Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
News Kidney Transplant Controller Wants To Distribute Human Organs Based On ‘Equity’
Author Message
CrimsonPhantom Offline
CUSA Curator
*

Posts: 41,340
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 2371
I Root For: NM State
Location:
Post: #1
Kidney Transplant Controller Wants To Distribute Human Organs Based On ‘Equity’
Quote:If someone donates one of their kidneys and later needs a new one, should they go to the top of the transplant waitlist? Yes, say good people. Yes, say normal people. Not anymore, say the bureaucrats in charge of the transplant waitlist. Instead, they say it’s time for a “more equitable approach.”

Currently, the people at the top of the kidney transplant waitlist are people who have donated one of their organs to someone else (living donors), young children who are a great biological match with an organ, and patients who are very hard to be matched with any organ. The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) is a private non-profit that holds a contract with the federal government to run the transplant waitlist, and they want to change that. UNOS wants to remove these “hard boundaries” in favor of a new system that erodes the protections for living donors.

A report commissioned by UNOS envisions a drastic reduction in prioritization for living donors — going from the current virtual guarantee of getting a new kidney to a slight bonus on the waiting list — equivalent to as low as 10 percent of the total prioritization score. This policy would betray those who have already donated an organ and discourage others from donating in the future. They are pushing this policy even though their own research shows that changing from the current policy will not reduce death rates but lead to a higher rate of failed kidney transplants in the first year after surgery.

[Image: chart.png]

Why is UNOS doing this? They cite values such as transparency and equity. Often when people say a policy change is motivated by “equity,” everybody knows exactly what equity means. But for this policy, nobody knows what it means.

This new policy constantly refers to “improvements in equity,” but it’s not clear in what context. You might reasonably guess that this policy is meant to help black patients or other minorities, but the research commissioned to support this policy change shows that transplant rates by race and ethnicity will barely change.

Anything that discourages living kidney donation would be a disaster. Most transplanted organs come from people who agree to donate their organs when they die. You are probably aware of the option to volunteer to donate organs and many people check that option on their driver’s license.

Still, most of these would-be donors don’t actually donate their organs in death, often for logistical reasons. If you die in your sleep, your organs will not be usable when your family finds you in the morning.

That’s why living donors are so important and there are already far too few, especially living kidney donors. More than 90,000 Americans are hoping for a kidney transplant and so are more than 5,000 living kidney donors per year. Virtually everyone in the transplant world at least claims to support increasing living kidney donation, and some leaders have fought for that.

President Trump took steps to reimburse some living organ donors for part of the costs of living organ donation, as did Congress in 2004. But the very group in charge of the waitlist for deceased organs is now working to undermine living organ donation.

While the injustice to living donors is the most obviously wrong part of this proposal, the greatest harm will likely be to people who now don’t get new kidneys because living donation is discouraged. Kidney donors are screened for good health, and very few kidney donors ever actually need a kidney transplant of their own. This makes prioritizing living donors the obviously correct policy. It’s fair to living donors, it encourages living kidney donation, and causes very little competition for the pool of deceased donors with other patients.

When I donated my kidney in 2014, I was definitely reassured by the promise that if I needed a kidney, I wouldn’t have to wait long to get one. After speaking to many people considering donating their own kidney since then, I know how important and reassuring prioritizing living kidney donors is. Search for sites on organ donation and this reassuring promise is constantly repeated. Watering down protections for living donors will reduce living kidney donation.

Past changes to the kidney waiting list have discouraged living kidney donation before. In 2005, a new policy was implemented to move children who needed a kidney up the waitlist. Children got kidneys faster, but the number of living donors donating their kidneys to children fell.

Previously, parents or other relatives might have felt pressured to give their kidney to a young relative. Once they were near-guaranteed a deceased kidney, there was less need to donate. This policy helped kids get kidneys, but increased competition for the pool of kidneys coming from deceased donors.

Reasonable people are likely divided on the question of whether getting sick kids organs faster is worth having fewer living organ donors and a longer waitlist. But on this new proposal, the system would simultaneously be less just to future living organ donors and less effective, by discouraging future living organ donation.

After an online backlash to the proposal, UNOS has backtracked only partially. A spokesperson for UNOS, Anne Pashcke, claimed there had never been any intention for those who had already donated an organ to lose their priority, instead they only intended to minimize the priority for future living donors.

Pashcke added that though “a graphic on our website shows an example of how candidates may be prioritized under the continuous distribution framework, we want to clarify that the scores are placeholders and do not reflect the final points assigned to a patient’s score.”

This is hard to believe. First, the proposal produced by UNOS never mentions this distinction. They literally describe being a prior living donor as a binary condition: you donated or you didn’t. There is no mention of a distinction between those who donated before and after the rule change.

The policy proposal also cites a paper that attempts to estimate the effect of the proposed policy effect which also makes no distinction between past and future donors and envisions that at best 15 percent of the score that would now determine kidney allocation be based upon being a prior living donor.

Most people in the transplant field — surgeons, nurses, donors — are there to save lives. It’s time for UNOS to share that priority. Invocations of “equity” must never be an excuse to abandon living donors or discourage life-saving organ donations.

Link
03-23-2023 11:31 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


shere khan Offline
Southerner
*

Posts: 60,509
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 7458
I Root For: Tulane
Location: Teh transfer portal
Post: #2
RE: Kidney Transplant Controller Wants To Distribute Human Organs Based On ‘Equity’
Prog filth are a cancer on our society
03-23-2023 11:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rath v2.0 Offline
Wartime Consigliere
*

Posts: 51,150
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation: 2150
I Root For: Civil Disobedience
Location: Tip Of The Mitt

Donators
Post: #3
RE: Kidney Transplant Controller Wants To Distribute Human Organs Based On ‘Equity’
It's mental illness.
03-23-2023 12:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #4
RE: Kidney Transplant Controller Wants To Distribute Human Organs Based On ‘Equity’
(03-23-2023 11:31 AM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  
Quote:If someone donates one of their kidneys and later needs a new one, should they go to the top of the transplant waitlist? Yes, say good people. Yes, say normal people. Not anymore, say the bureaucrats in charge of the transplant waitlist. Instead, they say it’s time for a “more equitable approach.”

Currently, the people at the top of the kidney transplant waitlist are people who have donated one of their organs to someone else (living donors), young children who are a great biological match with an organ, and patients who are very hard to be matched with any organ. The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) is a private non-profit that holds a contract with the federal government to run the transplant waitlist, and they want to change that. UNOS wants to remove these “hard boundaries” in favor of a new system that erodes the protections for living donors.

A report commissioned by UNOS envisions a drastic reduction in prioritization for living donors — going from the current virtual guarantee of getting a new kidney to a slight bonus on the waiting list — equivalent to as low as 10 percent of the total prioritization score. This policy would betray those who have already donated an organ and discourage others from donating in the future. They are pushing this policy even though their own research shows that changing from the current policy will not reduce death rates but lead to a higher rate of failed kidney transplants in the first year after surgery.

[Image: chart.png]

Why is UNOS doing this? They cite values such as transparency and equity. Often when people say a policy change is motivated by “equity,” everybody knows exactly what equity means. But for this policy, nobody knows what it means.

This new policy constantly refers to “improvements in equity,” but it’s not clear in what context. You might reasonably guess that this policy is meant to help black patients or other minorities, but the research commissioned to support this policy change shows that transplant rates by race and ethnicity will barely change.

Anything that discourages living kidney donation would be a disaster. Most transplanted organs come from people who agree to donate their organs when they die. You are probably aware of the option to volunteer to donate organs and many people check that option on their driver’s license.

Still, most of these would-be donors don’t actually donate their organs in death, often for logistical reasons. If you die in your sleep, your organs will not be usable when your family finds you in the morning.

That’s why living donors are so important and there are already far too few, especially living kidney donors. More than 90,000 Americans are hoping for a kidney transplant and so are more than 5,000 living kidney donors per year. Virtually everyone in the transplant world at least claims to support increasing living kidney donation, and some leaders have fought for that.

President Trump took steps to reimburse some living organ donors for part of the costs of living organ donation, as did Congress in 2004. But the very group in charge of the waitlist for deceased organs is now working to undermine living organ donation.

While the injustice to living donors is the most obviously wrong part of this proposal, the greatest harm will likely be to people who now don’t get new kidneys because living donation is discouraged. Kidney donors are screened for good health, and very few kidney donors ever actually need a kidney transplant of their own. This makes prioritizing living donors the obviously correct policy. It’s fair to living donors, it encourages living kidney donation, and causes very little competition for the pool of deceased donors with other patients.

When I donated my kidney in 2014, I was definitely reassured by the promise that if I needed a kidney, I wouldn’t have to wait long to get one. After speaking to many people considering donating their own kidney since then, I know how important and reassuring prioritizing living kidney donors is. Search for sites on organ donation and this reassuring promise is constantly repeated. Watering down protections for living donors will reduce living kidney donation.

Past changes to the kidney waiting list have discouraged living kidney donation before. In 2005, a new policy was implemented to move children who needed a kidney up the waitlist. Children got kidneys faster, but the number of living donors donating their kidneys to children fell.

