wedrifid comments on Really Extreme Altruism - Less Wrong

16 Post author: CronoDAS 15 March 2009 06:51AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (87)

Comments (87)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: 110phil 26 May 2011 02:34:19AM 4 points [-]

Yes, I assumed that the breakup value of the organs was higher. That seems reasonable to me: two kidneys save two lives, one liver saves a third life, and so on. And only one life is lost, and that one voluntarily.

Also, my argument was not contingent on anyone being paid ... donating organs on the black market works too.

Comment author: wedrifid 26 May 2011 11:07:18AM 3 points [-]

That seems reasonable to me: two kidneys save two lives, one liver saves a third life, and so on.

House MD doesn't seem to get that sort of conversion rate from organs to lives saved. Am I generalising from fictional evidence or is your life saving equation absurdly optimistic. Ok, I admit, both.

Comment author: 110phil 26 May 2011 07:11:58PM 1 point [-]

I guess it's an empirical question. A death creates two kidneys. Are there usually two people on a waiting list who need the kidneys and would otherwise die? If not, then perhaps I am indeed being too optimistic.

Comment author: wedrifid 26 May 2011 08:23:24PM *  12 points [-]

I guess it's an empirical question.

Yes.

A death creates two kidneys. Are there usually two people on a waiting list who need the kidneys and would otherwise die?

Humans aren't lego. Yes, we can transplant but they don't always work and they don't always last indefinitely. We also don't just use them to flip a nice integer 'life saved' up by one. It's ok if the spare organ just increases someone's chances. Or extends a life for a while. Or drastically improves the quality of life for someone who was scraping by with other measures.

If I recall correctly kidneys are actually the easiest organ to transplant - the least likely to cause rejection. With the right donors it gets up into the 90s(%). But translating that into lives saved or 'years added to life' is a little tricky. Especially when we the patients also happen to require transfusions of donor blood throughout the process. We like to say the blood transfusions are 'saving a life'. There are only so many times you can count a life as 'saved' in a given period of time.

Comment author: 110phil 28 May 2011 12:21:57AM 1 point [-]

OK, fair enough.

It sounds to me, though, like it should be possible to somehow quantify the benefit of donating a kidney, on some scale, at least. Or do you think the benefit is so small, relative to one suicide, that my original argument doesn't hold?

Comment author: michaelkeenan 29 January 2012 09:43:59PM 5 points [-]

it should be possible to somehow quantify the benefit of donating a kidney, on some scale, at least.

From Wikipedia:

Kidney transplantation is a life-extending procedure.[24] The typical patient will live 10 to 15 years longer with a kidney transplant than if kept on dialysis.[25] The increase in longevity is greater for younger patients, but even 75-year-old recipients (the oldest group for which there is data) gain an average four more years of life. People generally have more energy, a less restricted diet, and fewer complications with a kidney transplant than if they stay on conventional dialysis.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit