Stem Cells Are Curing Horses — Are Humans Next? February 27, 2009
Posted by Bob Aronson in New Ideas.3 comments
.
“Doctors might soon be able to re-grow injured muscles, tendons and bones without invasive surgery, simply by injecting a person’s own stem cells into the site of an injury. Veterinarians are already doing it with injured horses, and research into human applications is well under way.”
.
That’s Marty Graham lead paragraph in the August 2008 issue of Wired Magazine’s story on adult stem cell research. http://www.wired.com/medtech/stemcells/news/2008/08/stemcell_regeneration . According to the story, “The National Institutes for Health (NIH) seem to think regenerating human muscle and bone using a person’s own adult stem cells is nearly ready for prime time.” The under-the-radar announcement to the NIH staff said it’s creating a bone marrow-stem cell transplant center within the NIH Clinical Research Center. Apparently while NIH sees some promise here, they didn’t want to attract attention and buried the announcement in other information.
.
As you well know, there are two sides to every story. In this blog we’ll try to cover the up and downsides of this most important issue. Let’s start with the upside.
.
The Wired story goes on to say, “Using adult stem cells — grown inside the body or in the lab — has become accepted in the veterinary community, and horses have benefited greatly. Researchers are working to bring those same benefits to humans, but there are still hurdles left to clear. The NIH project comes in part from what veterinarians have learned from injecting adult stem cells into valuable horses who’ve suffered injuries. In many cases, those horses’ careers were saved when the stem cells re-grew damaged tendons and ligaments.”
.
Here is where it is imperative that I point out the fallibility of animal trials. Often what looks promising in animals simply doesn’t work in humans. You can be hopeful but keep that fact in mind. Medical science could tell a million stories of promising animal tests that fizzled in humans. Does that mean I’m not excited, absolutely not — but I am practical.
The Wired story continues with, “An emerging body of scientific studies from all over the world — including a cardiac study under way in Miami and a pediatric ACL (anterior cruciate ligament) study at the Harvard-affiliated Children’s Hospital of Boston — is showing that using a patient’s own stem cells can prompt the growth of new muscle, from the knee to the heart. And the precursor step, using platelet-rich plasma for injuries, is on the verge of becoming mainstream.
.
Because researchers are using autologous cells — from the patient’s own body — the research is not controversial. No one has challenged the ethics or funding of adult stem cell research the way embryonic stem cell studies have been challenged. And because adult stem cells are native to the patient’s own body, the chances of a patient rejecting them are slim to none.”
Rocky Tuan, a Ph.D. and senior investigator in the Cartilage and Orthopedics branch of the NIAMS (National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) …sees a day when there will be no need for the dreaded surgery for torn anterior cruciate ligaments that sideline up to a quarter-million people in the United States and Canada every year.
.
Obviously there are other benefits of adult stem cell therapy as I’ve written before. One might assume that if stem cells can regenerate tendons, they might also be able to repair hearts, lungs, kidneys and other human organs. But again, all of this could be nothing more than a pipe dream.
Stem cell treatment is not without risks, researchers say. The worst-case scenario is that the stem cells could cause cancer — or become cancerous themselves.
“You’re putting in cells that want to grow. That has to be under control or we can end up with cancer,” says Dr. Thomas Rando, an associate professor of neurology at Stanford University School of Medicine. Tuan also says that researchers don’t entirely trust stem cells and their ability to adapt and grow.
“There’s a nagging feeling that there’s a cancer stem cell, that when it’s agitated by exposure to carcinogens or radiation or something, it goes nuts, and that we can’t identify it from the other stem cells,” he says. “How do you find this bad boy and pull him out?”
“And there’s a nagging worry it’s the same cell. We only know these cells by what they’ve done, and by the time they’ve become cancer, it’s too late.”
The use of stem cells whether adult or embryonic is highly controversial and needs much more research. Let’s hope government, the medical community and the law will allow, even encourage it. .
Please comment in the space provided or email your comments to bob@baronson.org.
Please read and comment on my World Wide Issues blogs on http://blogsbybob.wordpress.com. Also…visit my Facebook site, Organ Transplant Patients, Friends and You at http://tinyurl.com/225cfh OR — my Facebook home page http://www.facebook.com/home.php
What Minorities Need To Know About Organ Donation & Transplantation February 25, 2009
Posted by Bob Aronson in Organ Donation.4 comments
In the past my posts have been very general about the need for and benefit of organ donation. Today, though, I want to be more specific and discuss how minorities are affected by organ donation and transplantation.
There is some evidence to indicate a reluctance to donate by minorities is based on what they believe is unequal treatment – minorities giving up organs for rich non-minorities. The facts are clear – more members of the minority population will benefit if there is an increase in minority organ donation.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Minority health http://www.omhrc.gov/templates/content.aspx?ID=3123 published the following article on why it is Important for Minorities to Donate?
“The need for transplants is unusually high among some ethnic minorities. Some diseases of the kidney, heart, lung, pancreas, and liver that can lead to organ failure are found more frequently in ethnic minority populations than in the general population. For example, Native Americans are four times more likely than Whites to suffer from diabetes. African Americans, Asian and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics are three times more likely than Whites to suffer from kidney disease. Many African Americans have high blood pressure (hypertension) which can lead to kidney failure. Some of these diseases are best treated through transplantation; others can only be treated through transplantation.
The rate of organ donation in minority communities does not keep pace with the number needing transplants. Although minorities donate in proportion to their share of the population, their need for transplants is much greater. African Americans, for example, are about 13 percent of the population, about 12 percent of donors, and about 23 percent of the kidney waiting list.
.
Successful transplantation is often enhanced by matching of organs between members of the same racial and ethnic group. Generally, people are genetically more similar to people of their own ethnicity or race than to people of other races. Therefore, matches are more likely and more timely when donors and potential recipients are members of the same ethnic background.
Minority patients may have to wait longer for matched kidneys and therefore may be sicker at the time of transplant or die waiting. With more donated organs from minorities, finding a match will be quicker and the waiting time will be reduced.”
.
MOTTEP (Minority Organ Tissue Transplant Education Program) http://www.nationalmottep.org/statistics.shtml is a treasure trove of information about this subject and they support the point that at least half the people on the national waiting list are minorities. “One disease, diabetes, is particularly notable: Diabetes is the 7th leading cause of death. Type 1 diabetes usually occurs within children. Type 2 diabetes is the most common form of diabetes, usually occurring after age 45. Complications include: blindness, kidney disease, amputations, heart attack and stroke.”
.
Prevalence in African Americans:
· Approximately 2.3 million African Americans have diabetes. 1/3 of them do not know it.
· African Americans are 1.7 times more like to have diabetes, than Non-Latino Whites.
· 25% of African Americans between the ages of 65 and 74 have diabetes.
· 1 in 4 African American women over 55 years of age have diabetes.
Prevalence in Native Americans:
· Native Americans have the highest rates of diabetes in the world.
· Type 2 diabetes among Native Americans is 12.2% for those over 19 years of age.
· Diabetes has reached epidemic proportions among Native Americans. Complications from diabetes are major causes of death and health problems in most Native American populations.
· Amputations among Native Americans are 3-4 times higher than the general population.
Prevalence in Hispanics/Latinos:
· Type 2 diabetes is 2 times higher in Latinos than in Non-Latino Whites.
· 1.2 million of all Mexican Americans have diabetes.
· Nearly 16% of Cuban Americans in the U.S. between the ages of 45-74 have diabetes.
· Approximately 24% of Mexican Americans in U.S. and 26% of Puerto Ricans between the ages of 45-75 have diabetes.
.
Finally, a word about the process of organ allocation — it is fair and non-discriminatory. What is unfair and very discriminatory is the fact that so many people don’t even get listed for an organ transplant because they can’t afford the cost. That is a national disgrace.
.
Please comment in the space below or email your thoughts to me at bob@baronson.org
Please read and comment on my World Wide Issues blogs on http://blogsbybob.wordpress.com. Also…visit my Facebook site, Organ Transplant Patients, Friends and You at http://tinyurl.com/225cfh OR — my Facebook home page http://www.facebook.com/home.php
Medicare Pays For Your Transplant But Not Anti-Rejection Drugs? February 22, 2009
Posted by Bob Aronson in Medicare.7 comments
.
According to the American Society of Transplantation (AST) “Organ transplant recipients expect to and must take immunosuppressive medications for the lifetime of their transplanted organ. Thus, organ transplantation should be viewed as a treatment rather than a cure. Similar to many chronic diseases, the need for medical therapy goes on indefinitely. If immunosuppressive medications are discontinued for any significant length of time, rejection of the transplanted organ is inevitable in all but a small minority of patients.” http://www.a-s-t.org/index2.cfm?Section=public_policy&Sub1Section=key_position_statements&content=immunosuppressive_drug.cfm (AST is an international organization of transplant professionals dedicated to advancing the field of transplantation through the promotion of research, education, advocacy, and organ donation to improve patient care www.a-s-t.org )
As I understand current law, Medicare will pay the cost of a transplant for eligible patients, they will even pay for a second transplant if necessary but they will only pay for expensive anti-rejection drugs for thirty six months. There have been several attempts to change this situation but to date none have been successful.
In a special report on the issue of Medicare coverage of immunosuppressive drugs, AST also says,
“Extended coverage of immunosuppressive medications makes good fiscal sense, as well. Patients who stop their immunosuppressive medications run the risk of rejection of the transplanted organ. This usually leads to a prolonged hospitalization, at a cost of several thousand dollars a day. Thus, the amount of money necessary to cover the cost of immunosuppressive medications could be spent in a matter of days for one hospitalization related to rejection. If a kidney transplant recipient’s kidney fails, a return to thrice weekly dialysis sessions is necessary, at an expense above and beyond the cost of immunosuppressive medications for the same time period. Loss of other transplanted organs ultimately leads to death or the need for another organ transplant, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars.” The AST Executive Committee approved this report on April 26, 2006. They summarize their position in the following manner:
· Extension of coverage for immunosuppressive medications for the lifetime of the transplanted organ
· Access to insurance coverage for the lifetime of the transplanted organ
“AST supports initiatives that ensure the coverage of immunosuppressive medications for the lifetime of a transplanted organ, regardless of age and ability to pay. Ultimately, this will lead to improved transplant success rates and the greater ability of transplant recipients to return to a normal life.”
.
Calling the current coverage policy “one of the great paradoxes in federal health policies,” US Representatives Dave Camp (R-MI) and Ron Kind (D-WI) introduced HR 3282 – the Comprehensive Immunosuppressive Drug Coverage for Kidney Transplant Patients Act of 2007 – despite their good intentions, however, the bill still has not passed congress.
If the Medicare policy I have described is bothersome to you, then write to your members of congress, the U.S. Senate, The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and President Obama.
Please comment in the space below or email your thoughts to me at bob@baronson.org
Please read and comment on my World Wide Issues blogs on http://blogsbybob.wordpress.com. Also…visit my Facebook site, Organ Transplant Patients, Friends and You at http://tinyurl.com/225cfh OR — my Facebook home page http://www.facebook.com/home.php
More On Cellular Memory. New Heart, New Personality, Too? February 17, 2009
Posted by Bob Aronson in Cellular Memory.4 comments
.
I have been writing this blog for over a year, and it is with great interest that I watch which of my posts gets the most attention. Cellular Memory – Organ Recipients with Characteristics of Donors is far and away the most popular of all the columns I have written by a factor of over two to one. Why is that? Why are so many people so interested in the possibility of adopting the characteristics of a total stranger? I had a heart transplant eighteen months ago and have adopted no new characteristics but apparently that’s not true of all organ recipients. Heart transplant patients lead the way in saying they have changed — taken on some of the characteristics of their donors and some of their stories are compelling.
I am not here to promote nor deny the existence of cellular memory I just find the topic fascinating especially because so many of my readers do. Not long ago The Discovery Health Channel aired a program titled “Transplanting Memories.” http://dsc.discovery.com/ In the show experts explained why they believe in the concept. Georgetown University Professor, Dr. Candace Pert, said she believes the mind is not just in the brain, but also exists throughout the body. “The mind and body communicate with each other through chemicals known as peptides,” she said. “These peptides are found in the brain as well as in the stomach, muscles and all of our major organs. I believe that memory can be accessed anywhere in the peptide/receptor network. For instance, a memory associated with food may be linked to the pancreas or liver and such associations can be transplanted from one person to another.”
