Support altruistic kidney donation - I am

In a recent blog, consultant spinal surgeon Paul Thorpe claimed that altruistic kidney donation is a bad idea. Well, I disagree and I’m going to do it.

We don’t “definitely” require the second kidney. We may require it in the future, but there is no “definite” about it. The Human Tissue Authority would not allow the donation if that were the case. Many people are born with only one kidney - mainly men I may add. Yet I doubt very much they all develop kidney disease in that remaining kidney. 

Why is donating to a known person any different to donating to a stranger? Emotionally there is a tie with someone you know but I am sure at times there is also undue pressure for the relative to give up a kidney. They may have reservations but be unwilling to deny the person the chance of a better life.

Just because we don’t know the name of the recipient, and we have never met them, does it mean their life is worth less than someone we do know? Not in my book it doesn’t.

Also, I do not think that I should delay donating one of my own kidneys to a stranger just in case when I am 80-years-old a 50-year-old relative may want my kidney - which by then probably does not have much life left in it anyway!

By donating a kidney to a stranger, am I depriving a member of my family from a better life should they ever develop kidney problems that required a transplant?

No. They most definitely are against me hanging around ‘just in case’. In fact they are 110% behind me in wanting to donate to a stranger. There are plenty of other family members around who, should the need arise, can offer one of their kidneys to a relation.

Paul Thorpe seems to be under the impression that middle aged and older people are going to get kidney problems and their renal function will pack up.

I would like to see the medical evidence of this. I am sure the HTA would immediately suspend all live donors over the age of 50 years. Should my remaining kidney develop problems as I get older, then I am more than willing to go onto dialysis like thousands of people do now, especially as now home dialysis is available to all who want it.

I am in very good health. I live a healthy lifestyle there is no reason why my remaining kidney should pack up and require a transplant. But it is a risk that I and many others are willing to take.

Dr Paul Vandenbosch - an altruistic kidney donor - felt any risks involved were minimal. Having worked in the renal unit and treated many kidney patients over the years I tend to trust his knowledge and judgement on this subject, as I do the Renal Transplant Team that I am under.

The cost benefit of kidney transplantation compared to dialysis over a period of ten years (the median transplant survival time) is £241,000 or £24,100 per year for each year that the patient has a functioning transplanted kidney. In 2007-08, 2,282 people received a kidney transplant. These transplants are now saving the NHS £46.1m in dialysis costs each year for every year that the kidney functions.

I totally agree there should be a much more aggressive policy towards increasing the number of donors after death. An opt-out in my opinion gets the thumbs up. It would reduce the kidney transplant list down to zero.

Then, of course, there are the other organs that can be used for transplants as well. There would be no need perhaps for living donors at all. Monies saved through current live donors - altruistic or otherwise - can be put towards a really good long term campaign for organ donors.

As to whether we altruistic donors are brave or stupid, I would say we are neither. It is the recipient who is brave along with their family. Being under dialysis for years is no picnic. Some people have been on dialysis for 20 years or more with no hope of a transplant. Those are the brave people.

I am sure if more people knew what being on dialysis was like and how that and the strict diet and fluid intake imposed on them affects them, more people would want to help.

Am I stupid, as Paul Thorpe suggests? No not at all. This is often an adjective used by people who do not have all the facts and cannot begin to comprehend why some people would want to help others by taking a very small risk in donating an organ. We are also called stupid by people who wish they could donate but just don’t have the will to do so, and it makes them feel somewhat ‘inadequate’. It makes them better to think of us as stupid.

It is strange how some people are hailed great heroes because they climb freezing snow capped mountains, risking losing their nose and fingers and toes and even limbs to frostbite. They also risk death and some have died. But they knowingly take those risks - to what end? Who do they help by making such a heroic journey?

Surely, if taking a small risk to save someone’s life by donating an organ is stupid, then the great explorers who risk life and limb must be insane. No of course they are not, they are heroes. They are heroes because people can relate to them. They admire the courage and determination of the men and women who risk their lives to climb great heights. They understand and appreciate how hard it is to do this - the sheer guts and determination involved.

People risk their lives every day when they get into their cars to drive to work, or to the shops - yet it is a risk we are all prepared to take - for what? To make life easier for ourselves.

We are not called stupid for knowingly risking our lives every day in our vehicles. Yet people are killed, injured, left paralysed from motor accidents. The chances of getting hurt in an accident are far greater than any major problem resulting from donating a kidney.

Why is it so hard for people to accept that some people just want to help others and to them, the risk involved by giving up an organ is far less of a risk than every day life thrusts at them?

Tags: Organ donation, Transplants