Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech

Todd Need[ed] a Liver 365

Posted by michael from the pate-on-crackers dept.
Mr. Christmas Lights writes "According to this CNN article, Todd Krampitz's liver transplant operation was a success. What is significant about this is how he used a multi-media campaign to get a donor - this included billboards stating 'I need a Liver. Please help Save my Life' that all pointed to his web site at ToddNeedsALiver.com where you can read more. Certainly a novel use of the World Wide Web."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Todd Need[ed] a Liver More

Todd Need[ed] a Liver

Comments Filter:

  • Illegal? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 14, 2004 @06:02PM (#9970106)
    I don't understand. I thought organ transplants could not be done privately and could only be done through organ transplant lists where you were ranked on necessity and the immediate terminality of your situation?

    So, how exactly would a media campaign expedite such a transplant?! It's not like he could pay someone for it and I'm pretty sure they require anonymity. As happened in this case, I don't believe they allow a specific person to donate a specific organ to a specific recipient without going through the hospital process as there might be someone else chosen as more needy or more urgent.

    And at any rate, this just further shows the disparity between those who have money and those who do not. Those who have it can do a media blitz to get a liber or find their abducted child and so on while those without it are fucked.

    By the way - his girlfriend is hot. Too bad they seem like a couple of religious nuts.

    • Re:Illegal? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @06:22PM (#9970238) Homepage Journal
      Your right, I don't think he can personally "buy" an organ, but by him driving a campaign forward and raising awareness of the issues,they will hopefully allow more people to become donars. More donars means more organs, and hopefully the list will get shorter.

      It does not say on his website exactly how he became the recipient, but I find it hard to believe it came from a direct donation specifically to him.

      I believe simply his age and other attributes made him a better donar recipient than (say) a 98 year old guy with other chronic problems, but I may be wrong.

      From the "Donatealife" website, they say the following:


      While donated organs and tissue are shared at the national level, the laws that govern donation vary from state to state. Therefore, it is important for you to know what you can do to ensure your decision to be a donor is carried out.

      He has certainly raised awareness, and I wish him the best of luck in the (now much brighter) future!

      • Re:Illegal? (Score:3, Informative)

        by chimpo13 ( 471212 )
        It does not say on his website exactly how he became the recipient, but I find it hard to believe it came from a direct donation specifically to him.

        A quote from the CNN article:

        In a statement, Julie Krampitz said "a generous family" donated the organ, and that it was given specifically for her husband.
    • By the way - his girlfriend is hot. Too bad they seem like a couple of religious nuts.

      Sounds like you would be more interested in this site. [giveboobs.com]

    • This is the United States... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by robochan ( 706488 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @08:37PM (#9971050) Homepage
      ...where you also can't buy a baby

      but you can buy the sperm, you can buy the egg,
      and you can rent the uterus.

    • Re:Illegal? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by QuantumFTL ( 197300 )
      By the way - his girlfriend is hot. Too bad they seem like a couple of religious nuts.

      Mods: I don't know about you, but this seems a lot like flaimbait.

      Seriously, I don't understand why this type of speech is moderated up on slashdot. Saying it's "too bad" that someone "seems to be a religious nut" because they have one frickin bible verse on their web site borders on bigotry. It's one thing to disagree with someone's views, but to pity someone because they have faith in a higher power... would thi

    • Not religious (Score:3, Interesting)

      by AxelBoldt ( 1490 )
      Too bad they seem like a couple of religious nuts.

      Obviously, their religion was just a PR trick. Had they been true believing Christians, they could have saved themselves a lot of work and money: as Jesus said so eloquently in Mt 21:22 "And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive."

  • i'm glad he's doing well but (Score:5, Insightful)

    by polished look 2 ( 662705 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @06:03PM (#9970108) Journal
    does this mean that the person who is able to finance a media blitz will be first to receive a liver or other major organ?

    • Re:i'm glad he's doing well but (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 14, 2004 @06:05PM (#9970128)
      In fact, yes.