Another expert, German neurologist, Leopold Auerbach, discovered over a century ago that a complex network of nerve cells, like those of the human brain, exist in the intestines. And — Professor Wolfgang Prinz, of the Max Planck Institute for Psychological Research, Munich, discussed the “second brain” in Geo, a German science magazine. Prinz said the digestive track is made up of a knot of about 100 billion brain nerve cells, more than found in the spinal cord. The article suggested the cells may save information on physical reactions to mental processes and give out signals to influence later decisions. It may also be involved in emotional reactions to events.
Perhaps all of this explains the many stories on the internet of transplant patients taking on the personalities of their donors.
If you really want to explore this phenomenon I strongly encourage you to read Knowing By Heart: Cellular Memory in Heart Transplants by Kate Ruth Linton in the MONTGOMERY COLLEGE STUDENT JOURNAL OF SCIENCE & MATHEMATICS
Volume 2 September 2003, http://www.montgomerycollege.edu/Departments/StudentJournal/volume2/kate.pdf.
Ms. Linton writes: “On May 29, 1988, a woman named Claire Sylvia received the heart of an 18-year-old
male who had been killed in a motorcycle accident. Soon after the operation, Sylvia
noticed some distinct changes in her attitudes, habits, and tastes. She found herself acting
more masculine, strutting down the street (which, being a dancer, was not her usual
manner of walking). She began craving foods, such as green peppers and beer, which she
had always disliked before. Sylvia even began having recurring dreams about a mystery
man named Tim L., who she had a feeling was her donor.
As it turns out, he was. Upon meeting the “family of her heart” as she put it, Sylvia
discovered that her donor’s name was, in fact, Tim L., and that all the changes she had
been experiencing in her attitudes, tastes, and habits closely mirrored that of Tim’s.”
Several transplant surgeons have contributed to a theory for cellular memory essentially
based on psychological and metaphysical conditions, which Dr. Paul Pearsall has pieced
together. Pearsall is a psychoneuroimmunologist, or a licensed psychologist who studies
the relationship between the brain, immune system, and an individual’s life experiences. Pearsall calls this theory the “Lowered Recall Threshold” Basically, it suggests that the immunosuppressive drugs that transplant recipients must take are what bring about associations to donor experiences in recipients. Immunosuppressive drugs minimize the chances of rejection of the new, foreign heart by suppressing the recipient’s immune system. Scientists believe these drugs could also possibly act as psychotropic, meaning “acting on the mind.”
There are many interesting passages in this treatise but you should read it for yourself — in its entirety. If nothing else you will find it very, very thought provoking. There’s a lot of information on this subject on the internet. You might also be interested in: http://medhum.blogspot.com/2006/06/mindshock-transplanting-memories.html
Please comment in the space below or email your thoughts to me at Jaxbob@gmail.com.
Please read and comment on my World Wide Issues blogs on http://blogsbybob.wordpress.com. Also…visit my Facebook site, Organ Transplant Patients, Friends and You at http://tinyurl.com/225cfh OR — my Facebook home page http://www.facebook.com/home.php
Brits Say Stem Cells May Make Heart Transplants Unnecessary February 15, 2009
Posted by Bob Aronson in New Ideas.4 comments
.
“Heart disease patients in Britain could soon take part in a revolutionary stem cell surgery trial that could change the nature of heart surgery and ultimately end the need for transplants.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4569971/Trials-for-revolutionary-stem-cell-surgery-in-UK-within-a-year.html That headline comes on the heels of President Obama’s promise to remove the ban on Government backed embryonic stem cell research here in the U.S.
The story by Caroline Gammell in the British publication, The Telegraph, seems to offer more than promise. If one could use their own (adult) stem cells to repair damaged organs it would be one of the greatest medical breakthroughs of all time. No longer would there be a need for organ donors and sometimes risky transplant surgery. Also true is the fact that because a patient would use his or her own stem cells there would be no danger of rejection and therefore no need to take often toxic anti-rejection drugs that transplant patients must take for the rest of their lives. To quote from the story; “It is believed that British patents could take the pioneering treatment, in which a patient’s own cells are extracted and grown in a laboratory, in as little as a year. Scientists have worked out a technique where human bone marrow cells are turned into human heart stem cells and then injected into the heart. Laboratory grown heart stem cells were initially extensively tested on animals and trials on humans in Europe are due to start later this month (February 2009). “
.
