Invasion of the Body Snatchers 284
theodp writes "Newsweek reports that a grim trade in stolen human tissue isn't just the stuff of Robin Cook novels. Demand for the tissue, which is used in such procedures as joint and heart-valve replacements, back surgery, dental implants and skin grafts, has driven the price for a single harvested body up to $7,000. Many unsuspecting recipients are now rushing to doctors to be tested for tainted tissue."
I don't care if it's abby normal (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I don't care if it's abby normal (Score:2, Troll)
I must have missed the part of the slashdot FAQ that says to moderate up movie references.
Tube of Ice (Score:2)
Re:Tube of Ice (Score:2)
Re:Tube of Ice (Score:2)
How the hell do you test for tainted tissue? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How the hell do you test for tainted tissue? (Score:2)
Re:How the hell do you test for tainted tissue? (Score:2)
Re:How the hell do you test for tainted tissue? (Score:2)
There are hundreds of known, often fatal diseases you can catch from a transplant. If the tissue was obtained illegally, you can bet they didn't test for those, and the donors probably weren't 18 year olds that died in a motorcycle accident.
So, I assume that when people get "tested", it's for things like hepatitis, HIV, and various parasites.
Re:How the hell do you test for tainted tissue? (Score:3, Interesting)
The answer to #1, is that you do blood tests and/or biopsies. If the donor had some unfortunate disease or genetic disorder, it might show up.
The answer to #2... you wouldn't be able to tell the difference, if the tissues are "good". HOWEVER, if the tissues were "good", then there would be no reason to i
Illegal harvesting can pay the donor or kin (Score:2, Insightful)
If it's harvested illegally, the donor or the donor's next-of-kin can get paid. Otherwise under present US law they can't. Getting paid would motivate people to donate who would not otherwise donate.
Thus, illegally harvesting good tissue for transplant makes excellent economic sense and would save lives. Unfortuntely, since the transaction is illegal, contract law doesn't apply and it's hard to get a positive rep
Re:How the hell do you test for tainted tissue? (Score:2)
Many unsuspecting recipients are now rushing to doctors to be tested for tainted tissue."
If you don't suspect you were such a recipient, then why would you be rushing to doctors to test for suspected illegally taken tissue?
The simple test (Score:2)
#%^&*! lawyers (Score:3, Insightful)
Forging death certificates? Supplying stolen, possibly diseased, human tissue to medical facilities, which presumably are going to give it to patients who are already ill? And they argue that there's nothing illegal about this?
The lawyers themselves should almost be on trial.
Re:#%^&*! lawyers (Score:2)
10 things I hate about deciet... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:10 things I hate about deciet... (Score:2)
Apparently the quality of the kidney degrades very rapidly after death, or something about the way the body or organ is handled causes this damage. A cadaver kidney, treated properly, and assuming no organ rejection will generally last about a decade before it fails. A living donor kidney can apparently last up to 25 years o
oh yes (Score:2)
They're much tastier, too!
Could be worse (Score:2)
Maybe soon it will be. [everything2.com]
Taint? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Taint? (Score:2)
Re:Taint? (Score:2)
You kids get off my lawn!
Re:Taint? (Score:2)
Also known as a "grundel" or the New Jersey.
Honestly, have you people never heard the the Urban Dictionary? [urbandictionary.com]
*shudder* (Score:2)
Creepy...
Oh crap... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, that still won't stop sh*t like this. Part of this problem stems from the fact that we're so paranoid about human parts(mostly deservably), that demand outstrips supply enough to inflate values into the stratosphere.
There's always somebody willing to save a buck by introducing or substituting substandard materials.
Bad Idea (Score:2)
...
Don't, it was horrible.
Huh... (Score:2)
Re:Huh... (Score:2)
Re:Huh... (Score:2)
Re:Huh... (Score:2)
Hah... (Score:2)
Re:Huh... (Score:2)
Re:Huh... (Score:3, Funny)
Huh. Makes sense. Yeah, when I'm getting plowed in the ass daily, I'll make up some invisible friend in the sky who did this to me. Then, when I meet him, I'll kill him.
Re:Huh... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Religion? (Score:2)
Re:Religion? (Score:2)
Thats plain BS. I am neither a Buddhist nor a Hindu but have read a liitle bit (by that I mean a lot:) ) on religions and neither Hinduism nor Buddhism says anything about organ donations. I have some friends who happen to be devout Hindus and I know that at least two of them are on the eye donor list.
So either substantiate you claim (by pointing out where Buddhi
Re:Huh... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Huh... (Score:2)
Also, in spite of what Ray Kurzweil thinks, most of us reading this will be dead in 200 years. Probably all of us.
Re:Huh... (Score:2)
$7k, huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been in a certain central-american country where they'd kill you for your passport, because they could sell it fo a measly $500.
they don't even need to kill you (Score:3, Funny)
Obligatory Monty Python (Score:2)
Hearsay - from 1987, for what it's worth (Score:5, Informative)
I worked for a man who was incredibly rich and extremely well connected, there might have been things he couldn't buy, like some countries, due to lack of money, and there was one thing he could not buy in reality, which was sight for his blind daughter...
However he did tell me very matter of factly that when you were a millionaire it was a simple matter of going to miami where jewish doctors (I'm repeating what I was told, so I'm not going to alter it to remove any racial / religious references in a bid to make it more credible etc) would sell you any transplantable organ or tissue you liked, at a price, harvested from medically screened live donors, said donors being sourced in south america.
A healthy 20 year old heart, chosen to match your tissue etc etc etc
He was as matter of facts about things that were just there and available to the super rich as we would be about a 1U web server, it's there if you want it.
I doubt the actual true non politically correct market value of a single average human life has increased any in the intervening 19 years.
Re:Hearsay - from 1987, for what it's worth (Score:2)
This also happens in China, where life is considerably cheaper than in the US. I am sure that there are people who do transplants from unwilling victims for the super-rich but it would not large market and in the scale of crimes people should pay attention too it is not even in the radar.
Live donor? (Score:2)
Re:Hearsay - from 1987, for what it's worth (Score:2, Interesting)
If I were in more dire straits than I am and needed to weigh a grim future for my child against my own ability to supply several body parts that would net enough to feed her until adulthood, it would genuinely be a tough choice. Desperation breeds ingenuity (or moral flexibility), in a sense.
This is not to say that I am in that situation or that I need to do this - all I'm saying is that there are countless outside influences that could make you willin
Re:Hearsay - from 1987, for what it's worth (Score:2)
Somehow, I doubt that the said daughter would want anything to do with life without a parent. Children can be ungrateful in ways. I would also think there would be major pssychological issues if they knew that one of their parents was dissected so that they can live. I don't think it is info that can be kept from a child forever, so what would they think when they did find out.
Re:Hearsay - from 1987, for what it's worth (Score:2)
There will also be nations who have nothing left to sell except their humans. They will be breeding slaves for that purpose.
The problem with capitalism is that eventually everything will be a product
Re:Hearsay - from 1987, for what it's worth (Score:2)
Actually both smoking and drinking correspond negatively with wealth (i.e. the poor smoke/drink more than the rich).
I actually see quite a different danger: that the poor gets increasingly irrelevant. If you go back a 100 years or so, there where poor, but th
Re:Hearsay - from 1987, for what it's worth (Score:2)
Well they still need the poor to raise their kids, tend to their gardens, drive their cars etc. Likewise picking of fruit and vegetables isn't being done with machines yet either. Apparently though our poor are not poor enough, we have to import them from mexico and even ship our work to them in vietnam (cos those fucking mexicans charge too much god dammit!). But I see where you are coming from.
No need to worry
Re:Hearsay - from 1987, for what it's worth (Score:2)
> he did tell me...it was a simple matter of going to miami where jewish doctors (I'm repeating what I was told, so I'm not going to alter it to remove any racial / religious references
This is a particularly vicious slur, given the history of antisemitic blood libels [wikipedia.org] against the Jews.
Saying that you are "just repeating" what you were told is weak. You are spreading bigoted rumors.
The fact that drivel like this can get modded up to +5 is astonishing, and quite sad.
Re:Hearsay - from 1987, for what it's worth (Score:2)
science fiction (Score:2)
Tissue matching and the immune system (Score:3, Informative)
From the pdf file the_immune_system [nih.gov]:
Immunology and Transplants
Each year thousands of American lives are prolonged by transplanted organs -- kidney,heart,lung,liver,and pancreas.For a transplant to "take," however,,the body 's natural tendency to rid itself of foreign tissue must be overridden. One way,tissue typing ,makes sure markers of self on the donor 's tissue are as similar as possible to those of the recipient.Each cell has a double set of 6 major tissue
antigens,and each of the antigens exists, in different individuals,in as many as 20 varieties.The chance of 2 people having identical transplant antigens is about 1 in 100,000.
Transplant patients must first overcome these odds. If it were me I think my tendency would be to breathe a sigh of relief at having found donor tissue and that relief might make me tend to put questions about tissue health on the back burner.
Tainted tissue (Score:3, Informative)
Does the patient now have a disease that they didn't have before the transplant? Were they at risk to contract the disease independently of the transplant? If someone who has been married for 50 years suddenly shows up with AIDS, hepititis, etc. it's a pretty good bet it's from the transplant and not risky sexual behaviour. You assess the patient and see if a new condition they are experiencing is due to lifestyle or other factors.
Re:Tainted tissue (Score:2)
My cat's dying :( (Score:2)
Um... no (Score:2)
Your cat is as able to accept a dog kidney as you are. Which is to say, not at all. Even if you could find a vet who would do a cat kidney transplant, your cat will not be happy living on anti-rejection drugs anyway. Make him comfortable, put him to sleep when it is time. Such is the unavoidable tragedy of pet ownership.
Re:Um... no (Score:2)
GP- I'm sorry about your kitty. They're so fully desert adapted that unless it's injury or disease it's the kidneys that go first.. at least it's fast.
Re:Um... no (Score:2)
Re:My cat's dying :( (Score:2)
...unless you come up with another $25,000...
The proper term is... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The proper term is... (Score:2)
Better to Give Than to Receive (Score:3, Interesting)
Along these lines, I don't know why there's always such a severe blood shortage. Most people receiving blood transfusions schedule their surgery weeks or months in advance. It only takes a couple of weeks for drawn blood to regenerate. They should all have drawn the maximum they can handle from the moment their requirements are known until their surgery. And after they recover, they should submit even more. They should count primarily on their own autologous donations, which tax the healthcare system so much less by "matching the donor" without extensive tests and mistakes, as well as leaving the donations of other people alone. Everyone who receives blood from a stranger even once should have to donate at least once a year for several following years, health permitting. Maybe they should receive discounts on their own care when "giving back", maybe they should be required to donate if "in the system" for receiving from strangers. But there's absolutely no reason that scheduled blood demands should offer anything but a pool of donors, instead of the overwhelming demand we see now.
GPL Donors (Score:2)
Re:GPL Donors (Score:2)
Re:Better to Give Than to Receive (Score:2)
Re:Better to Give Than to Receive (Score:2)
As for the organs, some will be tainted by the therapies required for successful transplants, even of other organs. But every little bit helps. My proposal is really just a way to make transplant recipients "pay their own way", and then some. That "help yourself" appr
Re:Better to Give Than to Receive (Score:2)
Re:Better to Give Than to Receive (Score:2)
No fears of bloody shampoo (Score:2)
I'm guessing, but I very strongly doubt it, for two reasons:
(a) Anything extracted from a human is a potential biohazard. It would be really dumb to deal with all the extra red tape and limited supply of human blood (because there won't be a consistent oversupply) to your shampoos when you could just use something like pig blood.
(b) I remember seein
Re:No fears of bloody shampoo (Score:2)
I certainly don't worry much about what's in my shampoo beyond it had better have some sodium laure
Re:Better to Give Than to Receive (Score:4, Informative)
In the 80s - 90s, I worked in a pathology lab where we both screened the donors and crossmatched for recipients. This was when HIV was well established to be a bit more than "teh ghey dizzez" and the Next Big Worry was Hep C, for which there wasn't a reliable antigen test at the time (remember, cost is everything - a $100 test might not be used for a disease with 0.1% incidence because of the massive cost of it).
The subject of autologous transfusions came up often, and the ARCBTS was generally against it for several reasons:
- patient selection
- the logistics of collection
- the logistics of storage
- the logistics of giving it back
Selection
Who is able to donate blood prior to surgery? Who isn't? The very old and the very young can't. Those with anaemia can't, neither can those undergoing chemo or radiotherapy. Those with blood-borne diseases shouldn't. Obviously only reasonably health people having elective surgery can. Smallish pool of people that.
Do they need to give blood? Depends on the type of surgery. Most surgery doesn't require a blood transfusion unless something goes wrong. Some surgery (open heart, for example) requires more blood than a single person can be expected to give.
Collection:
Since 99% of donations are from anonymous donors, it would be difficult to segregate directed donations to ensure they don't get lost in the system. At the moment, a bag of O+ is just a bag of O+. Once it's cleared, it doesn't matter who it's from or where it ends up as long as it gets transfused into a compatible recipient. Having to track each bag individually would add enormously to the cost of collection, as well as increase the chance of "lost" bags. Just like luggage, these things happen. Also, bags may get mislabelled. If there's a group mismatch, these things will be picked up on crossmatching, but if the're not different groups, then the patient will receive someone else's blood. Because of this, I would never issue autologous blood without performing a crossmatch, so there's no cost saving to be found by using autologous.
These hassles can be overcome, but it's a cost issue.
Storage:
Blood is usually separated into plasma which is frozen (I can't remember how long fresh frozen plasma (FFP) is good for - it's a couple of years. hey, it's been a while since I worked in the field...) and red cells, which are refrigerated. The red cells are only good for a month, and even then a month is stretching it. The general rule is not to transfuse someone until they need two units, so a single unit donation that's to be refrigerated is useless. It would be medically negligent to get more than monthly donations from someone prior to surgery, since they'd be going into surgery with volumetric anaemia so you'd have to begin the process quite a few months prior.
Red cells can be successfully frozen, but the process is more difficult than that required by FFP, as is the thawing process. It requires labs to have more expensive equipment, preparing for transfusions will take longer (have to thaw out the cells), and if the surgery is cancelled at the last minute, then I don't think re-freezing the cells would be an option.
Giving it back:
The blood will still have to be crossmatched, assuming it can be thawed in time. Surgery schedules get moved all the time, not necessarily for the benefit of the blood transfusion staff.
Although your idea is meritorious and seems logical, it would be difficult and expensive to implement.
Re:Better to Give Than to Receive (Score:2)
Re:Better to Give Than to Receive (Score:2)
And the other donations I mentioned follow exactly the same organ paths as the current system, except more "viral" (as in New Media marketing, not actual biological infection) due to the "turnabout" clauses I suggest.
Perhaps you are misreading my post as suggesting the received organs be redonated. I actually
Re:Better to Give Than to Receive (Score:2)
"Plasma volumes will return to normal in around 24 hours, while red blood cells are replaced by bone marrow into the circulatory system within about 3-5 weeks, and lost iron replaced over 6-8 weeks."
My proposal isn't affected by the extra 3-6 weeks I omitted in my rough underapproximation.
Taint? (Score:2)
I got a title for this movie... (Score:2)
You thought that now they're turning 60 their influence is starting to wane.... WELL YOU'RE WRONG! Your body parts are their new status symbols! Nothing will prepare you for the horror, the mayhem and the fright of :
Invasion of the Body Snatchers II: Revenge and Resurrection of the Aging Baby Boomers
(Sountrack by the Greatful Dead)
Big Money (Score:2)
tissue donation an option for many more than organ (Score:2, Informative)
The most tragic outcome of this story is that it might discourage tissue and organ donation. The advantages of tissue donation in particular are not as widely known as they should be. Where organ donation requires tissue type matching, tissue donation does not, and tissue donation is an option for far more people who want to make a contribution after death (including the elderly and many who are in very poor shape at the time of death). It can be an option for those dying at home under hos
Re:tissue donation an option for many more than or (Score:2)
Re:tissue donation an option for many more than or (Score:2)
"On my 3rd year surgery rotation at about 2am one night we had a harvest of an 8yo boy killed in a car accident (he was riding his bike). It was awful, everyone came in and just took what they wanted like i
Why is organ selling illegal again? (Score:2)
I would be arrested because this is illegal! Why? Because Big Brother decided it was unethical to sell organs? Because fundamentalist Christians would be offended? Or Greenpeace and ACLU thought sanctity of human life should not be for sale? What exactly is the deal here?
The kind of sleazy dealings mentioned in TFA come about precisely
Re:Why is organ selling illegal again? (Score:2)
Society, via the law, has decided that an unrestricted market in human organs is undesirable. Do we want a society in which the poor are an organ bank for the rich?
Re:Why is organ selling illegal again? (Score:2)
Making these things easy to trade for money just creates a market that most folks wouldn't be happy with...
At least if someone does mug you in a dark alley, they wouldn't take your kidney (unless that was their purpose to begin with).
I recently had spinal fusion surgery (Score:2)
There was no way they could prove to my satisfaction that the material would be totally clean and disease free. It wasn't going to happen. They would find a different way or I would do without the surgery.
That really torqued off the doctors, they acted all insulted that I would even suggest something like that but it's m
Re:I recently had spinal fusion surgery (Score:2)
That's just doctors. 95% of 'em will get pissed off if you so much as open your mouth to ask "why?", much less if you do something like express a capacity for independent thought and reason. Like politicians or the RIAA, they expect you to do whatever the fuck they tell you to do and to praise them after for their enormous wisdom, no matter how things turn out. Defying a doctor is on par with telling the pope to go fuck himself.
Good thing I'm an atheist.
Max
Re:What about the blood?? (Score:3, Interesting)
Absolutely not. That didn't happen either. Never will.
Before the surgery I stockpiled my own blood, one unit per week, I had 5 units of my own blood on standby in case I needed it during the surgery.
I thought of all these things before hand.
I also carry a card in my wallet stating that in case of emergency I refuse blood, plasma, tissue or body parts from anyone other than my blood relatives.
If it means the difference between takin
Alistair Cooke (Score:2)
Re:Alistair Cooke (Score:2)
I'm surprised that the victims' relatives haven't caught up with the ringleaders and arranged some involuntary organ and tissue donations.
Selling Organs (your own) should be legal (Score:2)
6000 Americans will die this year because of the lack of available organs. A (regulated) market could ensure this doesn't occur.
it's only going to get worse from here... (Score:2)
(Ob genius TV show reference - explanation mostly to make sure the bogofilter doesn't get me.)
Re:The Only Problem Is That It's Illegal (Score:2)
Do you want to have organ harvesting in the hands of marketers? Because you KNOW where thats where it would end up.
Instead of "Turn your check into cash!", you'd have "Turn your kidney into cash!"
(Or worse, "Turn your KIDS kidney into cash")
Should there really be a profitable market at all? (Score:2)
People will accuse me of being a commie by suggesting decent Christian charity and government involovement - but I think organ donation overseen by governments is the way to go. If there is as much cheap supply as there is demand there will be no niche for body snatchers or for dying AIDS sufferers to sell their corpse for the good of their kin. The hard bit is getting enough donors - and some governments have succeeded in that by askin
Re:Should there really be a profitable market at a (Score:2)
Re:Should there really be a profitable market at a (Score:2)
So what price is life?
As I tried to imply in the post, a financial market in organs can create a situation where murder or GBH for organs is profitable while a charitable system does not. A lot more people die every day than need organs so if a reasonable percentage of people donate organs it's likely a match will turn up soon.
In my country we recently had people convicted for killing the unemployed and hiding their bodies to take their government be
Re:Should there really be a profitable market at a (Score:2)
If there was a market in body parts people would be killed for those too and bribes would be paid to get unidentifed corpses into the system
You are correct that it would make it easier to put illegitimate organs into legitimate circulation (which is already a problem as per TFA), but there is already a market for body parts--it just happens
Re:Why are people selling bodies anyway? (Score:2)
Max
Re:Why are people selling bodies anyway? (Score:2)