Is Kidney donation halachally obligatory?

DrMom

Wed, Nov 22 2017, 2:37 pm

For a while, there was a question of whether organ donation was allowed. Now it's a chiyuv? That makes no sense.

And of course surgery always carries risks. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or ignorant. Why do you think doctors have to pay such high insurance?

And of course walking around with a single kidney can present health complications/risks. If anything happens to your lone kidney (a tumor, an injury, etc.), you have no back-up.

southernbubby

Wed, Nov 22 2017, 2:38 pm

Iymnok wrote:

IF there areNO risks. The article continues to say that the halachicly definition of "no risk" is 1/10000, while the current best places have 1/5000.
Therefore it is still too high of a risk to be obligatory.
But these seem to be the numbers of the recipient, not the donor.
The donor must research their own risks. Obviously.

It also states that some medical centers have a zero rate of mortality for donors but I couldn't find any current data on donation risks other than this:http://www.kidneylink.org/RisksInvolvedinLivingDonation.aspx

which addresses morbidity to the donor rather than mortality.

Iymnok

Wed, Nov 22 2017, 2:41 pm

DrMom wrote:

Quite right .
That's another way to skew statistics.
Organ donation has the same risks as any other invasive surgery. Anesthesia has its own risks...

mommy3b2c

Wed, Nov 22 2017, 2:43 pm

DrMom wrote:

I agree with your post except the last part. Having one kidney really poses no risk. Donating one is actually kind of an insurance policy. Here’s why:

Its extremely rare for only one kidney to be affected, so having both doesn’t really help. But.....

If you donate a kidney and the one that’s remaining ever fails, the donor jumps to the top of the kidney waiting list and has a much higher chance of receiving the kidney they desperately need. Many people wait for years and actually die before they get one.

southernbubby

Wed, Nov 22 2017, 2:52 pm

amother wrote:

Great, so we all disagree with the Psak from a Satmar Rav.

I am not in disagreement, I am just wondering how this works and who it pertains to. I would not be interested in being an altruistic donor due to my own added risks and my own anxiety level would be very high if a member of my family underwent surgery, particularly if it was unnecessary for his or her own health.

The only disagreement that I see with other posters is the level of risk involved. The rav feels that the level of risk is low enough to require donation but the question is who is required and when.

mommyla

Wed, Nov 22 2017, 2:54 pm

mommy3b2c wrote:

Family members of the donor are also bumped to the top of the list should they need a kidney, so that helps those who are afraid to donate lest their family member need one.

Commendable? Yes. Obligatory? Absolutely not. Is it obligatory to give blood or platelets? Kidney donation carries higher risks than that and I've certainly never heard anyone say that you MUST give blood, platelets, or even bone marrow.

Last edited by mommyla on Wed, Nov 22 2017, 2:54 pm; edited 1 time in total

southernbubby

Wed, Nov 22 2017, 2:54 pm

Iymnok wrote:

Quite right .
That's another way to skew statistics.
Organ donation has the same risks as any other invasive surgery. Anesthesia has its own risks...

And there are websites warning the public that kidney donation is not always a cake walk.

amother

Slateblue

Wed, Nov 22 2017, 3:04 pm

southernbubby wrote:

From the small amount of the Psak quoted - there is no obligation for altruistic kidney donation.

My understanding of what he wrote was - if Ploni requires a Kidney, Yidden are hierarchically obligated to stand up give Ploni a Kidney, unless Ploni can otherwise find one.

What is the order? First immediate family, then less immediate family, then friends. In the same way that immediate family is obligated for Tzadakah first.

So he would find fault with a daughter who was a kidney match for her father and didn't donate. He'd find her obligated to do so. I suspect he'd allow for 'circumstances' where she shouldn't give.

amother

Ruby

Wed, Nov 22 2017, 3:06 pm

DrMom wrote:

Again, that's not how it works. Your second kidney is almost never a failsafe in case something happens to the first. Short of being stabbed in the kidney, when something happens to one, the same thing happens to the other. They fail together. Even in the case of cancer, where usually one is affected at a time, the cancer has a good chance of showing up on the other one down the line. People who are born with only one kidney have the same life expectancy and don't have a higher incidence of kidney problems.
The risk in donation is the risk of the surgery, because all surgery carries some risk. But the risk of living with only one kidney is negligible. And it can help both you and your immediate family in the future because if you donate, your family gets priority on the list should it chv become necessary.

southernbubby

Wed, Nov 22 2017, 3:14 pm

amother wrote:

In the event, then, that it fell to less immediate family or friends, the question would be which one of those individuals would carry the obligation, assuming, of course, that nobody stepped forward on their own.

southernbubby

Wed, Nov 22 2017, 3:16 pm

amother wrote:

This is a good point; that the donor incurs the risk now in order to lessen the risk for the future. The person who I know that did donate is fine now but did have pain for awhile and if she had been able to rest for the recommended period of time, might not have suffered as much.

amother

Slateblue

Wed, Nov 22 2017, 3:23 pm

southernbubby wrote:

I don't think he even needs to answer that. He finds that kidney donation is a chesed obliged on the community. If there were 10 people who could match, and none of them stepped forward - he'd find fault with all of them.

amother

Ruby

Wed, Nov 22 2017, 3:26 pm

southernbubby wrote:

Right, it's definitely important to think about the actual surgery and what it entails. There is some recovery time involved. I'm definitely not at a stage in my life where I can voluntarily incur something that would require a couple of weeks of recuperation. I am waiting till my kids are older.

southernbubby

Wed, Nov 22 2017, 3:29 pm

amother wrote:

Then basically each community member would be obligated to search his or her soul and decide if he could "man up" or she could "woman up" and donate.

amother

Rose

Wed, Nov 22 2017, 3:36 pm

My husband takes medication for a medical condition, and one of the risks (albeit not a huge risk) is that it could affect his kidneys. He takes bloodtests several times a year to check his kidney function.

Last year, my child was diagnosed with the same condition.

I'm not giving anyone else my kidney now. Hashem should just help keep my whole family healthy.

amother

Slateblue

Wed, Nov 22 2017, 3:37 pm

southernbubby wrote:

Then basically each community member would be obligated to search his or her soul and decide if he could "man up" or she could "woman up" and donate.

Yup. Except that he doesn't seem to think it to be a big deal - so not so much soul searching or 'manning up' - just doing.

To be clear - I don't see him going to door to door and saying "I am obligating you do to this"

southernbubby

Wed, Nov 22 2017, 3:55 pm

amother wrote:

I just quake in my boots even thinking about surgery but if a big rav like that told me to do it, I would probably feel better about it.