Doctors Transplant Same Kidney Twice In Two Weeks 130
kkleiner writes "Twenty-seven-year-old Ray Fearing suffered from focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS), a common type of kidney disease, and needed a new kidney. His 24-year-old sister, Cera Fearing, wanted to give him hers. The transplanted kidney immediately began to grow diseased, so doctors removed it. But then something happened that, according to the doctor who performed the procedure, had never been done before. The unhealthy kidney was removed from Ray, and replanted into another patient, and the kidney became healthy and has remained in this second patient ever since."
Obviously (Score:2)
Get me a hammer! (Score:1, Funny)
We'll make it fit SOMEPLACE!
Yeah.. not the attitude i want a surgeon to have... What happens when the person who ended up with it gets a new disease...
Re:Get me a hammer! (Score:5, Insightful)
You know that there is a always far more demand then availability.
No matter what happens it probably saved a life.
Re:Get me a hammer! (Score:5, Insightful)
You know that there is a always far more demand then availability.
No matter what happens it probably saved a life.
There's an adequate supply, it's just illegal to sell organs.
Re:Get me a hammer! (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think that is the fear at all, I think the fear is that people will have their organs stolen while they are alive.
People get killed for their couple hundred dollar iPads, if a healthy person has dozens of saleable organs then they could be worth 10s of thousands of dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
But they are currently worth more than 10s of thousands of dollars, because people can't sell legitimately.
Making it legal, would mean the price would drop, and the very crime would likely be harder to pull off, and attract less of a reward.
Since this crime is rare now, I'd be surprised if it didn't become even rarer, unless somehow everybody's ethics go out the window, and kill a person somehow becomes moral.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but unlike stealing a iPad you cannot unload a bag full of human organs at every street corner.
Selling/buying them is illegal so there are very few buyers. Make it legal, and the demand and number of places you could offload goes through the roof.
Price probably would drop but a persona life is not worth that much, a few hundred dollars would make it common crime, a few thousand an epidemic.
Re:Get me a hammer! (Score:4, Interesting)
Selling/buying them is illegal so there are very few buyers. Make it legal, and the demand and number of places you could offload goes through the roof.
Um, how? Is there anything that could possibly be easier to trace than human organs? I mean, they're already stamped, in every single cell, with DNA. How in God's name could you fence stolen organs?
And if there are doctors willing to do it without running the checks, what's stopping them from doing it now?
Re: (Score:2)
There would be more donations if it was legalised so a bigger crowd to hide in, you would not have to hide the money part just make up someone or add a organ or two onto a normal donor.
And no it would not be easy to trace. No government has very many peoples blood on file, no file no trace, and every match is non unique anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
Right now if you wanted to make money off of killing someone and harvesting their organs, you'd also have to "make up someone or add a organ or two onto a normal donor" the only difference I can see is hiding the money, however you'd have to do that in either system, as it's going to look pretty weird if the money is going to a different person.
Everything you're describing can happen in the current system.
Re: (Score:2)
War story from a reporter in South Africa involved chasing down an organ smuggling ring. Had to call his editor and ask if it would be ok to actually take possession of a cooler full of kidneys for a while, grab some photos, then give it back. Editor (correctly) told him he was out of his mind, file the story and call the cops.
Thing is, I don't think the thieves were very smart, and nothing ever got implanted. If there was a white-market for organs though, well then, who's really gonna check once it's onboa
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Get me a hammer! (Score:4, Funny)
Just don't break any traffic laws and you'll be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically a motorcyclist that was provably not wearing a helmet and ended up in a fatal accident is automatically regarded as having consented to donating his/her organs.
I suppose to make it less bad we could add the clause, "unless said person has already explicitly and officially specified nonconsent to organ donation". But who'd want to live in a society with such ruthless laws?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I though that the whole "wake up in a bathtub full of ice after being the victim of illegal organ theft" thing was pretty much just a cool internet rumour, for several reasons:
1. transplants have to be matched. Not just blood type but also MHC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_histocompatibility_complex [wikipedia.org], which narrows the compatibility even more.
2. Organs don't last long outside the body. The recipient has to be right there waiting for the organ, it can't just be tossed in the fridge waiting for a compatib
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I suppose a giant, state-sponsored player could pull it off. This supports my idea that waking up in a bath tub of ice is still just an internet rumour though. As usual, travellers abroad should be more concerned about their camera and cash. I have certainly heard of tourists being drugged to steal those.
Correction (Score:2)
When there's plenty of time, as in the case of altruistic donations, yes, full match testing is performed. But when there's not, it isn't, and it usually works.
In any case, these days not only are transplants done with little or no MHC match (mine was o
Re: (Score:2)
There are important differences between iPads and organs: While you can fence an iPad most anywhere (pawn shop, streetcorner, ebay, craigslist, etc.), the channels for selling an organ are pretty restrictive in industrialized countries. You can't sell coolers of organs out the back of a truck somewhere, because what the hell is the buyer going to
Re: (Score:2)
But if you make it legal there very well might be a international infrastructural for finding potential matches for people in need, contacting those people and asking if they want to sell.
A criminal might gain access to this DB and somehow falsify records, drug until compliment, or threaten his family.
That is the point of this fear, the legality creates an international business out of it, the criminals piggyback on this to find buyers and hide the source of the organs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Get me a hammer! (Score:5, Insightful)
Because that libertarian attitude every one should be able to enter any contract he wishes without restriction doesn't account for the realities of power play in this world.
The realities of power are that really rich people, right now, can fly to countries to get organs from desperate people. So all we're really doing is exporting the problem.
The reality of medicine is that being put on a donor waiting list is a death sentence for the "99%".
And the reality of organ transplants is that most people suffer organ failure due to poor health, poor diet and smoking / drug abuse. You probably see more poor and middling people, per capita, needing organ transplants because wealthy people take better care of their bodies.
Only desperate people would sell their organs for money.
So it's better that they simply remain desperate? They don't seem to think so. Do they get a say in the matter? Freedom of choice? My body, not the government's? Does that only apply to abortion?
Allowing people to sell organs would give very rich people with organ failure an incentive to make the life of potential donors hell.
Sure, that would make perfect sense if rich people were all part of some vast conspiracy. In reality, any sane person, rich or poor, has every incentive to avoid hugely invasive surgery, and as much as people don't want to be donors, they want to be recipients even less.
Re: (Score:2)
Because that libertarian attitude every one should be able to enter any contract he wishes without restriction doesn't account for the realities of power play in this world.
The realities of power are that really rich people, right now, can fly to countries to get organs from desperate people. So all we're really doing is exporting the problem.
We're minimizing the number of poor people in our country who are dependent upon the benevolent due to renal failure. That's worth it right there, end of argument.
Having only one kidney is neither healthy nor safe in the long term.
Re: (Score:2)
Because that libertarian attitude every one should be able to enter any contract he wishes without restriction doesn't account for the realities of power play in this world. Only desperate people would sell their organs for money. Very ill rich people know that, so offering money to potential donors would not likely get them very far. However, they could give money to the potential donor's employer so the potential donor gets fired is much easier, then bribe all possible employers so they don't hire that potential donor. Afterwards, they can offer money to the banks so the potential donor doesn't get any credit. Why do all that
Indeed, why do all that when all you need to do is plant some drugs on his person or property and make an anonymous tip? Or child porn? Or terrorist training manuals?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Get me a hammer! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the assumption was that the brother's disease, which was genetic, was causing problems with the new kidney. But because $recipient2 did not have that disease, if transplanted to $recipient2's body, the kidney would recover and work correctly. A genetic disease not present in the kidney should not follow the kidney. The actual results would vindicate that theory.
Re:Get me a hammer! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
What the hell are you smoking? some of us like women that look like women, not little girls
Re: (Score:3)
I think the assumption was that the brother's disease, which was genetic, was causing problems with the new kidney.
Not quite: FTFA:
Researchers have theorized that it may be caused by a factor circulating in the bloodstream.
