Jump to content

Recommended Posts

...in an attempt to thwart wealthy foreigners jumping the queue for a new liver.


Is this right?


Should the donated organs go to the most needy, regardless of status or depth of pockets or should the transplant system follow the rules of capitalism and let money do the talking?


bbc article

To answer Horsebox - the majority of UK's hospitals are managed and funded by the NHS - therefore NHS patients should have priority. That's the easy answer.


As with all transplants - donor / receiver compatibility is a major factor in deciding who gets what. Thus if there are, say, 70 potential liver transplant patients on the critical list and a donor organ arrives but it, doesn't unfortunately, match any of the potential recipients - what to do? Some of the factors in the decision making process will be:


a. The need to not waste the organ


b. The need to keep the surgical team in practice - it used to be that any team had to carry out a minimum no. of these specialist procedures a year to maintain and develop expertise.


c. The opportunity to "exchange" the organ with another hospital (abroad since the donor system in UK is very sophisticated and can match a donated organ to all / any on the list awaiting transplant)


d. The opportunity to earn revenue for the hospital - to be used for the hospital (not paid to the surgical team).


I've no doubt annaj can add a lot more background.


If all healthcare were privatised then the patient's insurer would normally stump up - because of the need to match the organ for compatibility money cannot, by itself, take anyone to the top of a waiting list for a transplant.

Hypothetically, private care involvement should have no bearing on allocation of organs from non-heart beating donors (Heart beating donors are a bit more complicated), as the Transplant team (who make the allocation decisions) are an independent NHS multicentre team with no personal involvement in the care of anyone awaiting an organ until they are allocated one. Hypothetically, private healthcare would only serve to get you a nicer bed to recover in, and transfer a wedge of your bank balance to a surgeon. Hypothetically.


So where can private healthcare upset the system?


I have no idea: My involvement with transplant services has been mostly at the non-heart beating donor end, a little around heart and lung recipients, and all NHS.


As for the overseas issue, I understand that if we don't have anyone waiting who is a tissue match but someone overseas is then it makes a lot of sense. And there are good chances that there will be an overseas tissue match when there isn't a UK one, because simple statistics are that there are a number of conditions, such as hepatitis, which result in the need for an organ transplant, which are more prevalent in other countries than here. If you have 100 times the number of people awaiting transplant, logic states a significantly increased chance that an organ will match someone from that group.


Money at any stage will not make you a viable tissue match to an organ that you are not, nor will it stop you from being the only match currently on the waiting list if you are potless.


I've not fully evaluated the evidence regarding this particular "scandal", and what evidence there is doesn't seem to be particularly extensive or objective. An independent enquiry seems useful.

As BN5 has already mentioned, tissue type has a big part to play - could well be that no one else (as poorly as him - remember he'd gone dry for 6 mths+ beforehand) matched the donor liver... should the donor liver have gone to waste??


The proportion of organs donated is low mainly because of the poor number of people making it clear before the time comes that they'd like to donate, but also because it's limited situations that organs can be taken (due to medical history/how the donor has died etc).


This is why the work done at Kings regarding living liver donations (the liver can regenerate itself) is so exciting and a very positive step forward.

  • 1 month later...

antijen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So why did George Best become top priority.


I think that this is a really interesting point. I have no doubt that George Best's tissue type, alcohol dependance etc were issues determining his suitability for transplant. But just because George Best opted for private healthcare, should that disclude him from his rights to NHS care or place on the waiting list for organ donation? He was a tax payer in this country. If he decided to pay for private healthcare, surely he would remain as eligable as any other citizen of this country for donor organs.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I’m basing it on the fact that Jeremy Corbyn had repeatedly and on record said he is against mandatory vaccinations in any situation, and he wouldn’t disclose wether he had the Covid vaccine himself    as I said. Not as bad as his brother but very definitely a bit weird about the whole thing. Just say you had the vaccination Jeremy, say that everyone should and stop being weird in the middle of a global pandemic    it’s the same slippery evasive nonsense about Brexit and him. About Putin poisonings and him.     if you are happy with his evasiveness then you do you.  But there is a reason the country wouldn’t get behind him 
    • It was my understanding that Jeremy Corbyn was embarrassed by his brother and had distanced himself from his brother's views. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. Why on earth should "the overall view of that family inform Jeremy's response to the pandemic"? What exactly are you basing that assumption on?
    • I guess it's best to do what most Brits do these days, keep your head down and say nothing! although that's probably why this country is in the mess it is today!  😞
    • @Dulwichway Absolutely - I'm in no way trying to say that what happened was life-changing. I've encountered way worse situations and think of myself as pretty tough, which is why I took them on and got pelted. I suppose I'm just taken aback because the park always seemed so safe. But the stats I've just posted contradict that.   I suppose the one of the points of this thread is to point out that they weren't just numpty youths - I'd bet money on some of them being involved in more serious criminality. And to tell others to be vigilant. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...