Jonah's kidney

[Hitcher]

I was disappointed to see that not only couldn't Jonah's donor keep a secret but also that the person in question is B-grade celebrity and recidivist attention seeker Grant Kereama of breakfast radio "fame".

I will only retract these comments if this story goes no further. My prediction is that while Mr Kereama may have "given" Jonah a kidney, he will be more than fully compensated by selling his story to women's magazines... Yawn.

I suspect that to validate this decision, Chemo Kereama may go for the angle that as so few Maori and people of Pacific Island descent donate organs this is his way of drawing attention to this heinous matter. Sigh.

I am surprised that Mr Kereama managed to get past other more determined attention seekers like Paul Holmes, Charlotte Dawson, the former Mrs Eric Watson, and his own spouse the inimitable (thank god) Pauline Gillespie.

Very sad and tawdry.

[jrandom]

I'll bet the tawdryness didn't bother Jonah.

Give Mr Kereama his due. He *did* go under the knife. Regardless of motivation, donating a kidney is still a fairly noble act. And if he was partially motivated by the accolades he would receive, Jonah being Jonah and all... well... who among us can honestly say that they've never done a good deed that they would have thought twice about, had they known that nobody would ever hear of it?

[greenhorn]

I agree
One question... would he have donated his kidney if it was not Jonah but some unknown bloke?

I think not
I heard that the news was "leaked" by an anonymous caller to a newspaper??
I wonder who that was... hmmmmmm :sly:

[greenhorn]

I'll bet the tawdryness didn't bother Jonah.

Give Mr Kereama his due. He *did* go under the knife. Regardless of motivation, donating a kidney is still a fairly noble act. And if he was partially motivated by the accolades he would receive, Jonah being Jonah and all... well... who among us can honestly say that they've never done a good deed that they would have thought twice about, had they known that nobody would ever hear of it?

Yeah but its all about motive innit? To me there is nothing noble about doing something for a wrong motive, fair enough if you want a reward go ahead but its hard to stomach some of his comments indicating his act was totally out of concern and generosity when it so obviously wasnt.

[tuscan]

Give Mr Kereama his due. He *did* go under the knife. Regardless of motivation, donating a kidney is still a fairly noble act.
Gotta agree... I couldn't see myself doing it. :o

Even if he he's only interested in publicity value, he's still made a hell of difference in someone's life. How many B-grade celebrities can say that's the reason they're famous? :whistle:

What irks me more is Jonah's statements that he thinks he might someday be able to play for the All Blacks again. It ain't gonna happen! :disapint:

[moko]

I dont know the bloke so not fair to comment but from what I`ve read here maybe this is relevant

"There are those who give little of the much they have- and they give it for recognition and their hidden desire makes their gifts unwholesome"
Kahlil Gibran

Personally if I donated any of my body-parts then unless it was to a friend or relative and as a result of a specific request I`d want to stay anonymous,a breach of that places obligations on both parties that neither need,unless of course they`re the type Gibran speaks of.As it is Jonah`s got himself a new buddy whether he likes it or not,dont know if N.Z`s quite as bad as here but the pair of them would be doing the rounds of t.v.,newspapers e.t.c.I`d far rather save "someone out there" or be saved by "someone out there".The people who do good deeds,help others in need e.t.c. out of their own sense of what`s right tend also to be those who really dont want publicity or any intrusion into their lives.Classic case was the late Princess Di,wherever she appeared doing the Saint Di bit "somehow" the press always turned up and further investigation would reveal that the extent of her concern was a quick 10 minute visit to say a homeless centre then disappearing shortly after the coincidental press appearance. I dont doubt Jonah`s really grateful to this guy but surely there`s a bit of him that isn`t too easy with such a person so publicly having him under an obligation.

[James Deuce]

Personally I think Grant was stupid. Maori and Pacific Islanders are much more prone to kidney disease irrespective of health and lifestyle, and for goodness sake he has kids. He only needs one unfortunate accident or illness and he is in the same boat Jonah was.

Jonah is kidding himself if he thinks he will play top-level rugby again. The anti-rejection drugs are an immune system depressant and he will be battling with respitory infections, flus, and colds for the next 12 months at least. These often turn into pneumonia. The level of work needed to get back into shape would stress a body already under extreme stress and he wold be best to concentrate on maintaining his health.

Organ transplant operations are purely and utterly human vivisection and there is NO guarantee of an inmprovement in lifestyle quality or longevity. The emotional aspect of children or loved ones dying has been plundered to allow surgeons with borderline ethical practices to experiment on humans.

[toads]

well, I may well have to donate one of my kidneys in the future as my daughter has a kidney condition that may possibly lead to having to have a kidney transplant, and I can tell you right now the thought of going under the knife is not a pleasant one or one that I would undertake lightly, I keep telling her to look after her kidneys eg don't drink alcohol or coffee etc, cos I am not going to donate a kidney if she wrecks hers, of course I know I would do anything to save the life of my kids, I just don't fancy the thought of it being sooner rather than later. Now, this guy has got genuine motives, getting operated on hurts, all operations have their risks and he has taken a significant risk of his own health and wellbeing for Jonah, he is to be congratulated, he's not being paid for it afterall, and at the end of the day he deserves the credit for this brave and noble act.

[Hitcher]

Organ transplant operations are purely and utterly human vivisection and there is NO guarantee of an improvement in lifestyle quality or longevity. The emotional aspect of children or loved ones dying has been plundered to allow surgeons with borderline ethical practices to experiment on humans.

A strong view, James!

Given an option between having a kidney transplant and daily/weekly dialysis for the rest of my life, even with no "guarantee", etc, I'd take the kidney. Similarly with a heart, heart/lung. A chance that something may make a difference in terms of improving or extending the quality of a person's life is an integral part of the human survival instinct.

I won't chase the "ethics" cat with you (everybody has differing values systems) but I detect in the tenor of your reply that you may be a bit of an anti-vivisectionist, and that is an entirely different cat that may be worth some sort of sporting pursuit...

[jrandom]

an entirely different cat that may be worth some sort of sporting pursuit...

And then, when we catch it, we can cut it up!

[toads]

Personally I think Grant was stupid. Maori and Pacific Islanders are much more prone to kidney disease irrespective of health and lifestyle, and for goodness sake he has kids. He only needs one unfortunate accident or illness and he is in the same boat Jonah was.

Jonah is kidding himself if he thinks he will play top-level rugby again. The anti-rejection drugs are an immune system depressant and he will be battling with respitory infections, flus, and colds for the next 12 months at least. These often turn into pneumonia. The level of work needed to get back into shape would stress a body already under extreme stress and he wold be best to concentrate on maintaining his health.

Organ transplant operations are purely and utterly human vivisection and there is NO guarantee of an inmprovement in lifestyle quality or longevity. The emotional aspect of children or loved ones dying has been plundered to allow surgeons with borderline ethical practices to experiment on humans.

I agree with you that Jonah probably won't play top level rugby again and also that it would be foolish to compromise his health to try and play again too soon, but it is his desire to do so and that aspiration may be what keeps him alive, the mind has an awful lot to do with the immune system, the anti rejection drugs will be with him for life, but he will still have a better quality of life than if he had to rely on dialysis. I worry about where we are heading with organ transplants stem cell research etc too. It's easy to judge these people until you have to walk in their shoes.

[Hitcher]

And then, when we catch it, we can cut it up!
In a scientific manner, so that we can observe cause and effect. Nothing spurious or random, you understand...

[vifferman]

And then, when we catch it, we can cut it up!In a scientific manner, so that we can observe cause and effect. Nothing spurious or random, you understand...... for the greater good of humankind, and cathood, and all that, of course.

Errr... can I help? I used to do a bit of veterinary surgery, a few years back, when I was a professional sheep torturer - oops, I mean - Research Technician. I can bring my own Fijian bush knife and lighter fluid.

[jrandom]

And then, when we catch it, we can cut it up!In a scientific manner, so that we can observe cause and effect. Nothing spurious or random, you understand...... for the greater good of humankind, and cathood, and all that, of course.

And the children.

Think of the children.

[James Deuce]

A strong view, James!

Given an option between having a kidney transplant and daily/weekly dialysis for the rest of my life, even with no "guarantee", etc, I'd take the kidney. Similarly with a heart, heart/lung. A chance that something may make a difference in terms of improving or extending the quality of a person's life is an integral part of the human survival instinct.

I won't chase the "ethics" cat with you (everybody has differing values systems) but I detect in the tenor of your reply that you may be a bit of an anti-vivisectionist, and that is an entirely different cat that may be worth some sort of sporting pursuit...

I'm not an anti-vivisectionist, but I do believe that the medical profession is at least 200 years ahead technologically of it's ethical stance. Prolonging life at any cost is not a noble goal, particularly when the method is effectively death by inches with decreasing levels of dignity. Transplant technology, radiotherapy, chemotherapy are all hugely experimental in nature, and for every success story there are at least 2 disasters.

Thanks to the efforts of the anti-GE brigade, the single biggest advance in medical technology, the growth and harvesting of internal organs using your own DNA, has been placed out of reach for the forseeable future.

