The Hidden Cost of Donating an Organ

[Karol]

Opinion
The Hidden Cost of Donating an Organ
After donating a life-giving kidney, Julie's niece was denied medical coverage.
16 Comments

My husband was only 29 when we found out he needed a kidney transplant. We had been married less than three years and we had just celebrated Gabrielle’s first birthday.

The news was shocking. Two months later, racked with fear and confusion, we were thrust into a whirlwind of doctor's appointments, therapy sessions, surgery and dialysis.

Members of our family were tested as they volunteered their organ to save my husband’s life. Fortunately, my husband’s brother was a match. We were spared the agony of waiting for another human being to meet a tragic end.

After seven years this new kidney began to fail.

Why? There can be so many causes. Drugs used to fight rejection can actually damage the kidney that is keeping you alive. Or your own body simply refuses to accept the foreign entity.

We were once again put on a path for a kidney transplant. This kidney came from my sister’s daughter.

My niece had been living with us for a few years while she finished college at Cal State Fullerton. Turns out she shared my husband's blood type.

She volunteered without hesitation and against the wishes of some family members. She would not be deterred. Her courage and determination for her purpose humbled me. My husband is not her blood relative and she owed us nothing.

She told me in a quiet moment that she wasn’t doing it for me or for my husband. "I’m doing it for the kids because I can’t imagine my life without my father."

As we all waited at the hospital for the surgeries to be over I was filled with fear. I couldn’t bear to lose either one of these people. I refused to believe that such a wonderful gift would be met with the unthinkable.

The usually stoic transplant surgeon came out to update us on the outcome. He was beaming.

“Do you know what an incredible gift this girl has given?” Of course we did.

“Are you sure she is not a blood relative?” Yes, of course we were sure.

“This girl’s kidney is a one-in-3-million match for tissue type and antigen. You don’t see these kinds of matches in non relatives!” He could not have been more impressed and awestruck. He still talks about it, eight years later.

The same month that my niece donated her kidney she turned 25. She had passed the age in which she could continue to stay on her parents' health care plan.

She was denied coverage by every health care insurance company we called because she had the audacity to save someone else’s life.

Your thoughts? Tell us in the comments.

COMMENTS (16)

KC
7:26pm on Friday, July 29, 2011
I wonder if the same goes for things like bone marrow since it's still somewhat invasive but not full organ.

Log in to reply

 
Julie Flores
8:01pm on Friday, July 29, 2011
That's a good question KC. I am not familiar with bone marrow transplants so I am afraid I cannot speak to that.

 
Shripathi Kamath
8:11pm on Friday, July 29, 2011
This is hard to discuss without putting a monetary value on a life. Putting a monetary value on a life is also hard to discuss, because it is a charged subject. So unless someone is willing to entertain a thought realizing that doing so is not tantamount to accepting it, I'll offer something less (hopefully) dispassionate:

If it is acceptable to our society to deny healthcare coverage and continuing life to its people, it should be legal for people to sell their body and their body parts to the highest bidder.

I see canceling effects at some level. So for example, if a wealthy person needs a kidney, she should get it after bidding for it on an auction. Instead of donating organs, one should be able to sell them to whoever post-death so that they may enjoy life while they are alive.

Yes, I realize that this can lead to crimes of forced organ donation. Well, deal with those as illegal acts.

Callous enough a start, Julie?

Log in to reply


KC
8:29pm on Friday, July 29, 2011
Not for the government who (depending on the agency) will put a range of 5-10 million, depending on the age as well.

There are some quasi legal ways to "sell" your body parts, just like selling a baby. But they have to jump through a lot of hoops to disguise the transactions.


 
Julie Flores
8:31pm on Friday, July 29, 2011
Changing organ donation to organ selling is not the solution. The problem is "for-profit" healthcare, plain and simple.

Maybe some are sick of hearing it from me but I will beat this drum until this country starts valuing it's citizens over profits or until the day I die. We know which one will happen first.


 
Shripathi Kamath
8:34pm on Friday, July 29, 2011
Let's make that "limited government" thingy work, and get all that deregulated or free-marketed.

Let's make it totally legal.

Suppose I have a failing heart, and my life can be prolonged by some treatment for five years. Say it costs me $1,000,000 to get those five years. If I can sell my kidneys, my liver, and some other parts of my body for say $1,250,000 to Steve Jobs, for example, why not? My family will not be burdened with my treatment or death, and everyone is happy.


 
Julie Flores
8:39pm on Friday, July 29, 2011
Shri, you know as well as I do who loses when one has to purchase organs to stay alive. If you can't pay for the meds you certainly can't pay for the organ.



KC
8:44pm on Friday, July 29, 2011
SK that is sort of already going on.

A few years back sites came up (not for-profit just organ flat trades) where people and hospitals orchestrated mass "transplant trades" between people so that they could get more people off the donor list.


 
Shripathi Kamath
8:55pm on Friday, July 29, 2011
AH, but Steve Jobs gets a liver transplant for peanuts. I think that if the lives of rich people are worth more than that of poor people, they should show that by paying more than that of poor people.

Legally.

Let's rewind to the time before the transplant, and say that Jobs also needs a kidney.

For example, if Julie's niece (sorry to use her as a scapegoat for my example), were to sell her kidney and say Steve Jobs wanted it. Time is short.

I say she should be able to ask for 21,000,000 for one her kidneys. Jobs will pay, and everyone's happy. She could then give a 1,000,000 to Julie's hubby, and use the rest for herself. Perhaps to buy health insurance. Julie's hubby could buy it cheaper since he is no Steve Jobs, and we are all happy.

The rich pay their fair share. Socialists are happy.
The free market wins. Capitalists are happy.

What exactly would be wrong?


 
Shripathi Kamath
9:09pm on Friday, July 29, 2011
Lemme sweeten the pot with this prediction. If Steve Jobs has to pay 21,000,000 for a kidney, one can see that artificial kidneys will be cloned quite rapidly. Guess what that'd mean? Cheaper cures, and gradual elimination of many costlier treatments.

The rich will have an incentive.

Seriously, I think this is a great idea.



KC
9:14pm on Friday, July 29, 2011
SK, you are over thinking it, we don't need man-made organs, we have a giant bank of organs just waiting for your money, it's called China! According to reports (hard to confirm since it's China and the government) prisons can be used as organ farms and taking into account the judicial system there, they will never be out of spare parts for you to choose from.


 
Rebecca Goddard
12:51am on Saturday, July 30, 2011
I think insurance reform is absolutely necessary. Having dealt with it a lot recently due to cancer and Autism, our insurance system needs to be much different than it is.

I am sorry your family has to go through this trying ordeal Julie.

 
Shripathi Kamath
8:46pm on Friday, July 29, 2011
I understand. Here's the situation though.

Your niece cannot get healthcare coverage.
There is significant unwillingness or indifference or plain inability for society to get her that.
X happens
Your nice has healthcare coverage

Now, the problem as I see it is to explore what X can or should be. Who pays, how much, etc.

We can all lament how bad the other things on the list are or how good it will be, but we already kinda know that, right?

Which is why I am try to explore what *can* be done.

For example, someone can suggest that insurance companies MUST be required to carry all people. An insurance company decides that their profit margins are not worth the risk and quits the business. If they do not, *someone* has to pay more. Well, who? How are we going to get someone to pay more? Those are questions someone who advocates that strategy will have to explain.

Log in to reply

Jim
8:51pm on Friday, July 29, 2011
We are entering an era when the aging population will require greater and greater commitment of resources to health care. A health care system based on the idea that each individual should have access to quality medical care is what we should have. We can discuss the level of guaranteed care and how it is to be paid for but we should not have a system that allows profit to enter the picture. This country spends more per capita on health care than any nation on the planet. Our outcomes are not the best. Spending our health care money on ourselves in an efficient manner will benefit all of us greatly.

Log in to reply


KC
8:56pm on Friday, July 29, 2011
But at the same time can't it be argued that while we spend the most (at least going off the older stats) it doesn't actually increase our life expectancy and that other counters have greater quality of life ratings with lower costs make the entire price point a trivial one?

We are the country that can charge a patient $18 for a dose (not a bottle) of asprin. Just becuase it costs more doesn't make it better or even good.


luzouzts
10:31pm on Friday, July 29, 2011
When getting health insurance I usually go through "Penny Health" website. The reason for this approach is because I get more personalized service and assistance. Once I went though ehealthinsurance and it offered no customer support.

http://missionviejo.patch.com/articles/the-hidden-cost-of-donating-an-organ