Fatty Tang kenna slapped 3 times on butt

[Foxfire]

I would like to point out the other 'human' trade, baby adoption. Before the current legislated organisation handling adoption of babies, I guess it was a black market. Now it is controlled, and very well organised. But my point is, control also means checks to be made for eager parents and willing 'giver' of babies. This will done too for organ donors and patients. Going by these organisation usual workrate, it will definitely a long wait, which will fuel the black market again. And for baby adoption, I know there is an upfront amount to be paid to the organsiation. The thing I heard is that this amount usually do not end up with the child's parent. Instead it is park right into the organisation cost structure. IMO, setting up regulatory organisation just shifts the middleman and will probably benefit the buyer more. Still a no for me.

[David]

I am heartened by this post -

 

"From Damienic - my bro friend's mum did one in China and it was successful.. "

 

But I am also saddened by -

 

"From Archtung - my bro friend's mum did one in China and it was successful.. "

 

Is there any condition that if the donor is rejected by the recipient or he , can the kidney be transplanted to the original donor? Or if there's complication after the transplant, can the donated kidney be retrieved from the recipient? I mean we are talking about a life.

[Kxbc]

There can never be an ideal organisation. Just have to work towards that goal to minimise all errors/flaws.

 

If this happens to kidney issue, the "extra" money earned by the organisation has to be used for funding of kidney diseas. Can do? Another ideal though.

[Gearoil]

You know why I feel it should be legalised?

 

I go to Dhaka almost every month for work. I see the big disparity between the haves and have-not.

 

The haves really have everything. Money and power. They order their army of servants around. Their wealth is beyond my imagination.

 

I also see the have-nots and this is not the worst since I only travel around in the city. But what I see is already disheartening enough. I see people with disease walking around the city begging, families living in dirty cardboard boxes by the street or railway with no water or electricity but just a small flickering candle at night for light and perhaps a bit of warmth, skinny mothers with malnurished babies on their arms begging, people with multiple disabilities etc. All of them have only one look, that of dejection, of being beaten to pulp by poverty. They have no education, no skill, no job and probably no future. But do you see their govt doing something for them? If it is, they won't be roaming the streets like that.

 

If selling one organ can help lift them from poverty, why not do it? Rather than be exploited by greedy middlemen, a legalised channel can greatly reduce their suffering. I think of it as 1 stone 2 birds.

 

Selling one organ should not be used to lift those 'giving' the organ as a way out of proverty.

 

Legalising it? How?... and what are the safe guards to ensure that the rich don't used their means to 'cannibalise' the poor? This is a debatable issue. Yes. And it will long be even after you and I are no longer here in this planet.

 

There must be another way to resolve the proverty issues that does not resort to poorer folks having to 'dig' out some parts of theirs to have a 'better' life.

 

Once the guardians allow this code to be broken, the poor will suffer more and the rich will live longer at their expense!

 

To highlight something similiar. In the States , cats can undergo renal transplant with a condition that the owner of the cat receiving the kidney adopts the donor cat for life.

 

Not becos there was no money involved ( the cost is high for such op )but becos of the fact that ethical issues must first be considered before such exchange of organs can take place.

 

It is not a buy and sell issue.

 

And surely the moral and ethical issue applies with a much higher importance in humans, that no human shall use their financial means to 'purchase' human parts from another human being as a means to ensure that the richer folks have a better chance of survival.

[Kxbc]

"To highlight something similiar. In the States , cats can undergo renal transplant with a condition that the owner of the cat receiving the kidney adopts the donor cat for life."

 

I know about this and the cost of operation is indeed high at US$20k. But I will pay that amount if it means that mine can have a chance. I will also adopt and love the donor cat even though I may not have the physical space at home anymore.

 

I won't place humans as above the animals. I would think that ethical issues, be they relating to humans/animals, rank the same.

 

For the poorer sellers, don't sell = slow death. Sell = chance to survive. Exploitation? If thought another way, it's having a chance to survive.

 

Anyway, who are the guardians? Who appointed them? Are they always right? Like I wrote earlier, if the Health Minister is in Tang's position now, do you think he will sing a different tune?

[David]

I believed the govt knows that having a matched kidney transplanted to the recipient, chances of living out the disease is high. But where it comes to moral and ethics, being in the govt is a difficult position to be in. Allowing organ trading, regulating and being the guardian or to appoint one for the $$$, everyone will have a better idea than the govt.

 

There is actually one way out for Mr Tang, ie his related family members to find a match and donor. Question is has this being explored? Like you said earlier there are many if - even that the family members may have loved themselves more than him and cannot wait to see him is possible.

 

In the case of Pierre and Andrea, although they were not related yet but they proved that their relationship is strong and the donation of Pierre's kidney to Andrea is not monetary motivated but that of mutual love. So I think the govt has gave a little leeway here.

 

Giving away one's kidney in the name of saving lives is great but like in marriage, its not just about two person - its about two families. So before giving away one kidney, think of your family first. Seek their blessing.

[Apollo]

muahahahaha... dun blow his cover leh.

[Kxbc]

I am not trying to embarrass you or anything but I think there is a need for you to do some research and reading before you start writing in any forum.

 

"I believed the govt knows that having a matched kidney transplanted to the recipient, chances of living out the disease is high."

Please see these links by various organisations on the health status of living kidney donors. They state that kidney donation (for the donor) does not change life expectancy or increase a person’s risks of developing kidney disease or other health problems.

http://www.umm.edu/transplant/kidney/qanda.htm

http://www.livingdonorsonline.org/kidney/kidney6.htm

 

And relating to Pierre's donation of an organ to Andrea, it is actually liver donation, not kidney. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/ent.../255705/1/.html

 

Please note that we only have one liver and it has regenerative abilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liver

[David]

Thank you for correcting on the Pierre's donation of part of his liver to his, now, wife. I know for certain that liver is a self-regenrating organ. I am certainly embarassed by my slip.

 

Nevertheless, in general the case is about organ trading, a offence that Mr Tang is unfortunately involved in. Organ donation by a living donor is indeed godsend. I am reserving my organ as a living donor for my love ones - for not a cent.

[Pyramid_sg]

Well written . I agree both with Kxbc and acemundo.

[David]

What say you? http://www.mycarforum.com/forum/Others_C20...Rich._P2453036/

[Kxbc]

I am not surprised by the U-turn.

 

This issue is not black and white. It is murky grey. There are no correct answers. It's not like PSLE exams in the 70s where there is a right or wrong answer.

 

I agree that the legalisation of kidney selling needs to be seriously looked into and considered as a viable option for those who are willing to do so.

 

However, the arguement that more people may just opt out of HOTA because of legalised selling is just too lame. An operation success from a related donor is higher and will cost less. If the patients have this viable option, do you think they even consider buying an organ?

 

And signing up for HOTA for most people, comes from the heart to save others when you have passed on. Having organ selling legalised should not have too much an adverse impact on HOTA, unless all those who have agreed to HOTA before that are not signing up from their hearts.

 

In my opinion, flawed argument from the Minister. And probably not the first time too, though not necessarily from this Ministry.

 

I do clearly remember a Minister (initial is V B) saying years ago that cats are migratory animals (think it was during the Sars period). I do wonder who told him that because I have not yet come across any reference materials that say so. Cats are territorial animals and they will patrol their territory everyday to to protect it. If the resident cat is removed, there will be a vacuum effect and other cats will come to take over its place.