Again, quoting from the story, “Professor Sian Harding, of Imperial College London, said being able to convert bone marrow stem cells into heart stem cell was a “big leap forward” in finding an “effective” treatment for heart failure.
.
“Placing heart stem cells into the heart to repair has a very good chance of working because the stem cells are the patient’s own there are no problems with rejection,” she said. Prof Harding is working on turning embryo stem cells into heart stem cells but said her research was “still years away” from being used in patients.” The most recent process,” according to the Telegraph, “was developed at the Mayo Clinic research centre in Minnesota”
.
One must be careful in reporting this kind of story because the research is still in the stage of being tested on laboratory animals and no matter how promising it is with animals, history tells us that the effect on humans may be totally different.
We’ll watch this story carefully and report any new information. In the meantime I urge you to “Google alert” this story as well and let us know what you find.
My only question here is, did the Telegraph make too much of the story. Does it offer premature and perhaps false hope to the thousands of people who are waiting for new organs and who could die waiting? Please read the full story by clicking on the URL listed above, and comment here or email me at jaxbob@gmail.com.
Please read and comment on my World Wide Issues blogs on http://blogsbybob.wordpress.com. Also…visit my Facebook site, Organ Transplant Patients, Friends and You at http://tinyurl.com/225cfh OR — my Facebook home page http://www.facebook.com/home.php
Illegal U.S. Organ Trafficking Not An Urban Legend? February 11, 2009
Posted by Bob Aronson in Illegal Organ Trafficking.2 comments
A recent issue of Newsweek Magazine featured a story about organ trafficking and the possibility of an illegal organ procurement/transplantation market in the United States. To say the story is disturbing is putting it mildly. The article, Not Just Urban Legend, http://www.newsweek.com/id/178873 was written by Jeneen Interlandi and draws heavily on information provided by Nancy Scheper-Hughes a PHD anthropologist from the University of California at Berkley. Scheper-Hughes spent more than a decade tracking the illegal sale of human organs around the world.
While the hospital name is not mentioned, Scheper-Hughes refers often to a big Philadelphia hospital that she believes, “Has been transplanting black-market kidneys from residents of the world’s most impoverished slums into the failing bodies of wealthy dialysis patients from Israel, Europe and the United States.” She also indicates that the Philadelphia hospital is not alone among U.S. Hospitals that are involved in the illegal trafficking of organs.
The Berkley anthropologist claims she has compiled sixty pages of evidence from organ buyers, sellers and brokers in virtually every part of the world. According to the Newsweek story, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that one fifth of the 70,000 kidneys transplanted worldwide very year come from the black market. The story claims that while prices vary from country to country a Kidney can be bought in the United States for $30,000.
The Newsweek story goes on to say, “Scheper-Hughes’s evidence, which is largely anecdotal and comes in part from interviews with known criminals, has not convinced U.S. State department officials otherwise. “It would be impossible to successfully conceal a clandestine organ-trafficking ring,” Todd Leventhal, the department’s countermisinformation officer, wrote in a 2004 report, adding that stories like the ones Scheper-Hughes tells are “irresponsible and totally unsubstantiated.” In recent years, however, the WHO, Human Rights Watch and many transplant surgeons have broken with that view and acknowledged organ trafficking as a real problem.”
Obviously I cannot vouch for the accuracy of Scheper-Hughes’ information. I can testify, though, about my own experience. My Blog on www.bobsnewheart.wordpress.com has covered numerous subjects. One was titled, “Would You Sell a Kidney for $47 K U.S.?” The blog quoted an Australian physician who thought that price to be a fair one. It in no way encouraged or even subtly suggested that people should sell their kidneys. Since writing the blog I have received at least three dozen comments and/or emails from people offering to sell their kidneys. The reasons given were usually quite simple and straightforward – they needed the money. As a result I have no trouble believing that many Americans would sell a kidney to anyone that could come up with the price. I have no evidence to indicate that the transplants are done here in the United States.
I am disturbed, though, that such a practice could go on here and that there is even the remotest possibility that U.S. Licensed transplant surgeons would be involved in this illegal practice. Perhaps it is time to do a better job of policing the situation or, exploring new ways other than the altruistic approach to obtaining organs.
Please read and comment on my World Wide Issues blogs on http://blogsbybob.wordpress.com. Also…visit my Facebook site, Organ Transplant Patients, Friends and You at http://tinyurl.com/225cfh OR — my Facebook home page http://www.facebook.com/home.php
Never Give Up! Overcoming Adversity — My Story. February 7, 2009
Posted by Bob Aronson in The will to live.8 comments
Eighteen months after my heart transplant I finally feel good. I was in poor health prior to the life-saving surgery so it shouldn’t come as any surprise that feeling “really good” took some time.
This blog has two points, the first how abusing my body brought me to need a transplant and the second is a note of encouragement to others, “Never give up!”
Here’s my story. At age 15 I started smoking cigarettes. At the time it was the thing to do, everyone smoked and some of the ads even suggested the habit was good for you. For the next thirty seven years I inhaled up to four packs of cigarettes a day. With the help of Nicorette gum I kicked the habit in 1991, but the damage had already been done. I had Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and asthma, maladies that make it extremely difficult to breathe with or without exertion.
At about the same age I began to drink alcoholic beverages. Early on I didn’t think I had much of a problem, I drank only on weekends but I never knew when to quit. One drink led to many which led to falling down drunk. I went on that way for many years, sober during the week and on the occasional weekend I would get “plastered” (a term from my dad’s generation). Then when I was about 33 years old something snapped and I began to drink every day. Sometimes I drank up to two quarts of Vodka a day but never less than a pint of the clear almost odorless liquid. Finally after ten years of this voluntary torture I admitted I had a serious problem and committed myself for a twenty-eight day treatment program. That was in 1982 and I have been sober ever since. The damage, though, had probably been done. Not long after that I began having heart problems and was finally diagnosed with cardiomyopathy, a weakening of the heart muscle. By 2007 I was in the end stages of the disease and at age 67 got a heart transplant at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida.
I fully expected that recuperation from the surgery would take a few months. I had no idea what I was in for and not through the fault of the great medical care I received. My much abused body was a mess. A couple of months after my transplant I got pneumonia which hospitalized me for a week and had me down and almost out for almost a month (obviously having COPD was of no help). Then I developed severe pain, first in my left arm and shoulder (probably attributable to the awkward positioning of my arm during surgery. The left arm is raised at a strange angle to allow the surgeon better access to the chest cavity). The pain was intense and began to spread to my neck, my back and then the other shoulder. Sometime the pain was so great I was almost totally immobilized, I slept in a recliner chair for months and often wept out of suffering and frustration. Physicians tried several remedies but finally prescribed Oxycontin, a powerful narcotic. After several months of physical therapy and other treatment the pain began to dissipate but my need for Oxycontin didn’t. I was hooked, and severely depressed, so depressed that I spent everyday, all day sitting in the dark watching inane TV shows. I wasn’t eating much either and lost 50 pounds. I wasn’t suicidal but I sure wasn’t happy about living either.
Finally I convinced myself that I needed help so with the assistance of a drug called Suboxone, I was weaned from the Oxycontin and finally stopped taking it and the Suboxone after several months. It was now over a year since my transplant and I felt and looked terrible. My usual upbeat attitude was gone and the only reason I got up in the morning was to take my anti-rejection drugs. Some days I didn’t even shower. I just got dressed, got some coffee and planted myself in my dark corner to watch TV for the rest of the day. I was no longer taking narcotics but my depression was getting deeper. Once again I called on the experts at Mayo and began treatment for depression. They worked another miracle and here I am today, optimistic again and feeling great. Yes, I still have COPD but Mayo’s expertise has made that much more tolerable, too.
Throughout this entire ordeal and for no obvious reason, I remembered Teddy Roosevelt’s quotation about “Never giving up.” I didn’t — and thank God my wife Robin didn’t give up on me either. She was always supportive, attentive, understanding and gently prodding me to go on. I don’t think — no, I know, I would not have survived without her.
In a couple of weeks I will celebrate by 70th birthday. I will do so with enthusiasm and a new will to live for a long time. I have been reborn and given another chance but I think my gift of life came with a trial, a test of my will, my relationships, my marriage and my natural optimism. I think I have passed the test. I didn’t give up but I didn’t do it alone either.
