Hey, there! Log in / Register
New Englanders wait longer for organ transplants because fewer of us die in horrible accidents or from strokes
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Please don't give the anti
Please don't give the anti-bike crowd more arguments against bike lanes.
This begs the question
Are there also fewer people in need of transplants due to the same positive health-related factors?
I realize that may be an incalculable counterfactual ...
The Insufferable Pedant Replies
It doesn't "beg" the question, it raises the question.
True
http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/begquestionterm.htm
I had no idea. I do appreciate an insufferable pedant with my morning tea.
Your right
The truth decimates me. I'll have to prioritize my colloquialisms better.
On your left, look out. Bike coming.
Whose right?
Which right is that and to whom does it correspond?
Incalculable
The article only discusses the supply of organs, no indication of whether the demand here is different than in other regions.
Math
Actually, if wait time is increasing due to lack of supply, it's implicit that either demand hasn't diminished or at least hasn't diminished at the same rate as supply.
Stochastic possion processes - them's a dozey.
Right
So demand is either the same or different here.
Right answer, wrong question
The question isn't if need was diminishing along with the supply, but if the baseline need was also lower to begin with. We know the supply is low and diminishing, but not if the demand is also low.
There is a difference between spatial and temporal trending.
This is a counterfactual scenario that can not be calculated with just New England data - the only way to track it would be through an out-of-sample comparison that was stratified by age and other factors.
We don't know if the need is different here - only that regional demand and supply are not matching up. In fact, the need might be greater here due to the way that people who need a lot of specific medical support end up moving here for treatment.
In any case, it sounds to me like they need to redraw the boundaries for the regions.
Exactly!
+1.
only to a minor extent if at all, I believe
The most common organ transplant is the kidney. The leading driver for kidney transplants is diabetes. Diabetes rates are relatively low in the Northeast compared to the South, but there will always be a certain number of very sick people in every region.
Liver transplants are the second most common type. The leading reason for needing a liver transplant is Hepatitis and the associated increased risk of liver cancer. Hepatitis can be contracted through lifestyle-related factors or chance exposure, but most commonly it is due to receiving tainted blood product. I can't find direct statistics related to relative rates by state or region, but hepatitis knows no boundaries. It is a huge national and international time-bomb.
Luckily, the new Hepatitis C drugs are amazing and, while expensive today, hold the promise of essentially eradicating the disease within a short amount of time with extremely few side effects. That will free up donated livers for other recipients.
I have also heard from a transplant physician, but not verified, that organ donation rates are lower in the Northeast than in, say the Midwest.
Having just received a liver transplant by traveling to a different region, leaving New England is basically the only way that people with the means to do so can receive an organ without being very close to death. The only other option is finding a living donor.
My life has resumed being absolutely, boringly normal because someone somewhere donated their liver to me. It was an unimaginable gift made at a time of great tragedy and sorrow, a debt that can never be repaid.
Irony
So better hospitals mean fewer organ donors?
New organs?
Where do you get new organs?
Don't people usually get used organs?
Just to thwart off those lacking any sense of humor, this isn't a serious question. Can't assume anything these days.
Boston
also has the longest wait time to see a doctor among manor US cities, according to a recent survey (google it, I'm too tired). Dallas had the shortest wait time.
I've often wondered
If that had something to do with the new patient protocols in Boston medical offices.
It's the only place I've been told that I can't make an appointment without going through a New Patient Intake physical exam first, even when sick. Physicals always have to be booked far in advance, so it slows things down.