Sunday, November 19, 2006

economist kidneys

i just meant ... I was visiting my brother in the hospital today, and the nurse was talking about his Pxxxx protein numbers (where Pxxxx is some word I've never heard before, but is produced by muscle breakdown somehow and then processed by the kidneys).



She said that a normal range was 0.5-1.2. When he was admitted last Monday (after sitting in ER for 48 hours) his Pxxx number was 1.9. The next day it was 4.2. On Wed it was 5.3. At 6.0 they sorta "call" the kidneys and start dialysis (with chance of kidney recovery fairly low, I guess). His Pxxx number went down the next couple days yet is still triple normal range.



Anyway, the nurse told us today, "No one ever wants to go on dialysis. It's not pretty. It's not a choice one ever makes."



However dialysis is where people go who need kidneys but haven't gotten one. As are kidney transplants. If one made kidneys as plentiful as crutches, grew them in pigs, say, ....



Oh, damn. I just got choked up and lost my line of argument. Fine, use techology to let drug addicts risk the loss of their kidneys (it's his third major organ he's risked in as many years - heart in 2003, liver was almost gone last year).



But requiring everyone to donate their organs - isn't that crossing over between the private and the public? What would Hayek do?



powered by performancing firefox

No comments: