News-Record.com

The North Carolina Piedmont Triad's top go-to source for News

a service of the News & Record, Greensboro, North Carolina

» Home

Letters to the Editor

« Universal health care hardly a kiss of death | Main | Highway’s design changed over time »

Transplants based on value judgments

The following is a Counterpoint:


By David J. Undis

Regarding the editorial about LifeSharers (April 24): You suggest that need should govern who gets transplants. It’s a nice theory, but that’s not how it works in the real world. Organs are allocated based on value judgments that often override need. When the next organ becomes available in the United States, it won’t be given to the person who needs it most.

Instead, it will be given to the person on the waiting list who scores highest on a complex formula that includes things like age, location, race and time spent waiting, as well as need. People who can’t afford to pay for a transplant never even get on the waiting list. So it’s not fair to criticize LifeSharers members for not giving their organs to the people who need them the most.

If you give organs first to registered organ donors, you get more registered organ donors. That saves more lives.

Shouldn’t saving the maximum number of lives be the goal of our transplant system? Anyone who wants to help achieve this goal by donating his or her organs to fellow organ donors is welcome to join LifeSharers at www.lifesharers.org or by calling 1-888-ORGAN88.

You suggest that LifeSharers members not receive organs from non-members. You should apply this logic to the group I call LifeHoarders. Members of this group, which includes half of the U.S. adult population, haven’t agreed to donate their organs when they die. Why not say that LifeHoarders can get organs only from other LifeHoarders?

In other words, why not say that people who haven’t agreed to donate can only get organs from other people who haven’t agreed to donate? It’s actually a great idea. If it was the law of the land, everyone would agree to donate, thousands of lives would be saved every year, and there would be no need for LifeSharers.

By the way, your analogy between blood donation and organ donation is a bad one. There’s no national blood waiting list or blood allocation system, and there aren’t thousands of people dying every year because of blood shortages.

In any event, LifeSharers has never suggested blood be handled the same way as organs.

The writer is executive director, LifeSharers, Nashville, Tenn.

Post a comment

Users who post comments to this blog tacitly agree to observe the News & Record Online Service Terms of Use and Content Submission Agreement. Comments which do not adhere to the terms of this agreement may be removed and the submitter may be banned from further participation. Please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page to report abuse of this feature.

ADVERTISEMENT

Search Jobs by Category

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Search

Channels
Font Size
Tools

submit feedback