With the news that a surgeon and a nurse have been suspended over the infected living donor kidney episode, and that UPMC has temporarily halted both their living kidney and living liver transplant programs, I thought this might be a good time to pull up some 'official' data*.
[forgive the formatting; blogger was not cooperating]
Kidney transplants:
.......... 2010 ... 2009 ... 2008 ... 2007 ... 2006 ... 2005
Living .... 62 ..... 73 ..... 55 ..... 69 ..... 80 ..... 77
Deceased .. 90 ..... 94 ..... 109 .... 97 ..... 215 .... 133
Liver transplants:
.......... 2010 ... 2009 ... 2008 ... 2007 ... 2006 ... 2005
Living .... 17 ..... 13 ...... 4 ..... 19 ..... 36 .... 36
Deceased .. 108 ... 113 .... 102 .... 164 .... 147 .... 186
So how does this compare to other US transplant centers?
Johns Hopkins:
Kidney:
......... 2010 ... 2009 ... 2008
Living ....92 ... 97 ... 88
Deceased ..115 ... 154 ... 78
Liver:
........... 2010 ... 2009 .... 2008
Living ..... 1 ...... 0 ....... 3
Deceased ... 38 ..... 64 ....... 57
Lahey Medical Center:
Kidney:
.......... 2010 ... 2009 ... 2008
Living .... 20 .... 14 ...... 20
Deceased .. 22 .... 18 ...... 19
Liver:
........... 2010 ... 2009 ... 2008
Living ..... 19 .... 24 ...... 27
Deceased ... 37 .... 35 ...... 23
UCLA Medical Center:
Kidney:
......... 2010 ... 2009 ...2008
Living ... 138 ... 140 ... 131
Deceased ..166 ... 137 ... 169
Liver:
......... 2010 .. 2009 .. 2008
Living .... 1 ..... 3 ..... 2
Deceased . 195 ... 189 ... 226
*this data is public knowledge from the OPTN site. I encourage everyone to go over there and browse around awhile.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Thursday, May 26, 2011
In Case You Missed It...
Over in the right column, under "Hit These Sites" you'll see the new addition of Living Donors Matter, Inc. The link takes you directly to the online form where you can share your living donor experience. LDM is the only organization dedicated solely to the protection, care and advocacy of living organ donors. Their goal is to file with the IRS for a nonprofit exemption by the end of 2011, but that can only be possible with your help.
If you'd like to volunteer or be involved with LDM, inc. contac them at info [at] livingdonorsmatter.com. Sign up for their email list too.
Pass it on :-)
If you'd like to volunteer or be involved with LDM, inc. contac them at info [at] livingdonorsmatter.com. Sign up for their email list too.
Pass it on :-)
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Advocacy, Risk and Courage
Last night I was flipping channels and ran across this heart-breaking story on Rachel Maddow. In short, Jeff and Lori Wilfahrt of Rosemont, Minnesota lost their openly gay son this year in Afghanistan. Recently, Mr. Wilfahrt testified in front of Minnesota's senate as they consider a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He tailored his message to veterans' groups, to people who had 'taken an oath to protect the Constitution', because he knew the Senators weren't listening.
While I encourage you to click the link and watch the entire interview, here's an excerpt:
As it turns out, that really got me nothing. I have had little or no response from the veterans societies of the state of Minnesota, at least so far. If I said something to offend them, I apologize.
I sat in my chair in my living room and said - out loud - to these incredibly devastated people on my television:
You said nothing wrong. These people are simply cowards.
Pretty strong language, I admit, but recent events in my own life have shown this to be true far more often than I'm comfortable with. Sure, people have reasons for staying silent or hiding behind their computer screens, but the truth is, real change requires risk and confrontation.
Where would we be if:
- The signers of the Declaration of Independence had remained anonymous
- If Alice Paul hadn't protested, been imprisoned, and commenced a hunger strike
- If Martin Luther King Jr. hadn't gone to Alabama?
Or how about the countless corporate, government or citizen whistleblowers: Woodward and Bernstein, Jeffrey Wigand (tobacco), Coleen Rowley (FBI's slow action pre-9/11)...
I've been wrestling with these issues over the past couple of weeks, questioning if I'm the one out of line, if my expecations were too high. Then today, The Hastings Center bioethics forum published this essay by Dr. Alice Dreger, entitled "On Naming Names".
Again, I encourage each of you to read it in its entirety (cuz it's a wonder), but here are my favorite bits:
But real accountability requires real names.
And...
It’s also really hard to appropriately laud those who did the right thing without naming the names of those who didn’t along with those who did.
Finally...
As long as Society was to blame, no one was to blame. And no one had to change the status quo, because no one could change Society. Once I forced my students to start naming who exactly thinks or says this or that, their whole view of the world changed. Suddenly they realized who was responsible for promoting this (mis)representation or that ugly norm. And they realized you just had to change the behaviors of those people. Suddenly my students had power. The giant named Society had magically shrunk; the short guy with the slingshot had magically grown.
Perhaps it is that sudden resolution of the vision of power that scares us in the naming of names. So long as we do not name names, we can just take our paychecks and fade into the big picture with the rest of Society. We are not obligated to see who is doing what, and so we are not obligated to see who we are. We are not obligated to try to be big.
As evidenced by the Wilfarht's, our country is currently divided into bullies and cowards, and the bullies are surely winning. We are obligated to try and be big.
While I encourage you to click the link and watch the entire interview, here's an excerpt:
As it turns out, that really got me nothing. I have had little or no response from the veterans societies of the state of Minnesota, at least so far. If I said something to offend them, I apologize.
I sat in my chair in my living room and said - out loud - to these incredibly devastated people on my television:
You said nothing wrong. These people are simply cowards.
Pretty strong language, I admit, but recent events in my own life have shown this to be true far more often than I'm comfortable with. Sure, people have reasons for staying silent or hiding behind their computer screens, but the truth is, real change requires risk and confrontation.
Where would we be if:
- The signers of the Declaration of Independence had remained anonymous
- If Alice Paul hadn't protested, been imprisoned, and commenced a hunger strike
- If Martin Luther King Jr. hadn't gone to Alabama?
Or how about the countless corporate, government or citizen whistleblowers: Woodward and Bernstein, Jeffrey Wigand (tobacco), Coleen Rowley (FBI's slow action pre-9/11)...
I've been wrestling with these issues over the past couple of weeks, questioning if I'm the one out of line, if my expecations were too high. Then today, The Hastings Center bioethics forum published this essay by Dr. Alice Dreger, entitled "On Naming Names".
Again, I encourage each of you to read it in its entirety (cuz it's a wonder), but here are my favorite bits:
But real accountability requires real names.
And...
It’s also really hard to appropriately laud those who did the right thing without naming the names of those who didn’t along with those who did.
Finally...
As long as Society was to blame, no one was to blame. And no one had to change the status quo, because no one could change Society. Once I forced my students to start naming who exactly thinks or says this or that, their whole view of the world changed. Suddenly they realized who was responsible for promoting this (mis)representation or that ugly norm. And they realized you just had to change the behaviors of those people. Suddenly my students had power. The giant named Society had magically shrunk; the short guy with the slingshot had magically grown.
Perhaps it is that sudden resolution of the vision of power that scares us in the naming of names. So long as we do not name names, we can just take our paychecks and fade into the big picture with the rest of Society. We are not obligated to see who is doing what, and so we are not obligated to see who we are. We are not obligated to try to be big.
As evidenced by the Wilfarht's, our country is currently divided into bullies and cowards, and the bullies are surely winning. We are obligated to try and be big.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Alabama Reporter Consults Wrong Living Donor "Expert"
Last month I ran across an article about a would-be recipient (who had already burned through two living kidney transplant) who was looking for a third. Not surprisingly (to me, anyway), the reporter got it wrong. So I sent her an email.
April 20, 2011
lisa.singleton-rickman@TimesDaily.com
Ms. Singleton-Rickman
I was recently forwarded the story you wrote on Jeff Malone's search for a living kidney donor, and would like to comment on a few of its details.
1. Ms. Rich of the Alabama Kidney Foundation stated that a living donor 'goes to the top of the list' if s/he ever needs an organ. This is patently false. OPTN established a 'four-point' priority for living donors as defined in 3.5.11.6 of OPTN's policies, found here: http://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/PoliciesandBylaws2/policies/pdfs/policy_7.pdf This policy only refers to local allocation and not national allocation, as do the priorities for pediatric patients and 6/6 antigen matched organs. It does NOT move a living donor to the 'top' of the list, but theoretically, can shorten wait time.
2. Ms. Rich also said that being a living donor 'doesn't cost a penny'. Again, she is incorrect. A recipient's insurance is obligated to pay for evaluation, surgery and follow-up. However, it does not pay for travel, food, lodging, lost wages, child care or other expenses. There have been repeated incidents of a recipient's insurance policy refusing to pay for a living donor's complications, and it most certainly does not cover any mental health treatment required because of a living donor's depression or PTSD.
3. While I'm glad that Jackie Whatley has remained healthy since her donation thirteen years ago, her experience is not generalizable to the entire living donor population. According to OPTN, 4.4 living kidney donors die each year in the US within 12 months of surgery. Many more experience debilitating complications: nerve damage, pancreatitis, chylous ascites, intestinal blockage, testicular swelling and sensitivity, adrenal dysfunction and more. As already stated, 20-30% experience depression, anxiety, anger and PTSD yet not a single transplant center offers support or aftercare services.
There is NO long-term data on living donors' health and well-being. No one bothered to collect social security numbers until 1994 and there are no quality controls to know if they are correct. OPTN's own living donor data task force in 2009 concluded that OPTN data was unreliable and invalid six-weeks post-donation. Only because of this four-point priority do we know that any prior living kidney donors have registered on the wait list in need of their own transplant. Unfortunately, not all LKDs know of this priority so the current statistic is not all inclusive. Studies conducted on LKDs with end-stage renal disease indicate its onset at approximately 20 years post-donation. In addition, even a 10% reduction in kidney function means a higher lifetime risk of hypertension, cardiac disease and death. A recent study found 55% of LKDs with hypertension a median 14 years post-donation, and another concluded that the loss of kidney translated into a 25% greater risk of cardiac death.
I am not unsympathetic to Mr. Malone's situation, but if members of the media such as yourself are going to continue writing about living donation, it's imperative to ascertain the facts so as to not mislead the public.
I couldn't find Marty Rich's contact info on the Alabama Kidney Foundation's website so I sent an email to Mr. Rich Jackson, the executive director.
April 20. 2011
jack@alkidney.org
Mr. Jackson,
My attention was recently drawn to a Times Daily article regarding Jeff Malone's search for a donor kidney, his third. In this article, Ms. Marty Rich, identified as the 'head' of the Shoals Chapter of the Alabama Kidney Foundation, is quoted as saying, "It [the donation] doesn't cost the donor a penny." She is completely incorrect. A recipient's insurance is obligated to pay for evaluation, surgery and follow-up. However, it does not pay for travel, food, lodging, lost wages, child care or other expenses. There have been repeated incidents of a recipient's insurance policy refusing to pay for a living donor's complications entirely, over a certain amount, or only within a certain time frame. They most certainly do not cover any mental health treatment required because of a living donor's depression or PTSD, which affects 20-30% of all living organ donors.
Ms. Rich also stated that a living donor 'goes to the top of the list' if s/he ever needs an organ. This is patently false. OPTN established a 'four-point' priority for living donors as defined in 3.5.11.6 of OPTN's policies, found here: http://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/PoliciesandBylaws2/policies/pdfs/policy_7.pdf This policy only refers to local allocation and not national allocation, as do the priorities for pediatric patients and 6/6 antigen matched organs. It does NOT move a living donor to the 'top' of the list, but theoretically, can shorten wait time. How much is determined by the region where the living donor is registered.
If representatives of your organization are to be quoted in the media, it's important they be given the facts. Misleading statements will only erode the public's trust in the transplant system and cause organ donation to further decline. I would've contacted Ms. Rich directly with these comments, but her information is not available on your website.
I trust you will correct these misconceptions with Ms. Rich and Ms. Singleton-Rickman at the Daily Times as soon as possible.
I'm posting both these missives now because neither bothered to even acknowledge my existence. So much for journalistic and organizational integrity.
