« New article up on KidneyTimes | Main | Recipe for those on dialysis, and those diabetic and on dialysis »

March 22, 2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Mishy

I am still quite upset about this article... It is totally misleading.. Maybe it's not right that some people are inactive for 2 years.. but they may have had a serious problem and are not completely ready for a transplant.. but that still doesn't change the need.. they make it seem like inactive people are "baggage" I agree if they just keep them on the list knowing they are not going to be eligible.. then those people should not be on it.. but what difference does it make?! whether the number is 50,000 or 90,000 .. these people have set the whole organ need cause wayy back..

I wish these people were on our side of the issue.. I want them to feel and see how agonizing the whole thing is.. It makes me upset that people will take this and think "I don't want to give my organs because the system isn't fair" .. personally I do not understand what difference does this make?.. this whole article was just a "hype" thing.. It's like they couldn't find anything better to write about... what about talking about the heprin situation?

I just hope that people know better than take this stuff for real..

But again... maybe I'm taking it this personally because I'm on the other side of it and have a "biased" opinion.

Bill Peckham

I don't think asking for the program to be described in exact and transparent terms - so that the meaning of the numbers are correctly understood by all - will set the rate of donation back. Mishy, I think you're right that this bit of news doesn’t help, but if people don't have confidence in the program or the numbers is that the fault of the people, the program, or the messenger? I don't think it's the messenger or the people's fault.

And after reading Micheal's take I think that if the numbers do matter to someone they should be given numbers that are exact and transparent. They might not matter to you or me but they do matter; they should mean what people think they mean.

The article could have explored the impact further. I think it is the wait times that drive agressive donation campaigns and appeals, not the size of the list.

The larger question is how aggressive of an approach should should we take in appealing for living donation? For cadaveric donation? How many additional donors would there be under an opt out system? How many more donors would there be if lost wages and/or transportation expenses were reimbursed?

Mishy

maybe you're are right Mr.Peckham.. number mean alot.. But they have no concept of the inactive status.. They are judging something they do not understand.. if they complained about how many people are on the list and not enough donors and maybe try to put the same impact..just in a more positive light..like talking about the realities of organ harvesting.. the idea that people think that a doctor will kill someone for their body parts.. but they chose to go in a negative direction.. they decided to make the our side "guilty" ..they chose it focus on something they do not understand.

Even if I can understand the whole inaccurate number thing..there are still thousands of people waiting for organs. and fact is we are still always short.. and people still die. For these people to write about how "unfair" it is..I'm sorry.. but It's unfair for someone having to go and endure hours of dialysis.. in pain. It's all unfair.. but for them to point out this small 'unfairness" is just plain mean. There are far more unfair things to worry about..
.. I am still a little hurt by the article..it hits to close to home..

The comments to this entry are closed.

2 sen logo

Search SEN


  • WWW
    WWW.BILLPECKHAM.COM

SEN in the Press

WKD March 8, 2018

  • WorldKidneyDay 2011

June 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Blog powered by Typepad