Why did I tell this story? I know that others who have had serious illnesses also face challenges, some far worse than mine. I also know, though, that attitude and drawing on all your resources (spouse, friends, family, prayer) can help you cope and improve your quality of life. Please, if you are suffering, don’t give up. There is help for you but you have to reach out and ask for it. I still sit in the same corner every day, but all the lights are on now and while the TV may still be winking at me (I’m an old journalist and therefore a news junkie) I also write, read, work on my hobbies do things with Robin and enjoy life. Last week I even met with potential clients for my old consulting business, a business I had given up for dead just a few short weeks ago. Hang in there friends, don’t give up, don’t give in, fight for your life, enjoy every day — believe me it’s worth it.
So You Need A New Heart, Lung, Kidney –The Process February 5, 2009
Posted by Bob Aronson in The Donation/transplantation process.add a comment
The tissue and organ donation/transplantation process in the United States is highly structured, regulated and complex. It isn’t as simple or corruptible as the entertainment industry would like to make it. It is unfortunate that Television shows distort the process in order to be more dramatic and get better ratings. Too often popular TV shows like Grey’s Anatomy depict manipulation of the process where a seriously ill person is placed at the top of the national transplant list by the attending surgeon or worse yet, a medical student. This is folly, no one person has that much influence over where an individual patient might be placed on the list. I’m sure you have also seen TV shows where there are two unrelated patients in a room, one is in a coma and the other needs a new heart. The TV doctors then, declare the coma patient brain dead and give the heart to the person in the next bed, more folly.
For accurate information on how organ donation/transplantation is regulated and how hospitals address the issue in your area it would be best to contact your local Organ Procurement Organization (OPO). Barring that you might visit Answers.com. http://www.answers.com/topic/organ-transplant. This site provides easy to understand information about donation/transplantation issues.
Answers.com notes that donors can range in age form newborn on up. People who are 65 years of age or older may be acceptable donors, particularly of corneas, skin, bone and for total body donation. Age should not be a barrier to becoming an organ donor. Interestingly, an estimated 10,000 to 14,000 people who die each year meet the criteria for an organ donation, but less than half of that number becomes actual organ donors.
Generally, here’s how it works.
To get on the list, you need to visit a transplant hospital. Every transplant hospital in the United States is a member of the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS). You can use the UNOS directory at www.unos.org/members/search.asp to find a transplant hospital, or just visit www.unos.org for additional information.
A doctor or doctors will examine you and order a variety of tests to determine if you meet the criteria to be listed. His/her findings may then be brought to the hospital transplantation committee to determine if your name should be submitted to UNOS to be placed on the national list. You can get on the waiting list at more than one transplant hospital. Each hospital has its own criteria for listing patients. If you meet their criteria, they will add you to the list but that doesn’t mean they can dictate where you will be on the list.
Once listed your name will be added to the national pool of names. When an organ donor becomes available, all the patients in the pool are compared to that donor. Factors such as blood and tissue type, size of the organ, medical urgency of the patient’s illness, time already spent on the waiting list, and distance between donor and recipient are considered.
The organ is offered first to the candidate who is the best match locally. If no local match is found the organ will be offered regionally and then nationally until a recipient is found.
All hospitals are required by law to have a “Required Referral” system in place. Under this system, the hospital must notify the local Organ Procurement Organization (OPO) of all patient deaths. If the OPO determines that organ and/or tissue donation is appropriate in a particular case, they will have a representative contact the deceased patient’s family to offer them the option of donating their loved one’s organs and tissues. By signing a Uniform Donor Card, an individual indicates his or her wish to be a donor. However, at the time of death, the person’s next-of-kin may still be asked to sign a consent form for donation. It is important for people who wish to be organ and tissue donors to tell their family about this decision so that their wishes will be honored at the time of death. It is estimated that about 35 percent of potential donors never become donors because family members refuse to give consent. Refusal is usually attributed to the fact that the deceased person never told family members of the desire to be a donor.
I recognize that the above explanation is simple and incomplete but I hope it answers some of the questions you have about the process. Your comments/corrections/additions are encouraged.
