man, is that ever a slippery slope
and since I do not have a PhD in ethics, it is one I do not wish to tackle in debate. I guess I am on the side of not marketing body parts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 04:06 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. It Is a Tough One
Edited on Tue Jun-13-06 04:29 AM by REP
On one hand, there are significant risks to being a living donor for kidneys, lungs, liver lobes, etc. It is major surgery that removes a major organ and diminishes the redundant capacity of the body. Being compensated for time lost from work, etc (which most insurance that will cover the medical expenses of the donor will not cover) only seems fair.

On the other hand, organ transplantation is expensive for the recipient. Most are on Medicare, and will receive only limited help with the anti-rejection drugs after their surgery. Not all will be able to return to work; many will simply just be able to continue living more comfortably. Most will most definitely not have the funds to reimburse their living donors.

The human body, even in death, is not merely a collection of spare parts to be handed out (as it is, usually to the highest bidder; see my link for one story). Waiting for a cadaver donation means, in effect, hoping for the untimely death and sorrow to the family of a young, healthy person in the prime of life (as I keep mentioning, I'm in kidney failure, so yes, I do think about these things). I don't think anyone in the extreme of suffering from their disease wants to live because a grief-stricken family was shamed into making a decision they were unsure of.

A better organ distribution network with real transparency - no more preference given to the wealthy and famous - and better education about what cadaver and living donation really entails might lead to more donations. Paying the poor for their organs is as shameful as using poor pregnant girls as vending machines for the desires of the wealthy infertile.

edit - typo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KitchenWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 04:25 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. Great post!
You brought up some things I had not considered before. I think transparency in the distribution system would go a long way toward solving some of the ethical problems.

As far as the lost time from work, for both the donor and the recipient, there are no easy answers. It is a shame those temporarily unable to work cannot avail themselves of Social Security for the term of their disability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SheilaT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #23
27. What REP said.
My younger brother received a kidney from a living donor about a year and a half ago. He'd been on dialysis for four years because of complications of type 2 diabetes. He's on Medicare and covering his anti-rejection drugs is a real issue.

I've been an organ donor (it's on my license) since whenever it became possible, and I've often told people that when I die they can harvest anything and everything that can be put to use.

The truly sad thing is that too many people don't even think about it until they themselves, or someone close to them, needs a new organ.

Transparency is a must. And sadly, since there are more in need of an organ than organs available, there has to be some kind of prioritizing.

Remember when there weren't enough dialysis machines and hospital committees had to decide who'd get dialysis and who'd be allowed to die?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. Yes, But Reproductive Status Shouldn't Be Included
I'm not the only one who has a disease that makes reproducing impossible (plus I never wanted to). Women with FSGS who go ahad and get pregnant and do survive are a little like alcoholics with liver disease who keep drinking; they know their actions have terrible consequences, but do it anyway, only one is rewarded and one is (usually, unless he's Mickey Mantle) off the UNOS list.

I'm not sure if giving people who have contributed to their own disease - poorly controlled diabetics, alcoholics, heroin addicts, etc - lower priority than "good" sick people is really moral. Diabetes, after all, is a disease and not always easy to control (for instance, "brittle" diabetes) and substance abue is now considered to be a disease. My disease, primary idiopathic FSGS, has a lousy prognosis, responds poorly to treatment and donated organs have been observed to show evidence of the disease within hours of the transplant (proteinuria), but excluding FSGS patients means excluding its primary victims - older black men.

Perhaps taking things like age and prognosis into consideration is the least unfair. An 80 year old with numerous co-morbid conditions might be given a lower priority than, say, a 60 year old whose organ failure is the major morbidity ... even if the 80 year old is richer or famous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SheilaT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. You're right about reproductive
status ought not to be an issue.

And the "moral" component can be shaky at best. My brother ignored the clear signs of diabetes for ten years. His own family kept on telling him he was diabetic and should do something about it, and of course he refused to admit it. Finally, he started having retinal hemorrhages -- a late-stage symptom if ever there was one -- and to this day he'll say he never knew he had diabetes until the eye problems.

That's largely why none of his five siblings was willing to step forward to volunteer a kidney, although given that another brother also has type 2 diabetes I'm not sure we'd actually be eligible as a living donor. What happened with him was that someone who'd simply decided she'd volunteer a kidney to whomever it would do the most good was a match for him.

Genuine stem-cell research may eventually result in being able to grow new organs for people, which would be the best result all around. But that's probably fifty years away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-14-06 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. I Agree
Even with "hard cases" like the one you present, it's almost impossible to know if the patient was non-complaint or his disease was hard to control. Assuming the worst - and I am purposely using ASSume since I don't know him - and he did do everything wrong ... well, doing everything right is no guarantee that he would not have had diabetic complications anyway (keeping blood glucose at or 7.2% only reduces the risk of complications - it doesn't prevent them). Diabetes is an expensive disease, too; without insurance, it can be impossible for those on limited incomes to afford the medicine, let alone the test strips needed to test 4 - 6 times a day.

Don't get me wrong - I think anyone with a chronic disease should do their best to manage and control it. I'm just taking a break from being my usual judgemental bitchy self.

I do agree that stem cells and organ cloning show real hope and promise. I also agree that that may be a long way off. I really do think that real education programs that address peoples' fears rather than playing on their guilt would be a big help with organ donation, along with better transparency in the organ network. I think if people knew that, for instance, that the organ transplant team has no part in the decision making process for emergency trauma patients they might be less suspicious, or that many living donor surgeries can now be done with very small incisions, meaning a shorter hospital stay and recuperation, along with cosmetic issues. Recent studies have found that organs from older donors work well, and I'm not sure if people realize that, too. Of course there are other issues, and non-sentimental fact-based information would be the best way to address them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 04:05 AM
Response to Original message
22. I'd make donation the default option, and no donation the "other choice"
I've read that's done in some European countries, and it makes sense. On the one hand, doctors don't have to ask families in shock if they mind donating, and on the other hand there would be an option for refusal.

It would help (and would be only fair) if hospitals would waive a significant portion of the bill for the final illness of a donor -- not a payment per se, but an acknowledgment of the value of the sacrifice made. It would also be a bit of an incentive for the survivors.

The issue of poverty-donation and prisoner-donation really has to be dealt with upfront in international law.

We know it is happening in other nations, like China. One of my husband's foreign students this year was a young man from Asia with liver failure. His father has promised him a new liver this summer; the procedure will be carried out in Mainland China. My husband said to me that the whole vibe was really "don't ask" -- he knows and his student knows that livers come from dead people, and it's likely that someone will conveniently die in time. Like a prisoner. Life exchanged for life. If it was a kidney, someone would sell theirs.

On that grim note, I have to say that I've carried an organ donor card ever since it first became an option -- over 30 years. Plan A is for me to extract every bit of use out of my organs for myself in living a long, long life. Failing that, Plan B is to donate any spare parts that are still usable to help make other poor souls well again. I sure as heck won't be needing them. I just have to trust that the medical system will expend every effort in making me well again before giving up and proceeding with Plan B.

Hekate

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
28. The only thing I could see that would be remotely fair to poor folks is...
... (a) the STATE (literal state, or county, or federal govt - depending on what's relevant in the situation) will give money to anyone giving up an organ for transplant.

(b) the DISTRIBUTION of transplnnt/replacement organs will take place WITHOUT REGARD TO anyone's monetary situation. In particular, rich folks SHALL NEVER have a better chance at state-sponsored organs than poor people. Distribution of organs is to be uniform across income levels, and the statistics on this should be tracked and ENFORCED. (Ie, causes of deviation from uniformity are to be identified and eliminated/corrected for.)

Imo.

Poor people get screwed enough, just by virtue of being poor - how bout we take their side?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Asgaya Dihi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
29. Cloning is an option I haven't seen mentioned.
Edited on Tue Jun-13-06 10:19 AM by Asgaya Dihi
I've read and seen programs about the potential to clone your own organs, seems nearly ideal if we can manage it as far as the organ itself goes. Less rejection, it's yours to start with, and no donor lists to wait through. We aren't there yet but it's an area I'd like to see more research on. It's a pretty sticky ethical area for some though which seems to be the biggest problem so far. A quick comment on it from the Human Genome Project.

edit to add url
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.shtml#organsQ

Can organs be cloned for use in transplants?

Scientists hope that one day therapeutic cloning can be used to generate tissues and organs for transplants. To do this, DNA would be extracted from the person in need of a transplant and inserted into an enucleated egg. After the egg containing the patient's DNA starts to divide, embryonic stem cells that can be transformed into any type of tissue would be harvested. The stem cells would be used to generate an organ or tissue that is a genetic match to the recipient. In theory, the cloned organ could then be transplanted into the patient without the risk of tissue rejection. If organs could be generated from cloned human embryos, the need for organ donation could be significantly reduced.

Many challenges must be overcome before "cloned organ" transplants become reality. More effective technologies for creating human embryos, harvesting stem cells, and producing organs from stem cells would have to be developed. In 2001, scientists with the biotechnology company Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) reported that they had cloned the first human embryos; however, the only embryo to survive the cloning process stopped developing after dividing into six cells. In February 2002, scientists with the same biotech company reported that they had successfully transplanted kidney-like organs into cows. The team of researchers created a cloned cow embryo by removing the DNA from an egg cell and then injecting the DNA from the skin cell of the donor cow's ear. Since little is known about manipulating embryonic stem cells from cows, the scientists let the cloned embryos develop into fetuses. The scientists then harvested fetal tissue from the clones and transplanted it into the donor cow. In the three months of observation following the transplant, no sign of immune rejection was observed in the transplant recipient.

