I just wish outcomes like this were stronger motivation for the world to work harder on other solutions. But it never seems to go that direction. Instead, it spurs discussion of finding ways to improve transplants.
That's because transplants save thousands of lives every year, rapidly turning some of the sickest people this side of death into healthy, productive, living individuals.
As a liver transplant survivor, it's hard to describe how dramatic a cure transplant represents.
Of course, there is a great price: my life in exchange for the donor's. And so many people are listed for transplant who never receive an organ.
Those facts and the threat of disease, among many others, drive the research into alternatives (xenotransplantation, synthesized organs, etc). But transplant is currently the only hope for the desperately hopeless facing organ failure.
What kind of rebuttal are you looking for? Transplant surgery saves lives now. Any new method is an unknown time away. Is the world supposed to stop saving lives with the known working method with all of its pros and cons in order to spend that money developing something that may or may not ever happen? From where I see it, trying to improve upon an existing method so the success rate/viability after the procedure increases is not a wasted effort. It's kind of like refactoring code that already works. You plow through it to get to work originally, then you go back and keep tweaking it until it no longer crashes or has bugs and works as efficiently as possible.
I'm not looking for a rebuttal at all. I don't see why the sentiment needs to be decried, shot down and downvoted.
Why is it such a crime to wish for more research into other approaches? That sentiment in no way suggests any of the ugly things you are taking it to mean.
It's not a crime to wish for more research, but the total amount of research dollars is currently fixed (you can't just ask for more and get it, you ask for more and somebody else doesn't get it), and the methods that already work today, already work without additional research investment.
My comments on a public forum have exactly zero impact on how research dollars get spent. The limited nature of research funds is absolutely not reasonable justification for downvoting my initial comment and for multiple people feeling compelled to shoot me down for daring to voice it.
I have a form of cystic fibrosis. It is a genetic disorder and classified as a dread disease. It accounts for about a third of all adult lung transplants and about half of all pediatric lung transplants in the US.
I used to participate in CF email lists and forums. I've heard what transplant is really like.
In spite of the glowing testimony here, once you get listed for transplant, you basically sit around hoping someone dies tragically young in the prime of their life who will be a match for you. The surgery is hugely invasive and takes many months of recovery. You will take anti-rejection meds the rest of your life. Etc.
Additionally, most transplant candidates have conditions that involve slow deterioration over many years. It isn't like it typically happens suddenly and without warning.
I was diagnosed late in life, a bit over 17 years ago. I had a hole in my left lung. That hole has closed up and I've spent more than 17 years getting myself healthier while the entire world heaps abuse on me.
I have been thrown off of multiple email lists and forums. I'm routinely called a liar and a lunatic. When I complain to mods about the mistreatment, it's common for me to be told I'm the problem though I'm not breaking any forum rules.
I spent nearly six years homeless. I got damn little support while sleeping in a tent and trying to sort my problems while getting well while much of the world shit all over me.
This isn't really a can of worms I wanted to open. I don't see why it is a big damn deal to quietly suggest that maybe we could research other options too. I'm not suggesting some Repo Man scenario here.
