My Kidney Challenge

[jayem]

And removing it is taking the life out of it, isn't it?

Of course. And there may be times when that's necessary.

 

[Kylie]

that depends on whether both of us will yield to God's word; if either of us won't, then it wouldn't be a good use of our time - i commit to yield to God's word; will you?

I will yield to the evidence. If the evidence supports the presence of God, I will follow it.

Whaddaya say?

 

[Kylie]

actually, since this is a Christian forum, it will take the topic to the heart of this thread - is there a God who can make kidneys and hearts out of corrupted, dying flesh, or even dust for that matter? is there a God who can provide for single mothers? is there a God who can turn what looks like a curse into a blessing? is there a God who can empower people to do what's impossible for them to do by themselves? isn't that what this thread is really about?

your profile lists you as atheist; is this correct? if so, surely you must realize after being here to post over 2900 times that Christians base their faith on the word of God as found in the Bible; you don't have to believe that the Bible is the word of God (or even that there is a God) to respect the community here and yield to the bible at least as a hypothetical foundation of discussions you participate in as you strive to understand why people would base their lives on words from a book that's thousands of years old. so what about it; do you want to know what the Bible says about sickness and healing? wouldn't the best thing for Sally be for her to receive healing from God directly?

Except that doesn't work, does it?

Would you like a list of all the people who have died after refusing treatment and praying for recovery instead? It will be a very long list because it just doesn't work.

 

[Kylie]

Little bit different, than someone taking one of their organs.

How so?

 

[Kylie]

What are you?

An advocate for duty to rescue laws or something?

I don't think even your Antichrist Lovers Union would support you on this.

They are still responsible for Sally's death.

"I'm sorry, Sally, but the one and only person who can keep you alive is refusing to do so because they don't want to use their body in that way."

 

[Kylie]

100%----20 years of being a dialysis tech--I heard many who would say they would rather die than go on dialysis---100% of them went on it. It depends on the options---death or dialysis is often the only option. Due to other medical issues such as age, heart conditions and so on that make a transplant impossible. Plus--a transplant can take a very long time to get in order to get the right matches, sometimes years, and in the meantime they have to go on dialysis. There are 2 different kinds of dialysis, one is the blood method where you go on a machine that cleans the blood, the other is through the peritoneum, a fluid is used in the abdominal cavity that does the job, that involves going on a machine during the night or can be done manually several times a day. (The simple explanation). Some have chosen to come off dialysis and die due to impending death from something else (like cancer) some find it too much and choose to just eat everything they shouldn't and cause a heart attack (very easily done, every patient knows what to do) or just choose to not come in for their treatments.
A transplant is not a guarantee, even if it does work, that it will continue to function for the rest of your life (we all do eventually die sometime)--I've seen them fail after a few days, even after 20 years. Many would rather go on dialysis rather than have anyone give them a kidney. I personally would never accept one from any live donor, only a cadaver donor. And with all my medical issues now--not even that. I may go on the peritoneal dialysis, but doubt even that---for me--I'm in pain 24/7--have no wish to prolong my life.

So you are saying that the majority of patients would rather stay on dialysis than have a kidney transplant?

Because you seemed to be talking about dialysis or death. So I hope you aren't trying to shift the goalposts there.

 

[bhsmte]

How so?

Do you lose vital organs when you are pregnant?

 

[mmksparbud]

What I said is--sometimes those are the only 2 options. Not everyone is able to withstand the transplant operation--it's not like removing a wart. On rare occasions, if the inevitability of kidney failure is noticed, arrangements for a live donor can be made ahead of time--but it is very rare. Usually, the kidneys stop functioning, you have to have immediate dialysis, then arrangements are started for the possibility of a transplant. You're talking strictly hypothetical and it just doesn't work that way. Going on dialysis is not a death sentence. I've known patients on it for over 35-40 years. Is it fun? NO! It changes every aspect of your life. And a lot depends on what else is wrong with you. If it's just the kidneys, nothing else is wrong with you, then you can last a long time--if you've got a lot of other problems, the options aren't always so cut and dried as dialysis or transplant. Quite often it's dialysis or death. The operation is much more successful than it used to be, but it is still major surgery, and you can die on the table--either the recipient or the donor. You seem to think transplant is the only solution.
What is your point to all this???

 

[nightflight]

There is a little girl, named Sally. She needs a kidney transplant or she will die.

Do I have the right to force you to give up one of your kidneys to save her life?

I'll do it for twenty thousand dollars.

 

[AV1611VET]

They are still responsible for Sally's death.

I have to admit, you take socialism to the extreme.