Another potential application of cloning to organ transplants is the creation of genetically modified pigs from which organs suitable for human transplants could be harvested . The transplant of organs and tissues from animals to humans is called xenotransplantation.

Why pigs? Primates would be a closer match genetically to humans, but they are more difficult to clone and have a much lower rate of reproduction. Of the animal species that have been cloned successfully, pig tissues and organs are more similar to those of humans. To create a "knock-out" pig, scientists must inactivate the genes that cause the human immune system to reject an implanted pig organ. The genes are knocked out in individual cells, which are then used to create clones from which organs can be harvested. In 2002, a British biotechnology company reported that it was the first to produce "double knock-out" pigs that have been genetically engineered to lack both copies of a gene involved in transplant rejection. More research is needed to study the transplantation of organs from "knock-out" pigs to other animals.


I am glad to see people worry about the effect on the poor, they are too easy to ignore. We started the drug war with a rate of around 150 per 100k behind bars and today have about 724 per 100k incarcerated. Mostly the poor. Seemed worth it to us for years just so we could say we were "tough" on something, so if we actually gained from it I doubt many would hesitate a second. We've done it for nothing but pride and votes already, if it's not us and it makes us feel good they are too easy to ignore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-13-06 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Human Organ Cloning might be the best solution
Edited on Tue Jun-13-06 01:17 PM by BrklynLiberal
from Google Answers:

Partially, the idea of cloning in order to yield organs has been
already tested. "Therapeutic cloning: (a.k.a. Somatic cell nuclear
transfer or research cloning): This starts with the same procedure as
is used in adult DNA cloning. The resultant embryo would be allowed to
grow for perhaps 14 days. It's stem cells would then be extracted and
encouraged to grow into a piece of human tissue or a complete human
organ for transplant. The end result would not be a human being; it
would be a replacement organ, or piece of nerve tissue, or quantity of
skin. The first successful therapeutic cloning was accomplished in
2001-NOV by Advanced Cell Technology, a biotech company in Worcester,
MA." (SOURCE: Religious Tolerance Website,
<http://www.religioustolerance.org/clo_ther.htm>).

See the Advanced Cell Technology site at <http://www.advancedcell.com/>

However, "But the fetuses were grown for that long only because
researchers have not yet found a way to harvest stem cells from a new
bovine embryo, said Robert Lanza, medical director at ACT." (SOURCE:
"The Next ACT in Clone Controversy" WIRED,
<http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,53104,00.html>).

You could read about ACT's work in another Wired article, "Seven Days
of Creation" January 2004
<http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.01/clones.html?tw=wn_tophead_3>.

This, on the bottom line, was done on animals - except for skin
transplants (that are not exactly cloning). ""Experiments have already
been conducted using cows in which cloned embryos were implanted,
gestated to the early fetal stage, aborted, and their organs harvested
for transplantation." (SOURCE: "State of Cloning"
<http://www.nationalreview.com/lopez/lopez200401051346.asp>).

Lately, Prof. Panos Zavos of the Andrological Institute of America
<http://www.aia-zavos.com/index.html> claims to have being able to
clone an embryo, in order to create twins, from which one will be
developed into a full human being, and the other will be used, if
necessary, as a source for organs.

This will be done in a method called "Blastomere separation", or
twinning. It "involves splitting a developing embryo soon after
fertilisation of the egg by a sperm (sexual reproduction) to give rise
to two or more embryos.The resulting organisms are identical twins
(clones) containing DNA from both the mother and the father. Before
making his shock announcement, Dr Panos Zavos unveiled plans to seek a
woman prepared to receive a split embryo, half of which would be used
for "spare part" surgery." (SOURCE: ic Wales, "What is Cloning"
<http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0600uk/content_objectid=13832834_method=full_siteid=50082_headline=-What-the-cloning-debate-is-all-about-name_page.html>).

However, the plan, concieved with Dr. Paul Sainsbury, is highly
controversial, and has not been publically tried.
SEE:
"'Body spares' cloning condemned" ITV News 17 Jan 2004,
<http://www.itv.com/news/671979.html>.

I hope this gave you a review of the current trends in cloning. I
recommend that you'll follow Google News on the question with the
keywords "therapeutic cloning":
<http://news.google.com/news?num=50&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22therapeutic+cloning%22>
(On your left hand bar you have the opportunity to receive news alerts
from Google News). In order to search for an answer, I searched for
"therapeutic cloning"
cloning organ
cloning organ human

Please contact me if you need further clarification on this answer
before you tip/rate it.


I omitted the original question and some comments.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=289504
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC