Nineteen fifty-four was a great year for new directions in medicine. At least, according to the traditional script.

American physician Joseph Murray transplanted a kidney from recently discharged soldier Ronald Herrick to his identical twin Richard, who was dying of kidney disease. Richard, fearing for his brother’s life, wanted to call off the operation. But Ronald said no, I’ll risk it.

Remarkably, the operation worked, and Richard went on to live another eight years. Dr. Murray received the Nobel Prize in 1990. By then, kidney transplants had become a fact of medical life. According to one estimate, four hundred thousand lives have been saved by kidney transplants.

But fast forward to 2008. This year Interpol issued one of its rare red notices, urgently seeking the arrest— anywhere on the planet—of the mastermind of a kidney theft ring.

Yes, yes, it seems like the stuff of urban legend, but in some parts of the globalized world, having one of your kidneys stolen is a genuine risk.

The Interpol red notice manhunt ended last week near Kathmandu, Nepal, when Brampton, Ontario (Canada), resident Amit Kumar was arrested on charges of theft of kidneys. The allegations (at this point they are merely allegations) include claims that barely literate labourers were held at gunpoint until clinic staff sedated them and harvested a kidney, sometimes without mention of compensation.

Sam Dolnick, writing for Associated Press, reports the story of one such victim, recounting, “The last things Mohammed Salim remembered were the knees pinning him to the ground, the guns pointed at his head, and finally, the injection that sent him into oblivion. When he awoke, he was in agonizing pain, uncertain where he was or why he was wearing a hospital gown.” Salim was told he would be shot if he told anyone that a kidney had been removed.

It is said that some of the patients for kidney donations were from Canada.

Actually, kidney transplants are a perfect setup for medical crime because most humans can live— perhaps for decades—with only one kidney. So kidney theft is not immediately and obviously murder, the way a stolen heart or liver would be. Not only that, but people who are seeking a kidney may linger on dialysis for years, waiting for their chance. So thee is a large group of potential customers. And how many questions will some recipients ask, when suddenly offered another chance at a comfortable life?

Of course, most Third World kidneys are not stolen with violence. They are simply sold. That makes sense. People who have received a promised sum are less likely to complain to the police, as Salim, quite sensibly, did. Most donors’ compensation is only a small fraction of the total profit for the clinic anyway, not usually enough to justify the risks of Interpol.

So, welcome to the worst of globalization! Medical tourists seek out well-outfitted underground clinics in residential areas of Indian cities, including some of the same cities that host the call centres where a polite and intelligent person helps you with your computer woes.

Strange as it may seem, near the very place where that polite and intelligent person is patiently helping you open up and rewire your computer, “kidney scouts” prowl the labour markets, looking for people who have nothing to sell but their body parts. They scout on behalf of Westerners with $50 000 to spend, who hope for a dialysis-free life. They seek people who look forward only to family obligations to five children or perhaps an equal number of nieces and nephews, or perhaps their aged parents. People for whom $2 500 is an unbelievable fortune.

We can, more or less, control what happens to organ donations in Canada (or the United States). But our rules don’t apply elsewhere, where people may weigh the cost of a kidney against the chance at a better life for their extended family.

So we must ask ourselves, how many lives, among poor and perhaps foolish people, have been ended by these practices. We can be sure of one thing: If they need world class medical care, they will not get it, barring a miracle.

Solutions? Well, one solution is, sign that drivers’ licence wallet card that gives doctors the right to remove usable organs if you have been declared dead. When we make donor organs available within our own system, we help prevent abuse in systems where we have no control.

Note: This column originally appeared in ChristianWeek. (March1, 2008).

Journalist Denyse O’Leary (http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/) is the author of By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy and co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of The Spiritual Brain (Harper 2007).

Today at The Mindful Hack:

Hurting oneself to hurt others not a useful social strategy … duh!

Decline of secularism leads to panic among new atheists?

Great review of The Spiritual Brain in Canada’s Medical Post, by a reviewer (a retired surgeon) who also offers a detailed page on the true causes of pain.

Large questions require the language of myth, not shopping bills

Spotted: Mario’s colleague non-materialist neuroscientist Jeff Schwartz in Expelled movie’s supertrailer

Mind vs. meat vs. computers: The differences

Language feature unique to humans

Chuck Colson’s Breakpoint reviews The Spiritual Brain

Enlightenment ideals justify mass slaughter?

Just for fun: Fractured Latin hits the religion news

Today at the Post-Darwinist:

As Expelled film set to open, Darwin lobby sets up attack site

Will Expelled succeed at the box office?

Expelled: Intellectual property vs. intellectual territorialism

Wanted: Social scientist to study Expelled release

Today at The Design of Life blog:

Why SETI hasn’t found any space aliens yet

Excerpt: Gonzalez and fellow astronomer Hugh Ross have pointed out,

Over the last four centuries the CP [Copernican Principle] has evolved from a simple claim that the Earth is not located at the center of the solar system to an expansive philosophical doctrine that the Earth, and particularly its inhabitants, are not special in any significant way.

It is worth noting that the Copernican principle is not testable. It is simply an assumption. If right, it will aid research, but if wrong, it will impede research.

Suppose it is wrong? Could that be one reason why the SETI search for extraterrestrial civilizations has not turned up any results for forty years, despite early optimism? Visit SETI and see for yourself.

Plus: “Anti-science” and the mind-body problem

Excerpt: Is knowing reasons why materialism isn’t true “anti-science”?

What should scientists do if they find evidence that does not confirm materialism? There is quite a lot of that in neuroscience, including the hard problem of consciousness and the placebo effect.
[ ... ]

Under promissory materialism, scientists are expected to ignore or explain away evidence that doesn’t support materialism.

Today at the Overwhelming Evidence blog:

Group vs. individual selection - left wing vs. right wing biology?

Intelligent design films on the Internet

Wars on science? Hey, we are all anti-science now

So many different meanings for “evolution” - no wonder we get confused!

Shock for scientists: First animals complex, not simple

From Mutation Works: Evolve your own musical cave man. (And if he turns out to be a great, yawping troll, please reclassify him as an anthropoid ape and send no photos).

Does Deep Ecology require intelligent design?

Does a high level of information increase the moral worth of an entity?

Rate this post:

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...