A pilot raced through the airport to surprise the woman who saved his life
cnn.com
cnn.com
Donating blood marrow (or stem cells) is the easiest way you could ever save a life. I encourage everyone to sign up:
US - https://www.nmdp.org/get-involved/join-the-registry
UK - https://www.anthonynolan.org/help-save-a-life/join-stem-cell...
This story involved stem cells, but for those of you who might worry about the bone marrow extraction procedure, which is reputed to be painful, I've had one - a biopsy for a medical diagnosis, not (alas) a donation - and it's not so bad. A bit uncomfortable, but I'd choose one any time over (say) stubbing my toe. It's really nothing to worry about.
Boo. Although apparently https://www.dkms.org.uk/ will take people up to 55.
Anyway, my experience was 20+ years ago, so maybe something's changed. I did specifically ask the doctor if this was the same thing they'd do if I was donating marrow and she said 'yes'. My uncle was deeply involved in one of the US marrow-donation registries at the time, and donation shyness has always been a top concern, so I really wanted to be able to give a field report, as it were.
It was in the UK, where (in my experience) they're less likely to offer aenesthesia / sedation than in the US. (I'll tell y'all a funny / embarrassing story to do with that, if anyone asks.)
Maybe enough people were rejecting the marrow donation out of fear of pain that they started offering it? Or maybe the extraction procedure is more invasive in the US than in the UK? Or maybe that doctor was just wrong? We need someone who knows more than I do to settle this!
Both sites I saw also stated that you should only sign up if you're willing to do both, which given the "90% donate stem cells only" number seems extremely odd (I'm sure there are many people willing to donate stem cells while being unwilling to undergo general anesthesia).
Certainly 20+ years ago people did refuse un-sedated marrow donations - it was a big problem, with some really sad-story consequences. The pitch at the time was that the level of pain with a donation was equivalent to falling and bruising your tailbone (accurate to my experience), but some people aren't willing to accept (what seems to me to be minimal) personal discomfort in trade for another's life. That makes me sad.
If I were to be lucky enough to be a match I'd also be more concerned about the risk (to me!) of general aenesthesia, than dealing with some minor pain, and elect to do it without.
I agree with you about the "both" requirement, which seems counterproductive. I don't think stem cell donation had even been considered, far less become possible, back when I was more (by proxy) involved in the space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_organ_transplantatio...
https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/professionals/by-topic/ethi...
This principle is similar to why palliative care is different from medical care. At some point the effectiveness of health care is so low that it mostly do more harm or drain resources better allocated to other patients. It is not that elderly people are not worthy of health care, and the ethical considerations focus on making sure its not a value based judgement about who should live and who shouldn't.
Thankfully in EU we have laws against this in terms of human rights. Doctors can not refuse to provide medical help to anyone regardless of patients world views. Far leaning left, far leaning right, women, men, color of skin and so on. If blood or organ donations would start to allow discrimination based on world views then such restrictions would be struck down in courts, based on the same principles that is behind the opposition to Neo-nazism.
Naturally people who do not accept that do not need to donate, but don't expect the medical system to change in order to get more donations. The chaos it would cause would cost more life than it would save, and it would send a very wrong signal to the rest of society.
If you want to reject those documents (and more), that is your choice. But if you want to argue against them, you will have to do better than that.
Or the person might just be worthless. C'est la vie.
What is then better, ethically speaking: donating at the risk of donating to a psychopath, or not donating at all?
But it still is and should remain your choice to donate or not.
Very good of you to do it anyway. I bet he doesn't resent that the tissue comes from someone who doesn't share his worldview.
So it is just a friend that met another friend in an airport stopover. Nothing heal related to this encounter. Nothing urgent. And they know each other for years and met also...
Sounds like it:
>> Owing to account notifications, David from time to time surprises Allie at an airport where they both happen to be, he said.
You know, this could make a decent setup for a Brian de Palma thriller: an attractive young cancer researcher volunteers to save the life of a dashing older pilot; in return, he helps her out by offering to add her to his flight benefits. Naïvely, she accepts — but then he keeps on showing up to her flights. Then he starts appearing at a conference presentation. Then at her lab. Then her home. He won’t take ‘you’re welcome’ for an answer.