Hi there...

I totally support everything SUSEONLINE has said herein. A very close American friend of mine's daughter, has recently had a kidney transplant, just as well, she was heading down hill very rapidly indeed ! Provided the transplantation is for the purpose of saving a life, well any moral issue surely must come second ?

What I am very annoyed about though, I offered any of my own 'unique' organs if needed, as well as my entire body after death to science ! You know the 'buggers' merely laughed, and declined any and all of my most gracious (I thought?) offers, directing me instead, to some way off province in old Europe called Transylvania ? A largish area I understand, located in the NW region of that slavic nation of Romania ?

They sure know how to hurt a guy !

I have no problem with organ transplants, particularly the more simple ones, like liver & kidney, which do appear to return many to a full & useful lifestyle. Some of the more exotic like heart/lung appear to have less useful results.

However if it means that many are waiting much longer for more simple, but critical surgery due to budgetary restraints I am not so much in agreement.

When we hear of some getting their second & even third organ, when others wait years for a gallstone operation, I'm more in favour of the effort being spread, rather than concentrated.

The most important aspect of refining treatments either by medical equipments or by innovative surgical techniques is the neglect of aetiological enquiry. Doctors spend time and energy to come out with sophisticated machinery and techniques because it is the most rewarding. Because of this tendency, doctors and researchers spend very little to unravel the aetiological aspects of diseases, which alone can help in the prevention of diseases. This is a serious matter which many do not understand. Let the society not be trigger happy.

I hardly think that taking the heart from a dead donor threatens that donor's life.
Where a living donor of an organ that they can live without is voluntary then the practice is ethical.

I also wish to state my agreement with you, Suse.

Just because they can do it, does not mean it is ethical to do it.

After 3 heart attacks, 2 due to poor medical practice, my heart & lungs have some damage. A heart lung transplant may extend my life, however I am past my three score years plus ten, & can see absolutely no reason why the taxpayer should spend a million dollars or more on doing that for me.

I can see no reason why they should do it for anyone who is not young enough for restored productivity to repay the cost to society. It should never be an option to expect transplant surgery simply because you are old & clapped out. I believe you are only entitled to some very expensive procedures if you have earned the money to pay for them yourself.

I also question the ethics of surgeons with expensive treatments of doubtful benefit to the patient. When my mother was 96 surgeons wanted to undertake serious work on her. Research told us that with older patients, the bedridden recovery time was so great that most older patients did not regain the use of their legs, & were never able walk again. My mother's last 3 years were better for not undergoing that operation.

Hasbeen,
I dunno mate, if I needed a heart/lung transplant, and I am about your age, I would not object if they wanted to experiment on me. What they learn may help some young person later on.

Better to experiment on an old codger like me than try something new on a young bloke. But I take your point that if they are not going to learn anything, why bother.

I now would not accept treatment if cancer was diagnosed.