 

[blackribbon]

The OP's point is a valid one, and was discussed in an earlier thread touching on fetal personhood. I'm sure you realize that a fetus is physiologically dependent on the mother's body in a way that a newborn baby is not. A newborn really doesn't require its birth mother at all. It can thrive under any caregiver who will provide proper nutrition and nurturing. But a fetus is an obligate symbiote--it can only survive by using the body of one specific host--its mother. And the OP is raising the ethical issues of autonomy and consent. As a medical provider, you also must know that in most situations, an adult person of sound mind is presumed to have autonomy over his/her body and must give consent for how his/her body will be used. Yes, there are exceptions. And the crucial corollary issue is whether becoming pregnant is such an exception. My personal view is a compromise. Until a fetus is naturally viable (24 weeks), the mother's right to consent to the pregnancy takes precedence. After that, the continued gestation of the fetus overrides her autonomy.

I used to believe this argument too but it is really just a developmental issue and not really a true symbiotic relationship because it eventually grows out of the dependent stage. The age that a human can survive outside the mother keeps dropping and dropping...I don't think it will ever get to zero but what was considered unable to survive without the mother only 20 years ago, isn't true anymore. It isn't a hard and fast number. So how do you determine when a fetus becomes a human if it isn't human from the moment of conception? And really, an infant is a completely dependent on others to exist even if it is no longer the birth mother...so are brain damaged people and often geriatric people...we don't say they cease to be human because they are dependent creatures. And to say a fetus isn't a human is like saying a tadpole isn't a frog...it is just a developmental stage of being a frog...but it is still 100% "frog". We don't start out "non-human" and suddenly become human at birth...we are human from the moment of conception...the DNA does not change so the genetic makeup is the same as it will be the day the body dies (assuming no weird genetic mutating experience like radiation exposure). What does it take to qualify a human as a human? I say it is the combination of genetic makeup and life...which a fetus has both. Until you show me a human who has given birth to anything but a human, ... so say a dog or even a monkey... I say a baby is full human at the point it starts living and can't be anything but a human. The definition of something having "life" is capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death...all things that mean a fetus is a fully living creature.

 

[blackribbon]

If they want an abortion and are denied one, then they are being forced to use their body in a way they do not want. And they have to live with the consequences of that for the rest of their lives.

No, they are only suffering from the "disease" of being pregnant for nine months (not a long time in comparison to most medical diagnoses). It is acute and completely curable and an easily preventable condition. It is something she actively participated in risky behavior to acquire. To take a kidney from some stranger who never even met the little girl is not the same as the woman who actively chose to engaged in the behavior that caused the pregnancy.

 

[blackribbon]

Hooked up to a machine all her life? Would you want to live like that? WHy do you think the demand for kidney donations is so high? because long term dialysis isn't a very practical option.

You obviously know nothing about dialysis (or transplants). You don't stay hooked up to the machine and there are forms of dialysis that can be done at home while you sleep (and we all do still sleep). People who do get transplants have a lot of medical issues and are very dependent on anti-rejection medications for the remainder of their lives. I had one kidney transplant patient literally tell me he wished he didn't have one and had stuck with dialysis...it was easier. I also know some transplant recipients who are happy with their new status even with the complicated medical issues. I don't know that I would opt for the transplant over dialysis personally after caring for both. I think I would really lean toward peritoneal dialysis in the privacy of my own home.

People can live without any kidneys w/ dialysis treatments...it isn't the same as heart failure which you can't live without. I am also learning that you can live without a stomach, without a bladder, without an anus, without colon, without most of your small intestines, without one lung, without any reproductive organs, without your lungs being attached to your mouth and upper respiratory system, without an esophagus, without a gallbladder, without spleen....and probably a number of other organs that I will eventually meet people living amazingly fairly healthy lives without...

 

[mmksparbud]

A dialyzed a baby that weighed 3 lbs--and most of that was water, it was bloated. It was a preemie that wouldn't have survived 10 min. a few years before.. You could hold it in one hand. I had to try to not look at it when working on it or I would have ended up crying, just focused on what I had to do. So little, all those tubes going into it. It took everything I had to keep myself under control. It was too young for it's kidneys to function. I've seen bigger puppies. It did live. I believe it was 4 mths premature.

 

[blackribbon]

If the only person who can donate a kidney and save Sally's life refuses to do so, they are sacrificing Sally's life, aren't they?

Try again.

Sally is dying because of a defective kidney ( and some strange adversion to getting dialysis treatments ). She isn't dying because some stranger isn't willing to give up his good health to give her a chance at semi-good health (no guarantee that the transplant will take). He potentially has the ability to improve her life ( assuming that a transplant will do that ) but that is not the same as causing her to die. By your standard that not giving is the same as killing, if we aren't donating blood every 8 weeks, we are potentially killing people on a daily basis....(blood donation is totally safe for the donor and it does save lives daily)....or if I have two apples and keep two apples while some child on the other side of town has none, I am at fault for his death of malnutrition.

 

[jayem]

I used to believe this argument too but it is really just a developmental issue and not really a true symbiotic relationship because it eventually grows out of the dependent stage. The age that a human can survive outside the mother keeps dropping and dropping...I don't think it will ever get to zero but what was considered unable to survive without the mother only 20 years ago, isn't true anymore. It isn't a hard and fast number. So how do you determine when a fetus becomes a human if it isn't human from the moment of conception? And really, an infant is a completely dependent on others to exist even if it is no longer the birth mother...so are brain damaged people and often geriatric people...we don't say they cease to be human because they are dependent creatures. And to say a fetus isn't a human is like saying a tadpole isn't a frog...it is just a developmental stage of being a frog...but it is still 100% "frog". We don't start out "non-human" and suddenly become human at birth...we are human from the moment of conception...the DNA does not change so the genetic makeup is the same as it will be the day the body dies (assuming no weird genetic mutating experience like radiation exposure). What does it take to qualify a human as a human? I say it is the combination of genetic makeup and life...which a fetus has both. Until you show me a human who has given birth to anything but a human, ... so say a dog or even a monkey... I say a baby is full human at the point it starts living and can't be anything but a human. The definition of something having "life" is capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death...all things that mean a fetus is a fully living creature.

You're talking philosophy. I'm talking legality. Specifically, when does a human fetus have legal rights independent of its mother--when is it a person in the legal sense? Firstly, and obviously, a fetus becomes a person when it's born--whenever that occurs. But if still in utero, it becomes a person when it's naturally viable. (Which is the term I used in my post.) This is the earliest developmental age when it could survive outside the womb without needing high-tech life support. Or in other words, when nature has prepared it to breathe on its own, take oral nutrition, and survive with the usual care given to any other newborn. And if you go back to the old neonatal literature, before the days of ventilators, lung surfactant, and total parenteral nutrition, a preemie born at 24 weeks had just over a 50% chance of survival. I choose this point to avoid the very situation you mentioned. Natural viability is pretty much physiologically fixed. It won't be a moving target, as neonatal intensive care advances. And as I said, the 24 week threshold only applies in utero. Once born, it has full legal rights just like any other baby, no matter how premature, or how much life support it needs. Sure, this is arbitrary, but so what? Many laws make arbitrary distinctions. It's a matter of practical necessity. The real question should be if this is reasonable and fair. I think it is. It's a sensible compromise that balances the mother's ability to decide how her uterus and organ systems will be used, with a fetus's interest in an uninterrupted gestation. And it's not any more arbitrary than claiming that a zygote--a single cell--has rights that supercede those of its mother.

 

[blackribbon]

And how many of the people on dialysis think that it's the best option?

https://www.kidney.org/transplantation/transaction/TC/summer09/TCsm09_TransplantFails

 

[blackribbon]

You're talking philosophy. I'm talking legality. Specifically, when does a human fetus have legal rights independent of its mother--when is it a person in the legal sense? Firstly, and obviously, a fetus becomes a person when it's born--whenever that occurs. But if still in utero, it becomes a person when it's naturally viable. (Which is the term I used in my post.) This is the earliest developmental age when it could survive outside the womb without needing high-tech life support. Or in other words, when nature has prepared it to breathe on its own, take oral nutrition, and survive with the usual care given to any other newborn. And if you go back to the old neonatal literature, before the days of ventilators, lung surfactant, and total parenteral nutrition, a preemie born at 24 weeks had just over a 50% chance of survival. I choose this point to avoid the very situation you mentioned. Natural viability is pretty much physiologically fixed. It won't be a moving target, as neonatal intensive care advances. And as I said, the 24 week threshold only applies in utero. Once born, it has full legal rights just like any other baby, no matter how premature, or how much life support it needs. Sure, this is arbitrary, but so what? Many laws make arbitrary distinctions. It's a matter of practical necessity. The real question should be if this is reasonable and fair. I think it is. It's a sensible compromise that balances the mother's ability to decide how her uterus and organ systems will be used, with a fetus's interest in an uninterrupted gestation. And it's not any more arbitrary than claiming that a zygote--a single cell--has rights that supercede those of its mother.

Oh, you never said LEGALLY....okay 38 states have laws protecting the rights of fetuses and 23 of them include gestational stages as early as conception. So in these states, fetuses are recognized as human people.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

Ironically, the mother is the only one allowed to legally kill an unborn child and not call it some sort of manslaughter or murder....

 

[Kylie]

Do you lose vital organs when you are pregnant?

If you can survive without it, I wouldn't exactly cal it "vital". Sure it impacts on your life, but hey, so does pregnancy.

 

[Kylie]

I'll do it for twenty thousand dollars.

Saving someone's life isn't enough for you? I can see the generosity there!

And if a woman says she will forgo the abortion if she gets $20,000, what do you think of that?