      Read the CNN article in which one of the people who works with/for the transplant list group cites that this sets a questionable precident by bypassing standard processes and channels and establishes an unfair and unlevel playing field.
    • Yup, I'm after a six figure sum for my small but low milage penis.

    • does this mean that the person who is able to finance a media blitz will be first to receive a liver or other major organ?

      Hopefully, in the future, we'll be able to just buy the organs directly from the family of the deceased. It would be a lot cheaper and the incentive would ease the shortage of organs and save many lives.

      We have this weird superstition that there is something wrong with this. I'm sure that in a few decades people will wonder what we could have been thinking, just as we look back o

    • Re:i'm glad he's doing well but (Score:5, Informative)

      by Nurseman ( 161297 ) <nursemanNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday August 14, 2004 @07:01PM (#9970444) Homepage Journal
      does this mean that the person who is able to finance a media blitz will be first to receive a liver or other major organ?"

      In theory, the sickest person that is compatable is supposed to get the organ. In practice, being rich/famous probably gets you moved up a few places, witness Mickey Mantle and David Crosby, who both got liver's soon after their cases were wildly publicized. I think on the flip side, these very public cases help everyone, because more organs get donated.
      Interesting totally off topic side note. Most major instituions prep 2 people for each organ, in case there is a problem with the first person, eg, organ doesn't fit, the 1st patient dies, etc. I worked on a floor, and often was in charge of prepping the "backup" person. He/she would be totally prepped, family by his side, only to be sent home, when the first person was successful. I don't eveny anyone who has to work with these people as they wait their turn. Please people, talk to your family, donate your organs.

      • Re:i'm glad he's doing well but (Score:5, Insightful)

        by I Be Hatin' ( 718758 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @07:49PM (#9970768) Journal
        In theory, the sickest person that is compatable is supposed to get the organ. In practice, being rich/famous probably gets you moved up a few places, witness Mickey Mantle and David Crosby, who both got liver's soon after their cases were wildly publicized. I think on the flip side, these very public cases help everyone, because more organs get donated.

        I think what would help even more would be if people like Mickey Mantle would die from not getting preferential treatment, just like thousands of normal people do every year. That way, the public would see that there is a need for livers, and not foolishly believe that everyone who needs a liver gets one within a few days.

        • "I think what would help even more would be if people like Mickey Mantle would die from not getting preferential treatment, just like thousands of normal people do every year. That way, the public would see that there is a need for livers, and not foolishly believe that everyone who needs a liver gets one within a few days."

          I never actually thought of that, but it really is true. Wish I had mod points for you

    • Why would you do something randomly if there is some other discriminator? Any other discriminator. Tooting one's own horn is a time honored way of getting ahead.

  • From all of us... (Score:4, Funny)

    by c0dedude ( 587568 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @06:04PM (#9970117)
    Get well soon!
    Sincerely,
    The Internet

  • Unbelievable that it's legal (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AxelBoldt ( 1490 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @06:04PM (#9970119) Homepage
    I find it utterly unbelievable that relatives of organ donors can designate a recipient. Only medical criteria should matter. Otherwise, people with the money/wit to start a public relations campaign will be more likely to get an organ. And all that without the approval of the donor! I know that I would have hated to find my liver in this guy.

    • Re:Unbelievable that it's legal (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dex22 ( 239643 ) <plasticuser@NosPaM.gmail.com> on Saturday August 14, 2004 @06:11PM (#9970168) Homepage
      I'm sorry you feel that way.


      This guy had two possible doners, critically ill in hospital. instead of hoping one dies, this guy was asking for public prayer and support for these people and their families. Now you might think he sucks because he asked for something and got it, but this man had a choice of Do This Or Die.


      I would be proud to have my liver in this guy. He respects human life.


      Note: He didn't upset the "level playing field" either. He was given low priority for a liver because of the nature of his illness. It's fairer to say he evened the playing field up a little.

