Talk:Organ transplantation/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Splitting article and joining with others

This article is quite long and feels unweildy now. It seems to split nicely into a number of autonomous sections (eg History of Transplantation or even Transplantation techniques)

Also it seems to go over similar ground to the article on Organ Donation. Should these two articles be looked at together and see if a more sensible structure should be created. ODTF (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Redundant links?

There are in-article links to "Lung Transplant" which is a redirect to this article. Are they place-holders until the article is made? Ich but too lazy to log in.

what other organ transplants can't be performed today? Skin transplants (skin grafts) are very common but also very limited... the whole skin can't be replaced although patches can. Also what about stomach, intestine, limbs (arms and legs), inner ear, etc.? Seems an exhaustive list of what can't be done at present, and articles on the research towards each, is worth as much attention as the w: whole-body transplant.

Both stomach and intestine transplants have been possible since the 1990's.--inks 01:25, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi! :) All I have to say is, you can't take it with you!! I had a transplant from my twin (it was a kidney) Also, kidney's are the number one organ to fail, and it often accompanies the failing of other organs. (like liver goes, then kidney's)

Leg transplant

I am a thrity eight year old above knee amputee(right leg) which resulted from a tricycle accident about eight years ago. I would like to know if it is possible to have a leg transplant and just how could I go about it.

John Patmore

South Africa

Leg transplant

I have a brother, he is in his early twenties. he's above knee amputee(right leg) which resulted from a road accident.Is it possible to have a leg transplant?

RG Malaysia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


"Rabies tests are not conducted on organs destined for transplantation", from the Rabies article. My question: why not? Jawed 04:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Because it is not very prevalent, especially in the absence of a clinical history. I think the sentence ought to be removed.
By the way, it's not the organs that are tested but the donor's blood for antibodies or antigens. JFW | T@lk 10:58, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ok, so it's not very prevalent. But if you were about to receive an organ, wouldn't you want a simple Rabies test to be performed? I sure would. Then why doesn't everyone request this, and as a result, why is this not standard procedure? Jawed 20:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Largely because they need to use the organs quite quickly, and there isn't time to test for everything. The risk of catching rabies is far less than the risk of dying on the waiting list if the organ is lost waiting for a rabies test. I'm sure they don't test for any number of conditions in addition to rabies. To answer your question, which wasn't aimed at me, I'd want an organ that arrived in the best possible shape. I'd be worried about rabies, in the same way I'd be worried about side effects from anesthesia (which might be more likely to kill me). Pakaran 21:47, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There have been a few cases of Rabies being transferred from donor to recipient.


How many organ transplants are given each year, and which types are most common? --LostLeviathan 02:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

These data are available at and, linked from the article. I did not include them, as they change annually and I'm not committed to updating. The data at the links are updated continuously, and are the better source. Preczewski 01:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Transplant Kids

Our son,now 11yrs old received both liver and small bowel transplants when he was 3,after a long struggle. We have setup 2 websites you may be interested in...

Aaron's Gift of Life our son's personal story... [== ==]

and our more recent site Transplant Kids aimed at children and where you'll find lots of info,stories,links and a message board...

[== ==]

Come pay us a visit...



Each year, hundreds of impoverished people sell their kidneys to later be used in illegal transplants. The size and scope of this current problem has yet to be fully understood or realized.

Um, first of all, understood or realized by whom? Secondly, can we see a source for this? --Fastfission 05:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

skin transplantation

Skin is an organ that is transplanted, is it not? It isn't mentioned under tissues commonly transplanted, and I am not sure enough to make an edit to the page fixing that. If anyone more knowledgable than I agrees or disagrees I would like to know.

Is a skin transplant a "organ transplant" or a "tissue transplant" ?
This article consistently classifies a skin transplant as a "organ transplant", not a "tissue transplant".
However, I was under the impression that skin transplants are a kind of tissue transplants -- the surgeon transfers *some* skin tissue, not the *entire* skin organ, right? -- (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

--- Within the organ/tissue donation profession, skin is considered a tissue. Organs refers strictly to solid organs. The medical testing that is conducted for organ donation is different than that of tissue donation, and the federal agencies overseeing the processes are different. Skin is treated as a tissue for donation and transplant purposes.

[1] GOLMCorpComm (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC) GOLMCorpComm

Unusual heart transplant situation

Many years ago a friend of mine (Graham Charles Hunt, now deceased) was the recipient of a heart-lung transplant at Harefield Hospital in England, and his own heart was found to be in sufficiently good condition that it was patched up and transplanted into another patient (whose name I do not have). The surgeon was Sir Magdi Yacoub and the surgery took place in the mid-1980s (I'm trying to pin down the exact date).

EDIT: The year was 1987, and Graham's medical condition necessitating the surgery was Eisenmenger's syndrome, exacerbated by an earlier episode (several years before) of Septicaemia triggered by a bite from a semi-feral cat.

The two patients met - I guess someoneone thought it would be a great idea for the man who received the heart to meet the still-living donor. This must stand as a unique event in medical history.

Graham eventually succumbed (a few weeks after the surgery) to a combination of a viral infection and the fact that he was not able to be given the latest immunosuppressive drugs (his kidneys reacted adversely to them). I don't know what happened to the man who received his heart.

When I can establish enough verifiable fact I will amend the article accordingly.

PeterBrooks 02:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

A domino transplant is the word here. It's uncommon, but does happen. JFW | T@lk 20:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Interesting - I learn something new every day :). Generally, though, domino transplants appear to involve organs that are either perfectly OK or with some slight thickening of one wall. In Graham's case, not only was there a large atrial septal defect (the result of the existing fenestration being enlarged into a single opening), there was valve damage too (the result of the septicaemia), in addition to the wall thickening. I forget how many valves were damaged exactly. But it must have involved quite a lot of repair to use the heart for another person, hence Graham's concern about the recipient getting a retread...
What really surprised me is that Graham's situation is nowhere near as unique as we all (family and friends) thought. Dominos seem to occur relatively frequently at Harefield - in December of the same year (1987) there was another domino transplant. PeterBrooks 20:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
And I would recommend not editing the article without some external evidence, as we're heavy on properly referenced material at the moment. JFW | T@lk 20:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Understood - which is why I'm not editing the main article until I can establish some verifiable fact (my final sentence, above). But I saw no harm in raising my hand here first :) PeterBrooks 20:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

More dubiousness

Additionally, some authorities may mandate organ donation from unwilling donors such as prisoners. The size and scope of these problems are not well-documented and is probably not known.

I've heard about executed Chinese prisoners being donors, but no other claims about prisoners being forced donors. Which reference, if any, makes such an allegation? Andjam 13:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Revelling in my anonymity, here are some references to the Chinese Allegations:

Tooth Transplants

I recall watching a documentary (probably in the 80s) about poverty-stricken individuals in Brazil selling their teeth for transplant into the mouth of those wealthy enough to be able to afford the procedure.

While that story may be apocryphal, it did make me wonder whether dental transplants merited inclusion in the article. Any views? PeterBrooks 20:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Urban legend? You find sources, we'll debate inclusion! JFW | T@lk 21:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The Brazilian story may well be - no argument there - but autogenic dental transplantation seems to have a history according to this site:
It mentions a report of an allogenic transplant dating from 1562 - I'll see if I can find anything further on allogenic transplants.
A search using this link reveals a few papers:
While I'm at it, maybe hair transplants might qualify? :) PeterBrooks 22:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Mother-killers many organs were transplaned in Hungary.

Is it normal worldwide to transplant organs from murderers? Here in Hungary it has been recently revealed that a teenage boy who beheaded his own mother and then committed suicide by jumping off 3rd floor smashing his head had several of his intact organs used for transplantation. I think this is terrible and should not be allowed and should be banned outright. This is worse than any B- grade Hollywood fiction movie ever made about "killer hand" and "killer cornea", etc.

What if a recipient learns about it and becomes paranoid or psychotic due to the thought of such bloody legacy? He may rip self and tear off the organ in repulsion. Should the recipient commit a murder himself/herself there would be such a public panic and scandal that transplants would become anathema forever, just like nazi eugenics.

Another problem is the recipients were not told what they received. Imagine some of them were catholic, homicide and even more suicide is a gravely sin in catholicism, how their lives are ruined by the thought of their body is partially that of an irredeemable sinner. Imagine that friends abandon them when they learn about their percential murderness, collegue do not allow them to work with them out of fear, etc.

I think any US person who could receive a killer's organ without being told to agree first would certainly sue the hospital for a healthy 15 million bucks. I hope the hungarian recipients will also be able to gain a still handsome compensation in the court, although much less in value than in the USA. 10:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

What if we added a controversy / conspiracy section to the article? We could describe such issues as ethics and fears of transplant from suicidor / homicidor cadaver donors (e.g. cell based memory inheritence theory also known as the "killer arm" theory in Hollywood thriller movies, possible adverse effects on religious organ receivers when learning that the organ came from a suicidor).
Also the ethics of human-animal transplant could be addressed there, until a few years ago pig organs and tissues were routinely transplanted into humans, e.g. heart valves, until doctors realized this is apartheid against 1/7th of the world population (900 mio muslims + 27 mio jews for whom pigs are desacratedly dirty). Also there was some death-doctor who put monkey heart into a human.
I think the only final remedy is to develop cyber-mechanical implants and eliminate transplants entirely because of immuno-difficulties and ethics trouble. Cloning is also too dangerous to the society. Machine replacement organs are the way to go. 17:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Why in the world would someone care if their transplanted kidney (heart, lung, etc.) came from someone who was a murderer or a suicide? I am a kindey/pancreas recipient, and I know nothing about the donor (deceased), except that the donor was a male who was slightly yonger than I was. He could have been a murder/suicide. He could have been an absolute saint. Neither one has any impact on who I am beyond the fact that I am alive and healthy because of their donated organ. Either the donor, or their family, decided to donate the organs, and I benefit. I would be upset if I found that the organs had been taken without permission, but I trust that didn't happen in this case. Again, why would the character of the donor make any difference to me? –RHolton– 22:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Definitely a moot point. In the article, you can put a referrence to the "killer arm" in Hollywood, but there's absolutely no reason to think any of that. Would most rather have a murderer's heart, or be dead? You can't allow someone to pick and choose which organs they get. As long as they organ is healthy, they can live with it. Literally.Jay42 23:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

How do they do it?

I'm writing a short story, and there are a few things I need to know, most of them being about transplants. (1) What instrument is used to make the incision in the "dead" donor? (2) What shape would the incision be in? (My guess was a Y) (3) Does the donor need to be the same blood type? (4) How long can the heart last, unfrozen, out of a body? (5) And, this one is only out of curiosity, after they get the heart in you, does it automatically start pumping, of do they have to do something? Hakusa (talk · contribs)

We don't have transplant surgeons who frequently contribute to Wikipedia, so this may not be most useful place to ask this question. (1) I suspect normal scalpels and diathermy are used on the "dead" donor, especially if there is still active circulation. (2) I'm not sure if the incision is a Y, but it would be sensible if both kidneys and/or the liver are being harvested. (3) Yes, absolutely. ABO incompatibility would lead to rapid rejection. (4) I'm not sure. (5) I'm not sure. I will ask a colleague who has worked at a transplant department. JFW | T@lk 01:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the accuracy of the answer to (3) here. The ABO (strictly ABH) incompatibility (and there are numerous other blood groups that trigger reactions) is really only relevant when considering blood transfusions. It's probable that the HLA antigen/antibody or Major histocompatibility complex reactions would be more relevant (these are at the heart of tissue typing considerations when matching organs). Just my 2c. AncientBrit 19:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Thankyou very much.
ABH is a major consideration in organ transplantation - although not always 100% necessary, incompatible organs can cause complications, see: PMID 8342994 for example. --apers0n 05:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess it depends on individual cases and risk assessments carried out by the transplant team. ABH incompatibility wasn't exactly an absolute contraindication in the example you quoted, it just appeared to increase risk factors for complications, and not for the organ that was the primary reason for transplantation to be considered. Such incompatibility used to be a major consideration in heart transplantation but that may not always be the case - indeed, for infants it seems to be a non-issue unless isohaemagglutinin titres are high (ABO-Incompatible Heart Transplantation in Infants). IMHO HLA would still be the main focus for compatibility. AncientBrit 19:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
(4) for heart transplants usually a time limit of four to six hours is used (this differs per organ). There is ongoing research and development on preservation methods which could increase the time limit to about 12 hours. (5) The heart starts beating spontaneously after blood flow and temperature are restored. --WS 00:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael Woodruff

The article on Michae Woodruff, a transplant pioneer is undergoing peer review. Please participate at Wikipedia:Peer review/Michael Woodruff/archive1! Thanks. Cool3 17:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Expansion needed

This article contains no discussion of survival rates or average survival times or average transplant survival times (except a few mentions of second surgeries) Rmhermen 18:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong

I see that this report is quoted, however I think it would be useful to mention that the Chinese Communist Party, marginalized this group of people for their belief system, more or less like the Nazi did with the Jews. The only group that is being systematically tested for blood and tissue, information required for donor matching, is the Falun Gong group, this is in the report, so I think it would be quite interesting to mention that although organ harvest in China is done from people who are in prison or labor camps, thier only 'fault' is that they believe in Truthfulness - Compassion - Forbearance, which are the core principles of Falun Gong. --HappyInGeneral 16:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong cult is well-known opposed to modern science based medicine and pharmaceuticals' use. They indoctrinate their adherents to refuse treatments, which makes a lot of children born to Falung-gungho parents die early due to trivial illnesses. That sect is enemy of mankind, because they spread neo-primitive beliefs that destroy tremendous enlightment-based human progress we've done in the last 300 or so years. I don't mind if they are harvested! 07:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Well you have the right to your personal unsourced opinion, but saying that killing people is OK just because somebody has the money to pay the Chinese government to harvest their organs (see report cited above) ... well ... that is really pushing it ... -- 09:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Personally I think all of you should take this discussion elsewhere, preferably a place where they don't write encyclopedias. --Ekko 13:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Operation Mengele

According to the "Gazeta Wyborcza" daily newspaper the polish CBA anti-corruption agency has been conducting a secret investigation into a most shocking matter under this very codename.

A renowned polish heart-transplant expert, only identified as "Prof. Dr. G." stands accused of deliberately murdering some of his patients who refused to pay bribes to him. Dr. G. was arrested in February 2007, but released in mid-May due to the court not agreeing with the classification of such case as murders. Now however, the evidence is mounting and Dr. G.'s lawyers are so worried they resorted to going to the media and disclosing the shocking codename of the investigation, hoping common people will side with the doctor. The CBA says they have audiovisual evidence that proves Dr. G. was no better than the nazi "Angel of Death" and they will seek life in prison without parole (as Poland does not have execution any more).

Another proof that organ transplant is ethically unmanageable. Medical science should work toward biomechanical replacement organs, so that neither transplant nor cloning/foetal stem cell atrocities need to be committed to save lives. 07:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How would having a biomechanical transplant have stopped this doctor from doing the exact same thing? Jay42 23:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

DNA & chromosomes of transplanted organs

I assume each cell in our body contains our unique personal chromosomes. So, if an organ is transplanted into our body, does that organ ever have our DNA/chromosomes, or does it ever remain the chromosomes of the donor? If it does change, how long does it take? GBC 04:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Matas & Kilgour

This article is about organ transplants. The sub-section on forced transplant happens to involve China. The K&M report is about organ harvesting, a different subject. It is already dealt with in great depth elsewhere, and I don't think it or Falun Gong belong here. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Organ harvest or forced transplant, what is the difference? The KM report is exactly the result of an investigation about state organized forced organ transplantation. Having a paragraph on it can hardly be called going into details. Perhaps you agree on this. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd say that the US Department of State report takes precedent over Kilgour and Matas. And the duo have their critics in Laogai researcher Harry Wu and Dr Thomas Lum who doubted their flawed research methods.--PCPP (talk) 05:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not all that relevant. What's more, the K&M "evidence" is entirely circumstantial. So no, it doesn't belong here. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually it is an investigative report. It is based on many real things which are ongoing in China. It is heavily referenced, so please don't say that is circumstantial and that it does not belong to the forced donation section. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

smear of who?

The words in question are: "The discrepancy between the number of organs harvested from executed prisoners and the actual number of performed transplantations has raised allegations of the Chinese government illegally performing organ transplants. Canadian lawyers David Matas and David Kilgour, [2] present evidence of the Chinese government systematically using Falun Gong practitioners as a live organ bank."

which Ohconfucius said of: "Disagree: This circumstantial evidence, presented here and in this manner, amounts to a smear"

I would please seek elaboration on how raising evidence of these alleged crimes is a smear--the "here and in this manner" is what probably needs to be explained. I am assuming raising the evidence is acceptable--there is a page dedicated to it--but that it is seen as problematic to repeat that on a page about organ transplants. For now I would merely note that on a page about organ transplants, with a section on Forced Donations, this report is obviously highly relevant. This isn't a platform for promoting different views. Just in terms of this article, I don't know how the report isn't relevant. The subject is related.--Asdfg12345 05:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious who it smears. I'm not suggesting it doesn't have its place, as it is rightly written about in the FG, persecution of FG, FG and live organ harvesting articles. Just because it's sourced, doesn't mean it's relevant; just because there is a report to which this is referenced, doesn't mean the report's not based on circumstantial evidence. None of the report's evidence is definitive and incontrovertible despite the authors' claims that it remains unchallenged. Anybody with a modicum of legal knowledge will agree as much, and Christian Science Monitor has categorically said so. It is easy to throw around allegations which are impossible to prove, and then when China decided it does not merit responding to say the facts are not refuted. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I just wish it were as you described it. The fact is that the report could be very easily disproven by the CCP if it was false. There are numerous avenues of disproof. Why don't they just let investigators in, for example? Produce some hospital records? Explain the massive discrepancy between total organ transplants and those available from known sources other than Falun Gong. The evidence is not direct as in, actual footage of the whole procedure, (and then this would even be dismissed as fraud anyway, wouldn't it?), but apart from that, there is everything. I assume you have read the report. Can you think of any other reason that practitioners are systematically blood tested? Is it for health? And then there are phone bills of those phone calls, which are not faked. So did doctors just make it up for fun? The fact is that doctors really did say those things, admitting and boasting about having Falun Gong. That actually happened--so what's more ridiculous? It's really hard to believe, but when asking these kinds of questions, I can't really think of any other reasonable explanation to all the evidence. And yet, this does not constitute ironclad 'proof'--though in a case like this, I wonder what would. Anyway, it isn't a trivial report, and it's entirely relevant to Organ Transplants, and 'Forced Donations' in particular. We aren't really arguing over the merit of the report here, but I can't see how anyone can deny its relevance to the 'Forced Donations' section. This will really require some extra special explanation. I am failing to see how it is not relevant--a report about forced organ donations in a section on forced organ donations...?--Asdfg12345 06:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Whether I personally agree or not with the contents of the report is entirely irrelevant here. Motives count for little, too. All we are dealing with here are allegations made by Falun Gong, and "investigated" by two prominent individuals. Their status is not elevated beyond accusations, despite what you state. In the meantime, I have asked for a third opinion. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
What? Please answer this: have you read the report? Accusations are accusations, and could be anything, even entirely groundless, but evidence is evidence. If you had read the report you would know that it is basically a compilation of evidence with some commentary at the end saying the conclusion is organ harvesting. Accusations and evidence and entirely different things, and we are dealing firmly with the latter.--Asdfg12345 07:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Come on, this discussion shouldn't even be taking place on this page. I repeat, allegations which are backed by circumstantial evidence is not elevated to the status of fact. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I don't like to argue about this. I would prefer someone else to take this up. By the way, the evidence for use of executed prisoners for organs is of an identical nature to that of Falun Gong organ harvesting, so by the same logic, that should be removed as well; the quality of evidence is identical. I think it is obviously a relevant piece of information to mention on an article about Organ donation in a section on forced donations. I can't really insist on it though, and have no real control over the outcome. We'll see what a third opinion says, or just leave it. *sigh*--Asdfg12345 07:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request I don't think the section about forced organ harvesting of Falun Gong members belongs in this article. The purpose of the article is to explain organ transplants, and this doesn't seem to help readers understand that subject. In my opinion, if the information is important to put on Wikipedia, it would more properly go in Persecution of Falun Gong, or maybe Human rights in the People's Republic of China, where it might indeed shed light upon those subjects, but not in this article, where I found myself saying, 'Is this article about organ transplants, or about why China is evil?' In fact, I'd remove the unsourced stuff about Tienanment Square dissidents as well, on the same grounds. That's my opinion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hadn't spotted that, or else I would have deleted it too. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I kind of agree, but you've got a section here called "Forced donations", so what's the criteria for including one aspect of forced donations but not another? I would suggest blanking it all for consistency, but then all this is an aspect of the "organ transplant" subject. Too much mention of Falun Gong organ harvesting and the Wu stuff does make it a 'look how evil the CCP is' job (not China, they are different), but excluding all mention of "Forced Donation" seems inappropriate?--Asdfg12345 15:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Used the wrong abbreviation in my last edit summary, as WP:V is not applicable. Sure, the stuff is sourced, but it doesn't belong. We received a third opinion on this matter, and HappyInGeneral insists on putting it back. The continued reverts fly in the face of consensus, and may be in violation of WP:VANDAL. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh it's not vandal, cmon. I disagree with the edit, but I don't see any response to my concerns above, eh? The question was why some forced donation info should appear but some not. I think it's better to explain things nicely.--Asdfg12345 01:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps I was a bit harsh, but if HiG had followed the discussion here instead of repeatedly putting the stuff back with "do not revert" as an edit summary, I would not have said what I said. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
My apologizes, I did not read through the whole talk page, I only looked at this section Talk:Organ_transplant#Matas_.26_Kilgour where the last entry was mine. Also here I would like to thank to Ohconfucius because he pointed that here is a third opinion on this. So thanks --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think forced donation does belong to this topic of Organ Transplant. However I agree with FisherQueen that it should not go on detail on it. So I think the best way to solve it is to put under it see more details on page .... --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

So I made this edit: [1], hope this is OK with all of you, best --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe you may still be trying to make a political point with your editing. The paragraph/section deals with the concept of how the donation can be "forced", and just gives donations from criminals, for example in China. Now you introduce a link to a Falun Gong article, which has a similar effect as reposting the stuff we deleted. I feel that the relevant link is Organ harvesting in China, and I put a link to that page a few days ago in the "see also" section at the bottom. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I guess I see your point, but why isn't the see also of Organ harvesting in China under the forced donation section? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It's usually only linked once, and I think the most appropriate place for it is at the bottom. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Lung transplant

On the timeline I noticed that the first successful double lung transplant is listed in 1987 but on the Lung transplantation it's listed as 1988 with a commented out statement saying that the dates were taken from this page. I'd like to verify the information, and add a bit more to the lung transplant article, so I was wondering if anybody knows where those specific facts were pulled up from? Thanks. --ImmortalGoddezz 01:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Storing Organs

Does anyone have any idea about storing organs, such as kidneys? I've heard stories about kidney-thefts and I wonder if the thieves have a customer ready or do they keep the kidney somewhere on ice. (1) Doesn't freezing any organ cause massive tissue damage to it? (2) Is it even possible to keep organs frozen and ready to be planted for more than a couple of hours? (3) How? I heard sperm (from sperm donators) is spreaded with liquid hydrogen so it is "freezeable". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Each organ has it's own time limit that it can be out of the body. Kidneys can be out of the body for a maximum of 36-48 hours, most transplant centers prefer to transplant them within 24 hours. The organs are flushed with a cold preservation solution to stop metabolism and then transported on ice to the transplant center to be put into the recipient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Organdonornurse (talkcontribs) 02:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect from transplant

I've made this into a disambiguation, I see no reason to redirect it here as people are likely to type in organ transplant if this is the page they want. It can also refer to transplanting organisms, often plants, to other locations, and the experimental technique of doing so. Richard001 (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Banned in Singapore

On June 27, 2008, Indonesian, Sulaiman Damanik, 26, pleaded guilty in Singapore court for sale of his kidney to CK Tang's executive chair, Mr Tang Wee Sung, 55, for 150 million rupiah (S$ 22,200). The Transplant Ethics Committee must approve living donor kidney transplants. Organ trading is banned in Singapore and in many other countries to prevent the exploitation of "poor and socially disadvantaged donors who are unable to make informed choices and suffer potential medical risks." Toni, 27, the other accused, donated a kidney to an Indonesian patient in March, alleging he was the patient's adopted son, and was paid 186 million rupiah (20,200 US). Upon sentence, both would suffer each, 12 months in jail or 10,000 Singapore dollars (7,300 US) fine.Abs-Cbn Interactive, Two Indonesians plead guilty in Singapore organ trading, CK Tang boss quizzed by police--Florentino floro (talk) 07:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Organ printing

What about adding something about organ printing, as seen here? (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating. Please add that reference to the artificial organ article; I think that's a more appropriate location than this organ transplant article. -- (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Double Arm Transplant

While looking through citations for the Double Arm Transplant, I found this gem from 2003, talking about the first double-arm transplant:

Was this one overlooked, or is there more to this story than meets the eye? jd 16:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


Why is there no discussion of what makes a donor and recipient compatible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Figure needs to be fixed in paired exchange

The figure in the paired exchange section contains the word "Incomatibility," twice. It needs to be fixed but I don't know how to do it. (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
  2. ^ Kilgour-Matas report entitled "Bloody Harvest" regarding forced donation from Falun Gong practitioners