Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Medical Xpress)   New liver organ policy has Kentuckians, Curtisians up a creek   (medicalxpress.com) divider line
    More: Scary, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Federal government of the United States, United States, Association of American Universities, Rural, Mitch McConnell, federal policy, Emory University  
•       •       •

671 clicks; posted to Geek » on 25 Feb 2020 at 12:05 PM (18 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



19 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-02-25 10:57:53 AM  
FTFA   "Kentucky, as so many of us know, has a higher mortality rate for chronic liver disease such as cirrhosis than the national average."

So what is the problem?
 
2020-02-25 11:50:21 AM  
This is trying to correct a problem of disproportionate organs distribution, so naturally KY's numbers are going to decrease since we can't legislate new livers. There's a reason Steve Jobs got his liver transplant done in Tennessee instead of Stanford or UCSF, both in his own backyard in California.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/Economy​/​story?id=7902416&page=1
 
2020-02-25 12:20:44 PM  
The idea was to create a policy that ensured more critically ill patients (within 500 nautical miles) received access to livers, rather than the patients in closer proximity.

That really isn't helping me understand and as best I can tell, that's the only explanation of the policy in the entire article. But apparently it's wrong to save more people when you could save fewer people but save on travel costs or something. Authors would prefer the a liver policy designed like the Electoral College.
 
2020-02-25 12:33:26 PM  

edmo: it's wrong to save more people when you could save fewer people but save on travel costs or something.


The life or death nature of transplants makes the ethical calculations complex. Imagine finding that your neighbor's liver was shipped out of state when your kid has been on a waiting list for years.
The real focus and effort should be on recruiting more living donors. If you need an organ and rope a donor into the process, there is no wait list and there is no allocation decision./ Kidney donor
 
2020-02-25 12:38:24 PM  

Well....Alrighty....Then: FTFA   "Kentucky, as so many of us know, has a higher mortality rate for chronic liver disease such as cirrhosis than the national average."

So what is the problem?


The authors are involved with the University of Kentucky's liver-transplant program, which will lose both revenue and publicity if donor livers are allocated more efficiently.
 
2020-02-25 12:45:47 PM  

edmo: The idea was to create a policy that ensured more critically ill patients (within 500 nautical miles) received access to livers, rather than the patients in closer proximity.

That really isn't helping me understand and as best I can tell, that's the only explanation of the policy in the entire article. But apparently it's wrong to save more people when you could save fewer people but save on travel costs or something. Authors would prefer the a liver policy designed like the Electoral College.


The article is very thin on details of the policy and how it differs from the status quo.  There are some clues, though:

sent to larger inner-city medical centers
dominated by officials from large urban, coastal areas


Anybody want to guess how much of the problem is that it's those urban types that would be receiving transplants?  You know, inner-city sort of people?
 
2020-02-25 12:51:22 PM  

Professor Science: edmo: The idea was to create a policy that ensured more critically ill patients (within 500 nautical miles) received access to livers, rather than the patients in closer proximity.

That really isn't helping me understand and as best I can tell, that's the only explanation of the policy in the entire article. But apparently it's wrong to save more people when you could save fewer people but save on travel costs or something. Authors would prefer the a liver policy designed like the Electoral College.

The article is very thin on details of the policy and how it differs from the status quo.  There are some clues, though:

sent to larger inner-city medical centers
dominated by officials from large urban, coastal areas

Anybody want to guess how much of the problem is that it's those urban types that would be receiving transplants?  You know, inner-city sort of people?


Actually someone up a thread is right, that ultimately it's because it will adversely affect the article writer / University. However they are appealing to racism because that will rule people up more than simply complaining about the transplant rules in general.

Personally this is a public heath crisis, and we need a "Manhattan Project" to come up with a way to artificially grow replacement organs. That way if someone needs a transplant, they get a newly grown replacement in a few months rather than sitting on a transplant list for years. Will it cost a lot of money? Fark yes, that's why I said "Manhattan Project" because think of cost in similar terms.
 
2020-02-25 1:04:49 PM  
Perhaps if they would lay off the moonshine they would have happier livers
 
2020-02-25 1:06:50 PM  
They can have my liver when they pry it from my cold, dead body!

Seriously.  They can have it.  I signed my drivers license and everything.
 
2020-02-25 1:08:18 PM  

jaytkay: edmo: it's wrong to save more people when you could save fewer people but save on travel costs or something.

The life or death nature of transplants makes the ethical calculations complex. Imagine finding that your neighbor's liver was shipped out of state when your kid has been on a waiting list for years.
The real focus and effort should be on recruiting more living donors. If you need an organ and rope a donor into the process, there is no wait list and there is no allocation decision./ Kidney donor


[Sudden knock on door]
 
2020-02-25 1:17:12 PM  
sent to larger inner-city medical centers
dominated by officials from large urban, coastal areas

Anybody want to guess how much of the problem is that it's those urban types that would be receiving transplants?  You know, inner-city sort of people?


Librulz are stealin' our livers and giving them to THOSE people?

BTW, livers are an organ that living people can donate; the process takes about 1/3 of your liver.  I'm not sure if the donor's liver gradually grows back or stays smaller, but it's an option.
 
2020-02-25 1:17:38 PM  

Professor Science: edmo: The idea was to create a policy that ensured more critically ill patients (within 500 nautical miles) received access to livers, rather than the patients in closer proximity.

That really isn't helping me understand and as best I can tell, that's the only explanation of the policy in the entire article. But apparently it's wrong to save more people when you could save fewer people but save on travel costs or something. Authors would prefer the a liver policy designed like the Electoral College.

The article is very thin on details of the policy and how it differs from the status quo.  There are some clues, though:

sent to larger inner-city medical centers
dominated by officials from large urban, coastal areas

Anybody want to guess how much of the problem is that it's those urban types that would be receiving transplants?  You know, inner-city sort of people?


Don't forget those coastal elites, they're getting called out too.
 
2020-02-25 2:06:00 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: Well....Alrighty....Then: FTFA   "Kentucky, as so many of us know, has a higher mortality rate for chronic liver disease such as cirrhosis than the national average."

So what is the problem?

The authors are involved with the University of Kentucky's liver-transplant program, which will lose both revenue and publicity if donor livers are allocated more efficiently.


Good point. I only support transplant programs where the surgeons and everybody else work for free. Their equipment is limited to whatever the good-hearted locals drop off at the Goodwill.

When money is involved how can it be as pure and perfect as myself?
 
2020-02-25 2:58:38 PM  
Um, doesn't have a bad liver due to alcohol abuse automatically disqualify you from getting one now a days?
 
2020-02-25 3:14:30 PM  

jaytkay: common sense is an oxymoron: Well....Alrighty....Then: FTFA   "Kentucky, as so many of us know, has a higher mortality rate for chronic liver disease such as cirrhosis than the national average."

So what is the problem?

The authors are involved with the University of Kentucky's liver-transplant program, which will lose both revenue and publicity if donor livers are allocated more efficiently.

Good point. I only support transplant programs where the surgeons and everybody else work for free. Their equipment is limited to whatever the good-hearted locals drop off at the Goodwill.

When money is involved how can it be as pure and perfect as myself?


Sorry, but I couldn't hear any altruism over the dog whistle.
 
2020-02-25 6:46:06 PM  
If only there was some sort of service, dedicated to the health of citizens in your nation. Unfortunately that's the work of commies, so suck it up and get dying.
 
2020-02-25 7:28:33 PM  

Muzzleloader: Um, doesn't have a bad liver due to alcohol abuse automatically disqualify you from getting one now a days?


It puts you at the bottom of the list.  If they have a liver, it will go into somebody.

I'm guessing this policy was to address the issue that larger cities have a larger pool of compatible people for any given liver so the odds of it working are better.  I'm not sure that is true since small rural areas tend to be genetically less diverse.  Young motorhead bubba is much more likely to be a good match for bubba the drunk in a small town since they may share great-great grandparents.
 
2020-02-26 12:15:51 AM  

inglixthemad: Professor Science: edmo: The idea was to create a policy that ensured more critically ill patients (within 500 nautical miles) received access to livers, rather than the patients in closer proximity.

That really isn't helping me understand and as best I can tell, that's the only explanation of the policy in the entire article. But apparently it's wrong to save more people when you could save fewer people but save on travel costs or something. Authors would prefer the a liver policy designed like the Electoral College.

The article is very thin on details of the policy and how it differs from the status quo.  There are some clues, though:

sent to larger inner-city medical centers
dominated by officials from large urban, coastal areas

Anybody want to guess how much of the problem is that it's those urban types that would be receiving transplants?  You know, inner-city sort of people?

Actually someone up a thread is right, that ultimately it's because it will adversely affect the article writer / University. However they are appealing to racism because that will rule people up more than simply complaining about the transplant rules in general.

Personally this is a public heath crisis, and we need a "Manhattan Project" to come up with a way to artificially grow replacement organs. That way if someone needs a transplant, they get a newly grown replacement in a few months rather than sitting on a transplant list for years. Will it cost a lot of money? Fark yes, that's why I said "Manhattan Project" because think of cost in similar terms.


Just make organ donation opt out rather than opt in.  Boom, organ supply nearly doubles overnight for $0.
 
2020-02-26 3:06:42 PM  

RogermcAllen: inglixthemad: Professor Science: edmo: The idea was to create a policy that ensured more critically ill patients (within 500 nautical miles) received access to livers, rather than the patients in closer proximity.

That really isn't helping me understand and as best I can tell, that's the only explanation of the policy in the entire article. But apparently it's wrong to save more people when you could save fewer people but save on travel costs or something. Authors would prefer the a liver policy designed like the Electoral College.

The article is very thin on details of the policy and how it differs from the status quo.  There are some clues, though:

sent to larger inner-city medical centers
dominated by officials from large urban, coastal areas

Anybody want to guess how much of the problem is that it's those urban types that would be receiving transplants?  You know, inner-city sort of people?

Actually someone up a thread is right, that ultimately it's because it will adversely affect the article writer / University. However they are appealing to racism because that will rule people up more than simply complaining about the transplant rules in general.

Personally this is a public heath crisis, and we need a "Manhattan Project" to come up with a way to artificially grow replacement organs. That way if someone needs a transplant, they get a newly grown replacement in a few months rather than sitting on a transplant list for years. Will it cost a lot of money? Fark yes, that's why I said "Manhattan Project" because think of cost in similar terms.

Just make organ donation opt out rather than opt in.  Boom, organ supply nearly doubles overnight for $0.


I'll go along with that but it is still not enough in the short, or long, term for many organs. L

Not to mention if we did fund a "Manhattan Project" focused on growing new organs the dividends would continue in the transplant person's life in other ways. Now, to be clear, I'm talking about using the recipient's own DNA to grow the replacement. This might mean fixing something with DNA editing the organ, but first I'd say to just get lab grown organs out of theory and into production. New hearts for heart attack patients, or accident victims. Once that is done, work on finding the triggers in DNA to flip so that defects in the organ can be corrected before being fully grown.

This will be expensive. The advantage of not needing anti-rejection meds would be huge as well. This would be worth every single penny.
 
Displayed 19 of 19 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter




In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.