    • If I want to sell a kidney to the highest bidder I should be able to. If I'm dead, my will should be able to have my organs be auctioned off to benefit my family, or any other beneficiary.

      I own my body, and it's my property to do with as I like in life or death. Any law denying me this natural right is immoral.
      • Yeah well when you're dead and I trample all over your rights, come sue me.

      • I wonder, would you say the same thing if YOUR heart was failing leaving you only a couple of days? Let's assume there would be only one heart available in time and the other patient is a mega-wealthy celebrity who can easily live for years on a weakened heart. Then how would you look at someone's family selling a heart to the celeb just because the celeb would pay more then you can?

        • People die today because there aren't enough organs to transplant. Until we can grow organs, there will always be people who will not get needed donor organs. But if organs were allowed to be sold, there would be many more donor organs out there, and fewer people rich and poor alike would die.

          • People die today because there aren't enough organs to transplant.

            Organs are a commodity. Put a high enough price on them and the supply will incresase. Asking for "goodwill" donations will get a lot of goodwill and few donations.

            As a side note, unless you have money or damned good insurance, you aren't going to get much medical care of any kind, and don't go looking for a transplant. How many articles have been in the newspapers describing how the recipient's had to raise a few hundred thousand doll

        • then youd buy the celeb's "mostly used" heart and wait a few more years for a more reasonably priced heart to come onto the market.

          I cant afford new tires, so I buy used tires. They wont last as long, but I can buy more of them with the money I save.
      • Hear, hear.

        Organ donations are subject to market forces just like anything else. There's a large demand, and a small supply, because there's no incentive for becoming a donor other than being a nice guy. Give people an incentive to become donors, and you'll see the supply of organs go up. When the supply goes up, the price comes down.

        I'm an organ donor because I'm a nice guy and I bothered to actually fill out an organ donor card. I bet an awful lot more people would become organ donors if we could se
      • I'm in favor of a simple compromise. People don't donate organs because it doesn't benefit them, or rather thier families. Those opposed to organ selling on the open market are justifiably concerned that mostly the rich will benefit.

        Pretty much everyone would be better off if organs of a given quality that were donated were sold to those with the most medical need for a specific, set, price, preferably covered by insurance. Of course, if I was setting policy, everyone would have insurance, but that's an
      • Your point is a good one. But it might not work like that. Suppose you were in an accident, and someone with authority to sign your Do Not Resuscitate order didn't like you, but wanted one of your family to be able to cash in. You'd be DNR'd, and your organs would be auctioned off in accordance with your wishes.

        The controls on the sale of organs are the end result of a very complex debate on the ethics and praxis of handling human tissues.

        • All the complex ethics in the world won't matter much to you if you are dead. We can always deal with the outlier cases as they occur - hell, it's already possibly that somebody could end up in the exact situation you describe with life insurance.

          Frankly, I don't see the complex ethical issues you describe - I see the situation as a whole getting much better, with much more organ availability, with a reasonable cash incentive system in place. Whether it's market-force driven or completely regulated and


      • I own my body, and it's my property to do with as I like in life or death.

        It's yours? I don't see how.. It's just the logical conclusion of your mother and father each contributing a cell, growing it, and feeding you.

        They should have sold you in parts, then perhaps they could've turned a profit.
      • Great! So a 108-year old with alcoholism who probably wouldn't survive the operation anyway (but does have piles of cash and is willing to risk it) takes precedence over a 10-year old girl who will otherwise die. Isn't capitalism wonderful? :)
      • If the medical system starts to allow use of privately obtained or funded organs, then not only will people start selling their own organs - people will start selling other people's organs.

        Further, there is a good chance once that starts happening that 'bad organs' will get into the system. Yeah, it's great to get a liver - too bad you got a disease from it, or it doesn't work, etc.