Previously, parents or other relatives might have felt pressured to give their kidney to a young relative. Once they were near-guaranteed a deceased kidney, there was less need to donate. This policy helped kids get kidneys, but increased competition for the pool of kidneys coming from deceased donors.

Reasonable people are likely divided on the question of whether getting sick kids organs faster is worth having fewer living organ donors and a longer waitlist. But on this new proposal, the system would simultaneously be less just to future living organ donors and less effective, by discouraging future living organ donation.

After an online backlash to the proposal, UNOS has backtracked only partially. A spokesperson for UNOS, Anne Pashcke, claimed there had never been any intention for those who had already donated an organ to lose their priority, instead they only intended to minimize the priority for future living donors.

Pashcke added that though “a graphic on our website shows an example of how candidates may be prioritized under the continuous distribution framework, we want to clarify that the scores are placeholders and do not reflect the final points assigned to a patient’s score.”

This is hard to believe. First, the proposal produced by UNOS never mentions this distinction. They literally describe being a prior living donor as a binary condition: you donated or you didn’t. There is no mention of a distinction between those who donated before and after the rule change.

The policy proposal also cites a paper that attempts to estimate the effect of the proposed policy effect which also makes no distinction between past and future donors and envisions that at best 15 percent of the score that would now determine kidney allocation be based upon being a prior living donor.

Most people in the transplant field — surgeons, nurses, donors — are there to save lives. It’s time for UNOS to share that priority. Invocations of “equity” must never be an excuse to abandon living donors or discourage life-saving organ donations.

Link

Its amazing to me just how dumb the Looney Left can be. Frankly, thats where I think we are in the Climate Crisis. Believe what you wish, but when this is all sorted out, my belief is that the "human component" to Global Warming will eventually be found to be almost negligible and that most of any Climate Change was due to factors beyond human control. At least most of the stupidity related to Climate Change isnt likely making Climate Change any worse---but some of these so called "equity based" decisions ARE literally killing people. Something like this donor proposal will result in people dying on the transplant list because fewer kidneys are being donated. Sort of like how "equity in justice" has resulted in more criminals being placed back on the street which has predictably led to more murder victims and crime victims among the same population that "equity" was supposed to help.
(This post was last modified: 03-23-2023 12:38 PM by Attackcoog.)
03-23-2023 12:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fo Shizzle Offline
Pragmatic Classical Liberal
*

Posts: 42,023
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 1206
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina

Balance of Power Contest
Post: #5
RE: Kidney Transplant Controller Wants To Distribute Human Organs Based On ‘Equity’
Clown world on display.
03-23-2023 01:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


TigerBlue4Ever Online
Unapologetic A-hole
*

Posts: 72,340
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 5668
I Root For: yo mama
Location: is everything
Post: #6
RE: Kidney Transplant Controller Wants To Distribute Human Organs Based On ‘Equity’
Y'all know we're moving into that dystopian future we read so much about as youngsters.
03-23-2023 04:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Todor Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,649
Joined: Jan 2019
Reputation: 914
I Root For: New Mexico State
Location:
Post: #7
RE: Kidney Transplant Controller Wants To Distribute Human Organs Based On ‘Equity’
Don’t worry though, this is only for the regular people. The wealthy who either pay to skip the line or buy organs from mysterious sources won’t be affected.
03-23-2023 07:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


rath v2.0 Offline
Wartime Consigliere
*

Posts: 51,150
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation: 2150
I Root For: Civil Disobedience
Location: Tip Of The Mitt

Donators
Post: #8
RE: Kidney Transplant Controller Wants To Distribute Human Organs Based On ‘Equity’
It won't be long before you will have the option on your drivers license to state what color of skin you direct that your organs go to.

I'd add an lol but with how Fuqtarded this country is right now...
03-24-2023 07:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CliftonAve Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 21,880
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 1171
I Root For: Jimmy Nippert
Location:
Post: #9
RE: Kidney Transplant Controller Wants To Distribute Human Organs Based On ‘Equity’
(03-23-2023 07:56 PM)Todor Wrote:  Don’t worry though, this is only for the regular people. The wealthy who either pay to skip the line or buy organs from mysterious sources won’t be affected.

Bingo. Family member and friends of mine who vote straight Democrat say they do it because the Republicans are the party of the rich, but truth be told is they are both for the rich.
03-24-2023 08:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
EigenEagle Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,218
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 643
I Root For: Ga Southern
Location:
Post: #10
RE: Kidney Transplant Controller Wants To Distribute Human Organs Based On ‘Equity’
Unfortunately, you can say race is a social construct until you die from exhaustion but the immune system cares a whole lot about race-dependent factors such as blood type and HLA receptors.
03-24-2023 10:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.