From something a little less...mainstream:
Idiopathic or primary FSGS is postulated to result from a plasma factor that increases glomerular permeability. This hypothesis is supported by the observation that FSGS may recur in a renal allograft. However, the presence of such a permeability factor has not been confirmed although some of its characteristics have been described. Another possibility to explain the pathogenesis of FSGS is lack of an inhibitor to the permeability factor. Hence, what causes FSGS and why it may recur in a transplanted kidney is yet unknown.
(Szczepiorkowski ZM, Winters JL, Bandarenko N, et al. Guidelines on the use of therapeutic apheresis in clinical practice--evidence-based approach from the Apheresis Applications Committee of the American Society for Apheresis. Journal of clinical apheresis. 2010;25(3):83-177.)
Usually FSGS is thought to be acquired (e.g. HIV or heroin use) rather than genetic. Of course, underlying genetics or haplotypes may play a role, but I too lazy to look that up :).
Re: (Score:1)
So you are implying that without Obamacare they would of just thrown away the functioning organ and allowed the other patient to die?
Re: (Score:2)
But under the older care HE will be black listed (Score:3)
But under the older care HE will be black listed with a pre existing condition but it's not that bad jail / prison care does not have pre existing conditions
Re: (Score:1)
Obama?
Plah-ease! It's obviously Bush's fault!
Re: (Score:1)
I am sad to see this thread did not end up with an Obama ate a Kidney comment...
uHHH.. (Score:1)
Re:uHHH.. (Score:5, Funny)
Doctor: We don't have any kidney's available but we have this diseased and rejected kidney in the fridge. Intrested?
If you're going to receive a transplant, it's best to get an organ with broad experience.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, when you're on the kidney transplant list (at least in the USA) you have the choice between optimal and suboptimal kidneys. In other words, if you're really hating dialysis, you can get whatever the first kidney is that comes along that will match your blood group, even though it might be from someone old and with a potential disease. If you want to hold out for a good one, you can.
Re: (Score:2)
The Internet: Vindicating misanthropy since 1993.
Re: (Score:2)
Pray tell, if you imply that such comments are misanthropic, why do would think that? How is it hating the humankind to comment like that? It may be objectification the woman, but hey, objectively, she is one nice looking object. Perhaps I just missed your cleverly disguised point.
Re: (Score:2)
What did they expect?!
Interesting (Score:2)
The article doesn't give much detail.
I assume this is part of a clinical trial being done. Otherwise it would seem odd logically or ethically to do this.
You can live without a kidney(ies) but a transplant is a major surgery with real risks. Judging by the talk about the theory of the blood born cause it must have been a clinical trial.
If someone here is a surgeon maybe they could explain the ethics involved when approving this type of novel operation?
Re: (Score:1)
Actually the first linked TFA gives just the right amount of detail:
"To me giving it to someone else seemed like the right thing to do," said Ray Fearing, who undergoes dialysis several times a week and is not currently a candidate for another kidney. "This was a gift to me, and I wanted to pass along the gift. I didn't realize what a big thing it was at the time."
Re: (Score:3)
>>>clinical trial
Or Dr. House breaking the rules again! (Damn him... if we wasn't so good, we'd prosecute him in court.) ;-)
I'm surprised the kidney got better. I guess the disease is located in the man's body, not in the kidney (which recovered once given a healthy environment). I feel sorry for the guy as he'll probably die soon, before he even made 30.
Re: (Score:2)
this is a good strategy for all transplants (Score:5, Funny)
Most Importantly (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Most Importantly (Score:5, Funny)
I bet the click through rate on the article just quadrupled thanks to this 4 word post.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
And thanks to the miracle of modern medicine, she's keeping her weight down as well.
Confirmed. (Score:2)
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&hl=en&q=Cera+Fearing [google.com]
Re: (Score:1)
His sister is hot.
His sister is SMOKIN' hot.
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Old man on the left: It's only fair I reciprocate!
Kidneys = Ram (Score:2)
I had some Ram that did that once. Placed it in one PC and I had an unstable system constantly crashing.
take it out and put it in another box. Both machines running perfectly.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, sheesh, I thought it was commons knowledge that putting farm animals in your computer case would cause some instability, especially ones with horns.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it was the wool. It created too much fuzzy logic within the chips.
Monty Python (Score:2)
The Meaning of Life Part V: Live Organ Donor Transpants
Actually RTFA this one guys (Score:1)
The girl that donated the kidney is SMOKING hot.
Silly Doctors (Score:2)
It's obvious that Ray is cursed.
It's that old saying (Score:5, Funny)
Change the rules (Score:1)
I still don't understand why not everybody is considered as donor.
In Luxembourg, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Czechoslovakia and Hungary (Wikipedia page only lists European countries) you have to actively exclude yourself.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
No, they don't force healthy people to give their kidneys.
They take your organs when you die. (When you die in specific circumstances. They don't want damaged organs, of course.)
Ports (Score:4, Insightful)
Kidney Nazi Suffers No Complaints (Score:2)
You no like the kidney??
No kidney for you!
Why wasn't it returned? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why didn't the girl get the kidney back? I can understand her willing to give it up for her brother, but not for some random person.
Re: (Score:2)
Why didn't the girl get the kidney back? I can understand her willing to give it up for her brother, but not for some random person.
Because she's fine with only one kidney, and the risks of reinstalling the other one are very substantial for almost no benefit.
Re:Why wasn't it returned? (Score:4, Interesting)
For that matter, they would not have removed the transplanted kidney from the original recipient were it not for the small matter that according to the article, it was killing him. (When a transplanted kidney fails and another transplant is done they don't remove it unless absolutely necessary, with the result that someone can end up with four or more kidneys.) So they were going to end up with a kidney and no place to put it. Rather than toss it in the garbage, my guess is they started calling people at the top of the list who were type compatible until they found one willing to give it a go.
I'll also point out that one of the side benefits of being a donor is that in the unlikely event that your remaining kidney fails, you automatically go to the top of the transplant list. And in most cases 100% of the donor's costs are paid for.
Re:Why wasn't it returned? (Score:5, Informative)
They removed the kidney from her brother because they believed it was already broken. So, they instead transplanted it to the desperate 67 year old guy who prefered getting a diseased kidney, hoping it could extend his life for a little bit, instead of passing it to a perfecly healthy person, which might put her life in jeopardy.
Or so I believe.
Re: (Score:3)
Fortunately for humanity, lots of people are willing to donate a kidney to save a stranger's life.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/health/lives-forever-linked-through-kidney-transplant-chain-124.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1 [nytimes.com]
His poor sister must be pissed. (Score:2)
His 24-year-old sister, Cera Fearing, wanted to give him hers.
- she wanted to give him hers, well, if they could transplant it into another patient, then she should be suing the shit out of them for not transplanting it BACK INTO HER.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Bull, she just wasn't told what was going to happen to her kidney and that it could be implanted back into her. She should sue, in fact I am going to email her the suggestion.
Discount (Score:2)
Did the 2nd recipient get it at a discount?
Re: (Score:2)
Did the 2nd recipient get it at a discount?
In a sense, yes. Organs are always in short supply and priority is given to the young and healthy (aside from needing an organ, that is). The second recipient was a 67 year old diabetic. Through normal channels, he probably could not get a kidney at any price.
That's not how it works (Score:2)
What this translates to in practice is that if you're blood type O, expect a *long* wait. This is mostly because type Os can only get a type O kidney, meaning about 60%
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Medicare age exceptions (Score:3)
Only the Best (Score:1)
If I was going to get a kidney, it'd better be from myself [wikipedia.org].
4 day old (Score:2)
4 day old receives transplant and new life on Slashdot.
-AI
House (Score:1)
sounds like Dr House was there.
oh someone else got it (Score:2)
Desperate... (Score:2)
Wow, considering this was the "first time" for this to happen, the patient must have been very desperate.
"We have a kidney available, however it is 3rd hand, and currently diseased, and no one has ever transplanted a diseased kidney and have it get better on its own. Still want it? Yes? Really?"