        There may be ways to tighten the rules somewhat - but there are too many bad doctors out their, nevermind bad people, wh
    • Well, if that option wasn't there for families to determine who'll get the donated organs, then you would eliminate the instances where a someone could donate a lung or kidney to his brother. How would you feel if you could save your sibling but medical law said you could only give your organ to the general pool of recipients? Plus, you start treading on dangerious legal areas if you start mandating on what people/families can or can not do with their bodies.
    • In a way, he should have been high up on the list for a transplant...although he wasn't in the worst shape physically, leaving the cancerous liver in there increased the possibility of it spreading to other areas and killing him in a way most liver failures don't.

      If I was dying, I'd donate my organs to someone specific and allow my family to do the same...and to hell with anyone who says I can't... - it's STILL my body and choice to give them or not.

      RB
    • I believe I've read that before... let me think.

      Ah yes, now it comes to me. "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability."

  • And someone just woke up in an icy bathtub... (Score:5, Funny)

    by sdo1 ( 213835 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @06:04PM (#9970120) Journal
    I heard that it had something to do with someone getting drugged, passing out, and waking up in an icy bathtub. Really. My friend sent me an email about it.

    -S

  • So did he 'buy' his liver? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Phoenixhunter ( 588958 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @06:04PM (#9970121)
    The real question to ask here is whether or not such ad campaigns equate to 'buying' a liver through spending money on the advertisements? Could this be the next boon to advertisers?

  • This is a good use of the web (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ShatteredDream ( 636520 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @06:05PM (#9970130) Homepage
    Things like this help to defeat the image of the web as the online wild west which makes it harder to lobby for fundamental changes to be forced on the architecture. Kinda hard to paint it as a force for "darkening our childrens' hearts" as Bush insinuated it often was in the 2000 election when it is being used effectively to save lives.
    • I bet someone else was first in line for that liver, and died. One mans life for anothers...
      • For all you know, that person who was in front was some alcoholic who had drunk themselves two steps into scerosis of the liver or some celebrity figure or other type of bigwig.
        • And? They are humans too, which was my point. One shouldn't be allowed to skip in the line, whoever one is or aint. That means him, and dubbya too, and Oprah an OJ too for that matter. This ensures that we all have a somewhat equal shot at getting a replacement organ, no matter what someone else thinks about it. I believe that's a good idea, don't you?
    • This also means, if you have money, you can go to the head of the line. Corrupting the other image of the "Web", as the Great Equalizer.

  • what do you think? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by osobear ( 761394 )
    Capitalism at its finest, or semi-evil abuse of having money?
  • This seems to shout that those who are able to afford it, or able to come up with the best resources first, get the goods (a liver, in this case). So life and death quickly become a matter of being the cleverest.

    On that note, though, isn't that what natural selection, survivial of the fittest, is about? Those who are able to best take advantage of the situation to make out the best in the end.

    Still not sure I agree with it, however...

  • Buying Life? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JollyRogerX ( 749524 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @06:07PM (#9970138)
    Isn't everyone supposed to have an equal chance at getting an organ? Remember Mickey Mantle who pickeled his liver with many decades of hard alcohol? He got a liver ahead of many people then promptly died a few months later. I guess this just proves yet again that some people are more equal that others (namely those with money).
  • On one hand, I am glad this man got his liver and was able to live. On the other hand, why did he have to choose clear channel billboards to advertise on? (see pic in CNN article).

  • Similar Web projects (Score:5, Informative)

    by Peter Cooper ( 660482 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @06:08PM (#9970145) Homepage Journal
    While not as crucial as this one, I can think of two similarly novel uses of the Web to get what one wants.

    Karyn Bosnak was $20,000 in the hole and set up SaveKaryn.com [savekaryn.com]. Within a few months she had paid off all her debts from the contributions of strangers. Now she's an author.

    Ramon Stoppelenburg wanted to travel around the world but had no money, so he started LetMeStayForADay.com [letmestayforaday.com], and managed to hitchhike around the world for a couple of years without spending a dime.

    I also seem to recall a far older site called 'Send Me A Dollar', but I don't have the URL to hand now. Does anyone know of any other people who've used the Web for interesting personal gain?
    • A lot of people are trying to get a free ipod or flat screen from this one company. [snipurl.com] There's even whole guides dedicated to it. [65.75.157.200] It's pretty easy to do- i got my ipod a few days ago (signed up for aol, then cancelled after I got my credit)
    • I also seem to recall a far older site called 'Send Me A Dollar', but I don't have the URL to hand now. Does anyone know of any other people who've used the Web for interesting personal gain?

      There are many similar projects, asking for money for anything from breast implants to debt payment to butt implants. However, I do not think we should encourage them. Their success only breeds more of these sites.

    • Anyone remember CutOffMyFeet.com? (now defunct, but here's the archive.org version [archive.org]).

      A short synopsis:

      1. Guy gets legs run over by truck
      2. Guy has no health insurance
      3. Medicare pays for surgery and leg braces, but not amputation and prosthesis as he still has limited mobility and it's not life-threatening.
      4. Guy decides to get money for new legs and point out inadequacies in the US healthcare system by selling tickets to watch him amputate his own legs with a guillotine

      I don't believe he ever went through wit

    • It's rather mind blowing that with as many charities and truly good causes there are out there, people would actually send large sums of money to a random woman who just ran up her debt wildy. Never underestimate the stupidity of common folk, or why people SPAM the masses looking for suckers.

  • So when are the first "I need a date" billboards from slashdot geeks going to appear? You can point it to your TomsADnDandStarwars.com fan page. The similarities are obvious. He only needed one liver, most geeks will settle for one girl. He needed a liver to keep on living, most geeks need one for bragging purposes at the next trekkie convention. Very similar.

  • bad roy (Score:3, Funny)

    by Rumagent ( 86695 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @06:15PM (#9970195)
    "I want more life, f*cker" [garnersclassics.com]

    Bad taste I know, but I couldn't help thinking of the scene in Blade Runner, where Roy kills Tyrell.

  • Was this ethical? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bstarrfield ( 761726 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @06:18PM (#9970217)

    First, I'm glad that his life now has a higher probability of being saved. No transplant operation is a guarenteed success. He has a family who cares, he's young, and he deserves a chance.

    However, there is a great shortage of organ donors - many of whom are people who do not have access to the financial resources necessary to conduct such an impressive media campaign. Do these people have less of a right to survive? Unfortunately, the success of Todd's campaign will likely encourage future copycat media blitz's.

    Are we going to allow wealth to decide who live's or dies? Simple charisma, money, and good looks seem to be the factor which saved (hopefully) this fellows life. What do you say to the single teacher who needs a transplant? Sorry, you just have to wait your chance?

    If you want to make a difference for many people, sign your organ donor card, donate to the red cross, encourage stem cell research. And please, try to think of a better way to allocate organs than giving an organ to those who have the most money. I'm sorry that I'm harsh with this, but now someone else has been pushed farther down the line in the transplant list, and that person may not survive.

    • I don't see a problem with what he did. Actually I think it's great. How many livers did he use? One. How many poeple he reminded that there are patients waiting for organs? Millions, and all of them but one could donate their organ(s) to somebody else. Benefit to society = millions - 1

    • Re:Was this ethical? (Score:3, Informative)

      by jburroug ( 45317 )
      No I don't think it's ethical, nor do I think, as some posters are claiming, that this publicity is good for the organ donor system in general. What it does is it shows millions of people that the organ donor system is broken and that if you are in need of a replacement organ the only way to get one is by bypassing the established organ network in some way, if you can afford it. That is not a good thing.

      The rules that the organ networks use to determine who gets a donated organ and what priority are design

      • The rules that the organ networks use to determine who gets a donated organ and what priority are designed to make the best use of a very limited commodity.

        But that's the thing - it's not a very limited commodity. There are far more perfectly fine livers in people who just recently died then there are patients that need those livers. Furthermore, livers are ''not'' commodities. The donor and the recipient must match in terms of body size and blood type.

        The way I see it you've gotta do one of two thin

  • This inspired me (Score:3, Funny)

    by foidulus ( 743482 ) * on Saturday August 14, 2004 @06:20PM (#9970224)
    to create my own website [foidulusne...rbride.com]. I'm hoping donations will start flowing in any day now.....
  • ... I'm happy he's alright, and that the transplant was a success. However, what worries me is the number of people repeatedly passed-over for transplants based on questionable justification.

    Speaking from experience, the donation and subsequent dole-out process is supposed to be on a first-come-first-serve priority, based on compatibility and/or severity. Any attempts to get around this process are not only unfair for those that wait (painstakingly) in line, but also for the unfortunate soul that may h

  • Are you registered? (Score:3, Informative)

    by retostamm ( 91978 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @06:23PM (#9970246) Homepage
    CNN Article: As of July 30, there were 17,471 people nationwide waiting for a liver transplant. Last year, 5,671 liver transplants were performed in the country.

    Every year there are about 45'0000 [drugwarfacts.org] deaths from Car accidents alone.

    Are you a registered Organ Donor [organdonor.gov]?

    If more people would be registered, that waiting list would shorten dramatically in a year or two, and this guy would not have had to do this to stay alive.

    Or do you have other plans for your organs after you are dead?

  • the next e-marketing revolution: Transplant spam...

  • Ideas... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Gollum2001 ( 514666 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @06:26PM (#9970269)
    Mental note: domains to register...

    Ineedakidney.com
    Ineedaheart.com
    Ineedabrain.c om ... mmm no, George Bush has that.

    (PD: Get well Todd, just joking).

  • http://www.TimesproutNeedsHalleBerry.com (Score:3, Funny)

    by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @06:26PM (#9970273)
    Gotta be worth a try.

  • You think it's so black and white? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Visceral Monkey ( 583103 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @06:37PM (#9970323)
    As someone who is seperated by only one degree from Todd and his family (one of our best friends is also good friends with his wife) we've been following this for some time now. You can damm well bet that if it were my family or close friend, I wouldn't not hesitate to do the same thing they did. Only a fool would fail to capitalize on whatever assets they have in order to stay alive.

  • Jumping the queue? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by InternationalCow ( 681980 ) <mauricevansteens ... m ['ac.' in gap]> on Saturday August 14, 2004 @06:41PM (#9970342) Journal
    In a perfect world, there would be new organs for all who needed them. In the imperfect world that we have to live in, there are waiting lists. Todd jumped the queue, the donor's liver would otherwise have gone to the number one on the list. One life saved at the expense, possibly, of another. I wish Todd and his family all the best, but I have nagging doubts about the ethicality of this thing. The precedent it sets is potentially nasty. It reminds one of drowning men climbing on each other's shoulders to get to the surface, drowning those beneath them.
    • The health care system sucks, but if it was your family, you'd do the same. If you wouldn't, then you are an uncaring rotten bastard. If you just go around doing what the doctors and insurance companies tell you you are supposed to or allowed to do, you are unlikely to survive a serious illness for very long in the US, and yes, I am speaking from personal experience.

      I know if I were in the same spot as Todd, I'd go move my ass to another country where the organ donation system wasn't so fouled up, and t

  • intresting... I have hemophelia, and through blood transfusions, aquired Hep C. Now... A liver transplant cures hemophelia, and would definatly help out with my torn up liver by the hep C.

    I wonder if I could pull of something like this.... or possibly we could just go somewhere with the whole stem cell thing and make me a liver that wouldn't be rejected by my immune system.

  • Before everyone cries foul play here... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gloth ( 180149 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @06:55PM (#9970415)
    A lot of concerns have been raised on the legal and moral issues of this case, rightfully so, as I think, and many people believe that the high moral path would be to not allow anyone to bypass the national list. And that's a good point. But...