April 20, 2011
lisa.singleton-rickman@TimesDaily.com
Ms. Singleton-Rickman
I was recently forwarded the story you wrote on Jeff Malone's search for a living kidney donor, and would like to comment on a few of its details.
1. Ms. Rich of the Alabama Kidney Foundation stated that a living donor 'goes to the top of the list' if s/he ever needs an organ. This is patently false. OPTN established a 'four-point' priority for living donors as defined in 3.5.11.6 of OPTN's policies, found here: http://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/PoliciesandBylaws2/policies/pdfs/policy_7.pdf This policy only refers to local allocation and not national allocation, as do the priorities for pediatric patients and 6/6 antigen matched organs. It does NOT move a living donor to the 'top' of the list, but theoretically, can shorten wait time.
2. Ms. Rich also said that being a living donor 'doesn't cost a penny'. Again, she is incorrect. A recipient's insurance is obligated to pay for evaluation, surgery and follow-up. However, it does not pay for travel, food, lodging, lost wages, child care or other expenses. There have been repeated incidents of a recipient's insurance policy refusing to pay for a living donor's complications, and it most certainly does not cover any mental health treatment required because of a living donor's depression or PTSD.
3. While I'm glad that Jackie Whatley has remained healthy since her donation thirteen years ago, her experience is not generalizable to the entire living donor population. According to OPTN, 4.4 living kidney donors die each year in the US within 12 months of surgery. Many more experience debilitating complications: nerve damage, pancreatitis, chylous ascites, intestinal blockage, testicular swelling and sensitivity, adrenal dysfunction and more. As already stated, 20-30% experience depression, anxiety, anger and PTSD yet not a single transplant center offers support or aftercare services.
There is NO long-term data on living donors' health and well-being. No one bothered to collect social security numbers until 1994 and there are no quality controls to know if they are correct. OPTN's own living donor data task force in 2009 concluded that OPTN data was unreliable and invalid six-weeks post-donation. Only because of this four-point priority do we know that any prior living kidney donors have registered on the wait list in need of their own transplant. Unfortunately, not all LKDs know of this priority so the current statistic is not all inclusive. Studies conducted on LKDs with end-stage renal disease indicate its onset at approximately 20 years post-donation. In addition, even a 10% reduction in kidney function means a higher lifetime risk of hypertension, cardiac disease and death. A recent study found 55% of LKDs with hypertension a median 14 years post-donation, and another concluded that the loss of kidney translated into a 25% greater risk of cardiac death.
I am not unsympathetic to Mr. Malone's situation, but if members of the media such as yourself are going to continue writing about living donation, it's imperative to ascertain the facts so as to not mislead the public.
I couldn't find Marty Rich's contact info on the Alabama Kidney Foundation's website so I sent an email to Mr. Rich Jackson, the executive director.
April 20. 2011
jack@alkidney.org
Mr. Jackson,
My attention was recently drawn to a Times Daily article regarding Jeff Malone's search for a donor kidney, his third. In this article, Ms. Marty Rich, identified as the 'head' of the Shoals Chapter of the Alabama Kidney Foundation, is quoted as saying, "It [the donation] doesn't cost the donor a penny." She is completely incorrect. A recipient's insurance is obligated to pay for evaluation, surgery and follow-up. However, it does not pay for travel, food, lodging, lost wages, child care or other expenses. There have been repeated incidents of a recipient's insurance policy refusing to pay for a living donor's complications entirely, over a certain amount, or only within a certain time frame. They most certainly do not cover any mental health treatment required because of a living donor's depression or PTSD, which affects 20-30% of all living organ donors.
Ms. Rich also stated that a living donor 'goes to the top of the list' if s/he ever needs an organ. This is patently false. OPTN established a 'four-point' priority for living donors as defined in 3.5.11.6 of OPTN's policies, found here: http://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/PoliciesandBylaws2/policies/pdfs/policy_7.pdf This policy only refers to local allocation and not national allocation, as do the priorities for pediatric patients and 6/6 antigen matched organs. It does NOT move a living donor to the 'top' of the list, but theoretically, can shorten wait time. How much is determined by the region where the living donor is registered.
If representatives of your organization are to be quoted in the media, it's important they be given the facts. Misleading statements will only erode the public's trust in the transplant system and cause organ donation to further decline. I would've contacted Ms. Rich directly with these comments, but her information is not available on your website.
I trust you will correct these misconceptions with Ms. Rich and Ms. Singleton-Rickman at the Daily Times as soon as possible.
I'm posting both these missives now because neither bothered to even acknowledge my existence. So much for journalistic and organizational integrity.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Proof That Some Kidney Donor Deaths Are Completely Preventable
I tweeted this article when it was first printed a couple of days ago, but I wanted to make a few comments about it here.
In short, a number of living kidney donors have died since 2005 because surgeons used a blood vessel clip they knew was prone to failure. So prone to failure that the FDA issued a temporary ban on the clip in 2006.
Oh and by the way, there have also been "several" other cases where living kidney donors have suffered major hemorrhages because of this damned clip too.
Living kidney donors endure a needless medical procedure, relinquish a major organ then spend their lives in a permanently compromised state all because they want to help another person (and that's if things go well. there's always the possibility of major complications, psychosocial problems and financial drains). Yet the transplant surgeons can't care enough to heed data and federal notices that say, "Hey, don't use this clip on a living donor nephrectomy because you cut the renal stump too short. This causes clip failure, resulting in major bleeding and death".
They do this why - because clips are cheaper; because their personal opinion is that it's not dangerous because they've never killed anyone (yet)? The arrogance and lack of empathy is infuriating.
And the article climaxes on one of my favorite transplant industry-related pet peeves: the hording/hiding of information by UNOS/OPTN, CMS (medicare) and the FDA on deaths and complications.
Dr. Friedman contended that these regulatory agencies have balked at releasing case details out of medicolegal concerns about discoverability and confidentiality.
"discoverability" = it's more important to help the hospitals, transplant programs and surgeons to cover their asses from a much-deserved lawsuit than it is to protect the public.
And folks wonder why I'm so angry.
ETA: May 2011 FDA and HRSA warning on the use of these clips on living kidney donors.
In short, a number of living kidney donors have died since 2005 because surgeons used a blood vessel clip they knew was prone to failure. So prone to failure that the FDA issued a temporary ban on the clip in 2006.
Oh and by the way, there have also been "several" other cases where living kidney donors have suffered major hemorrhages because of this damned clip too.
Living kidney donors endure a needless medical procedure, relinquish a major organ then spend their lives in a permanently compromised state all because they want to help another person (and that's if things go well. there's always the possibility of major complications, psychosocial problems and financial drains). Yet the transplant surgeons can't care enough to heed data and federal notices that say, "Hey, don't use this clip on a living donor nephrectomy because you cut the renal stump too short. This causes clip failure, resulting in major bleeding and death".
They do this why - because clips are cheaper; because their personal opinion is that it's not dangerous because they've never killed anyone (yet)? The arrogance and lack of empathy is infuriating.
And the article climaxes on one of my favorite transplant industry-related pet peeves: the hording/hiding of information by UNOS/OPTN, CMS (medicare) and the FDA on deaths and complications.
Dr. Friedman contended that these regulatory agencies have balked at releasing case details out of medicolegal concerns about discoverability and confidentiality.
"discoverability" = it's more important to help the hospitals, transplant programs and surgeons to cover their asses from a much-deserved lawsuit than it is to protect the public.
And folks wonder why I'm so angry.
ETA: May 2011 FDA and HRSA warning on the use of these clips on living kidney donors.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Disease Transmission in Organ Transplantation
With the news that UPMC has temporarily halted their living kidney donor program due to hepatitis transmission to a recipient, I thought I'd pull some OPTN data for my fair readers' perusal.
These slides are from OPTN's 2011 spring presentation. (click to enlarge, just be prepared to hit your back button)
The Disease Transmission Advisory Committee classifies these cases into four categories:
Proven: disease in donor and at least one recipient (think deceased donor)
Probable: disease in one or more recipients with suggestive data about donor.
Possible: evidence to suggest but not proven transmission
Intervention Without Documented Transmission: no transmission occurred most likely because antimicrobals were used.
Unlikely: limited evidence to suggest transmission could have occurred but no transmission documented.
2006-2010 (only through October 2010) Proven and Probably transmissions:
5 events involving blood borne pathogens (HIV, HBV, HCV)
7 events involving other viruses
24 events involving bacteria
11 events involving fungi
7 events involving 'other' transmissions
30 events involving malignancy (cancer)
This committee has issued 'guidance' documents to transplant centers to reduce/eliminate disease transmission and collaborated with OPTN's Living Donor Committee to improve screening of prospective living donors. While this is obviously a good and necessary thing, the motivation is not quite so crystalline. After all, it's not as if this increased testing arose out of a need/want to protect and care for living donors. No, the sole concern, as always, is for the recipient.
These slides are from OPTN's 2011 spring presentation. (click to enlarge, just be prepared to hit your back button)
The Disease Transmission Advisory Committee classifies these cases into four categories:
Proven: disease in donor and at least one recipient (think deceased donor)
Probable: disease in one or more recipients with suggestive data about donor.
Possible: evidence to suggest but not proven transmission
Intervention Without Documented Transmission: no transmission occurred most likely because antimicrobals were used.
Unlikely: limited evidence to suggest transmission could have occurred but no transmission documented.
2006-2010 (only through October 2010) Proven and Probably transmissions:
5 events involving blood borne pathogens (HIV, HBV, HCV)
7 events involving other viruses
24 events involving bacteria
11 events involving fungi
7 events involving 'other' transmissions
30 events involving malignancy (cancer)
This committee has issued 'guidance' documents to transplant centers to reduce/eliminate disease transmission and collaborated with OPTN's Living Donor Committee to improve screening of prospective living donors. While this is obviously a good and necessary thing, the motivation is not quite so crystalline. After all, it's not as if this increased testing arose out of a need/want to protect and care for living donors. No, the sole concern, as always, is for the recipient.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Could Kidney Graft Survival Be Genetics (in part)?
A study recently published in the American Journal of Transplantion reveals that kidneys from donors with two APOL1 genes (one from each parent) had significantly shorter graft survival than kidneys from donors with one copy of the gene, or none at all.
APOL1 is a gene usually found in African-Americans and is strongly associated with nephropathy (kidney disease). If this result can be duplicated and confirmed, testing for this gene could reduce the risks to potential living donors as well as improve quality transplants for recipients.
Press Release about aforementioned study.
APOL1 is a gene usually found in African-Americans and is strongly associated with nephropathy (kidney disease). If this result can be duplicated and confirmed, testing for this gene could reduce the risks to potential living donors as well as improve quality transplants for recipients.
Press Release about aforementioned study.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
The Perils of Public Information
A comment was made on my post regarding Tim Wilson's obituary. I couldn't approve the comment because it contained identifiers that I had no way of editing, but I did want to address it here. (And yes, I'm breaking my own rule of addressing anonymous comments, but since it's my blog, I'm allowed)
The comment was as follows:
I can't find your email address to write personally, but as a friend of this family I am asking you to remove this posted obituary. This family has suffered greatly at the lost of both [redacted] and now Tim, and will be very upset if they google Tim (as I did) to find this.
Obituaries, by their nature, are public announcements of a person's death. The key word here being 'public'. Before the internet, a person had limited access to print publications, and generally only through the public library. Now, however, newspapers are online. Which means that obituaries are online (notice the link to the obit in the original post).
Tim's family wrote the obituary and submitted it to the newspaper(s) in which it appeared. I simply repeated the text, adding a title and sentence of explanation so my readers would understand I wasn't posting a random person's obit for no reason.
While I have nothing but sympathy for the family and friends affected by this preventable tragedy, repeating this obituary is nothing but the proliferation of publicly available information. If the friends of the family are upset by the appearance of the obituary, they perhaps should discuss it with the people who composed it (who are not me), or the paper who originally printed it (also not me).
Lastly, glance to the right ----->
In the sidebar, three different websites are listed under the heading "Find Me At...", each of which contain multiple email addresses. One simple click on any of those sites would've revealed active and current contact information.
The comment was as follows:
I can't find your email address to write personally, but as a friend of this family I am asking you to remove this posted obituary. This family has suffered greatly at the lost of both [redacted] and now Tim, and will be very upset if they google Tim (as I did) to find this.