    But what if people do not agree with the way this list is handled? There can be very valid reasons, to disagree. Think about priorities. Everything else equal...

    • Should a sicker person have a higher priority? sounds good, but it also implies that healthier patients would have to wait till their healt deteriorates "enough", which somewhat perverts the whole thing.
    • Should people who are themselves registered as donors receive a higher priority as recipients? Seems only fair, or not? What if their religion does not allow it? And how do you avoid abuse?
    • I'm living in the US on a work visa right now, and am a potential donor (per driver license entry). Yet, on the other hand, there is a law that states that only something like 5% of organ donations can go to aliens. I, for one, don't think that's fair in my case.
    • ...

    Organ donations are a complex matter. Whatever the details, I believe that every patient has the right to come up with creative ideas to fight for his/her survival, and also that each donor has the right to decide what should be done with his/her organs; who else could have a higher right?

  • Please take a moment to vist my site... (Score:3, Funny)

    by bobdotorg ( 598873 ) on Saturday August 14, 2004 @06:56PM (#9970420)
    www.BobNeedsADualG5PowerMac.org

    So how would that Janis Joplin song go in the internet age?
  • Considering all the other things the web is used for I would call this more than novel. This is, imho, exactly what the WWW SHOULD be used for. Not a bunch of "Dear Diary, it's raining out and I am sad." blogs. A real, substantive use of an advanced communication medium to complete a worthy goal. It may be semantics, but I think its anything but a novel use....

  • Not out of the woods yet. (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Despite a liver transplant the chances of long term survival (>5 years) is low for a patient with such a large tumor (~30%). Obviously, much better than not having had the transplant at all. Our prayers should go out to Todd and his family. Interestingly, some transplant centers do "split liver" transplants from a parent to a child, for example, with good success. A normal liver has tremendous proliferative potential and the donor's "half" liver returns to normal size in a few months. I don't think
  • One possible means of reducing the donor organ shortages in the US and UK could be the adoption of something like the "presumed consent" [presumedconsent.org] laws that operate in Europe. In Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Norway, and Spain, consent for removal of organs for donation is presumed unless you express your objection in advance, whereas in the US the opposite is true.

  • This doesn't always work (billboards) (Score:3, Interesting)

    by EvilStein ( 414640 ) <spamNO@SPAMpbp.net> on Saturday August 14, 2004 @07:55PM (#9970796)
    Remember this guy [10kforawife.com]?

    I have the feeling he's still quite single.

    Then there was "I bought too many shoes, give me $20,000" girl.. Karyn?
  • I see a lot of complaints about "jumping the list".

    Yes the guy "jumped the list'; the fact is that "more money" almost always equals "more life"; you don't have to look to liver transplants to find extreme examples of this.

    The thing that amazes me is how much people are offended by him "jumping the list', when in fact liver transplants are one area where the list isn't really as meaningful as it is for other organs, such as corneas, hearts, pancreas, lungs, and so on.

    In actually, the liver, like the kidn
  • A point that does not seem to have been made and should be.

    Liver transplants don't have to come from a cadaver (or soon-to-be a cadaver). It is possible to take a section of a healthy person's liver and transplant it. The transplant will regenerate into a full liver, and the donor's liver will also regenerate (barring infection/drug abuse/drinking/rejection).

    So unlike a heart transplant, you can create media attention, locate a potential transplant donor, and get them to donate to you while they are still
  • It is cutting edge, but it is possible to do living unrelated liver transplants. The transplant clinic here in Richmond, Virginia ( Hume Lee Transplant Center [vcuhealth.org] ) has done about 60 in the past three years according to their web site [vcuhealth.org]. Several have been published in the local paper.

    In general, transplants from living volunteers have better results because the organ is away from a real blood supply for the shortest amount of time.

    I'm sure the transplant center Todd delt with had a medical reason to do what t

Slashdot Top Deals

The biggest difference between time and space is that you can't reuse time. -- Merrick Furst

Close