Obituaries, by their nature, are public announcements of a person's death. The key word here being 'public'. Before the internet, a person had limited access to print publications, and generally only through the public library. Now, however, newspapers are online. Which means that obituaries are online (notice the link to the obit in the original post).
Tim's family wrote the obituary and submitted it to the newspaper(s) in which it appeared. I simply repeated the text, adding a title and sentence of explanation so my readers would understand I wasn't posting a random person's obit for no reason.
While I have nothing but sympathy for the family and friends affected by this preventable tragedy, repeating this obituary is nothing but the proliferation of publicly available information. If the friends of the family are upset by the appearance of the obituary, they perhaps should discuss it with the people who composed it (who are not me), or the paper who originally printed it (also not me).
Lastly, glance to the right ----->
In the sidebar, three different websites are listed under the heading "Find Me At...", each of which contain multiple email addresses. One simple click on any of those sites would've revealed active and current contact information.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
UPMC suspends adult living kidney donor transplant program
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/lifestyles/health/s_736223.html#ixzz1LvDjT8oD
Seeing a pattern?
See my prior post: brothers-sue-upmc-over-informed-consent
Pittsburgh-Tribune Review's "UPMC study may reshape liver transplant standards" from 2008.
Seeing a pattern?
See my prior post: brothers-sue-upmc-over-informed-consent
Pittsburgh-Tribune Review's "UPMC study may reshape liver transplant standards" from 2008.
Saturday, May 07, 2011
Liver Donor's Death Followed by His Recipient's
Last year, two living liver donors died: the Arnold case in Colorado and another at Lahey Clinic in Boston. Less than one year later, the recipient has died as well. This is the obituary that ran in the Boston newspapers:
Timothy Paul Wilson, age 58, of Pelham, NH, passed away on the morning of May 2, 2011. He was born in St. Petersburg, FL on November 20, 1952.
Tim was a loving husband, papa, son, brother, uncle, nephew and cousin. He grew up in Odessa, FL and also spent many great times with his parents, Charlie Bob and Donna, in the mountains and rivers of Tate City, GA.
Tim is survived by his wife Susan, daughter Stephanie Stamp, son-in-law Jay, and granddaughters Cameryn and Mallory. He is also survived by his brothers, Charlie and Bobby Wilson, and sister Kathy Holzinger, sister-in-laws and brother-in-laws, numerous neices, nephews, aunts, uncles, including Uncle Don Wilson, and many dear cousins.
Tim was predeceased by his loving brother-in-law, who died on the operating table while donating part of his liver to extend Tim's life.
Tim enjoyed a long and successful career at Raytheon and he took great pride in his work. Tim was an excellent water skier and enjoyed playing on local softball teams for many years.
He will be missed each and every day by his wife, Susan, his family, friends and colleagues. He was a gentle and kind man, loved by all who knew him.
A memorial for Tim will be held at a later date; those wishing to make a donation in Tim's name may do so to the Pelham NH Food Pantry, 12 Main Street, Pelham NH 03076.
Timothy Paul Wilson, age 58, of Pelham, NH, passed away on the morning of May 2, 2011. He was born in St. Petersburg, FL on November 20, 1952.
Tim was a loving husband, papa, son, brother, uncle, nephew and cousin. He grew up in Odessa, FL and also spent many great times with his parents, Charlie Bob and Donna, in the mountains and rivers of Tate City, GA.
Tim is survived by his wife Susan, daughter Stephanie Stamp, son-in-law Jay, and granddaughters Cameryn and Mallory. He is also survived by his brothers, Charlie and Bobby Wilson, and sister Kathy Holzinger, sister-in-laws and brother-in-laws, numerous neices, nephews, aunts, uncles, including Uncle Don Wilson, and many dear cousins.
Tim was predeceased by his loving brother-in-law, who died on the operating table while donating part of his liver to extend Tim's life.
Tim enjoyed a long and successful career at Raytheon and he took great pride in his work. Tim was an excellent water skier and enjoyed playing on local softball teams for many years.
He will be missed each and every day by his wife, Susan, his family, friends and colleagues. He was a gentle and kind man, loved by all who knew him.
A memorial for Tim will be held at a later date; those wishing to make a donation in Tim's name may do so to the Pelham NH Food Pantry, 12 Main Street, Pelham NH 03076.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