The deification of the medical model has resulted in a "common wisdom" that refuses to question whether or not a particular procedure is valid, and has even allowed the "sanctity" of life to be enshrined in law, removing personal or family choice from the equation. The recent failed bid to force families to allow organs to harvested from brain dead, but still functioning relatives would tend to indicate that less people support transplant medicine than "common wisdom" would have a us believe.

One of the most common causes of kidney nephrosis is repeatedly not treating urinary tract infections. If this is the case, those people or their parents if the condition harkens from childhood, should be required to pay for the transplant procedure. I do not expect a heart transplant to bail me out of my years of eating fast food, pies, and cream doughnuts.

[Hitcher]

I'm not an anti-vivisectionist, but I do believe that the medical profession is at least 200 years ahead technologically of it's ethical stance. Prolonging life at any cost is not a noble goal, particularly when the method is effectively death by inches with decreasing levels of dignity. Transplant technology, radiotherapy, chemotherapy are all hugely experimental in nature, and for every success story there are at least 2 disasters.

Thanks to the efforts of the anti-GE brigade, the single biggest advance in medical technology, the growth and harvesting of internal organs using your own DNA, has been placed out of reach for the forseeable future.

The deification of the medical model has resulted in a "common wisdom" that refuses to question whether or not a particular procedure is valid, and has even allowed the "sanctity" of life to be enshrined in law, removing personal or family choice from the equation. The recent failed bid to force families to allow organs to harvested from brain dead, but still functioning relatives would tend to indicate that less people support transplant medicine than "common wisdom" would have a us believe.

One of the most common causes of kidney nephrosis is repeatedly not treating urinary tract infections. If this is the case, those people or their parents if the condition harkens from childhood, should be required to pay for the transplant procedure. I do not expect a heart transplant to bail me out of my years of eating fast food, pies, and cream doughnuts.
Hmmm, some good food for thought here.

I agree completely with your thesis on quality vs quantity of life, but this is a highly subjective and emotional area, and one where I hope that legislators avoid the temptation to intervene! The advance of medical technology doesn't help some of the emerging ethical dilemmas -- because you can do something, should you? But I disagree about where I think you're heading about paying the ultimate price for your own health (or lack of).

I also agree completely with your call on the anti-GE brigade, not just their flat-earth, paranoid, unscientific and blinkered approach to medical developments but also to crop science and food production. Surely production systems that do not rely on herbicides, pesticides and artificial fertiliser and which allow greater quantities of more nuturitious food to be grown on less land must be a good idea? Particularly when there is no environmental or human health risk??

[jrandom]

Surely production systems that do not rely on herbicides, pesticides and artificial fertiliser and which allow greater quantities of more nuturitious food to be grown on less land must be a good idea? Particularly when there is no environmental or human health risk??

Hah! You'll be laughing on the other side of your face when the giant killer tomatoes smash their way through the door, eat all the Tim Tams, ravish Mrs Hitcher and steal the ZRX.

The question of the existence or not of environmental or health risks is a valid one, and should be answered with due attention to impartiality and the scientific method.

Unfortunately, the results of that process are likely to follow the rule that applies to most things scientific, which is that 95% of everything that gets published is crap.

Now, I'm not sure I like the idea of small farming concerns attempting to reach profitability in Africa and central Asia whilst being beholden to Monsanto et al for their seasonal supply of hardy but non-reproductive seed stocks at a monopoly-decided price, yada yada. But that has nothing to do with whether the science and technology involved in direct genetic modification is a good idea.

Since I know nothing about it, I will not make a pronouncement upon its merits. But I don't believe in all that Frankenstein rubbish about there being things that mortal man was never meant to wot of.

[Hitcher]

Hah! You'll be laughing on the other side of your face when the giant killer tomatoes smash their way through the door, eat all the Tim Tams, ravish Mrs Hitcher and steal the ZRX.
It is a well known scientific fact that giant killer tomatos only ride Harleys.

[jrandom]

It is a well known scientific fact that giant killer tomatos only ride Harleys.

Well, I've always said that the big tomatoes have less taste.

[James Deuce]

No!! Not the Tim Tams!!

[Paul in NZ]

It is a well known scientific fact that giant killer tomatos only ride Harleys.

Jeeze!.. Don't mix yer veges wiv yer fruits. How many times must I tell you, Harleys go potatoe potatoe NOT tomato tomato (unless they make them in mexico)

Tomatos are a fruit and thus ride scooters... Admittedly, giant killer tomatos ride giant killer tomatos, but scooters all the same...

Paul N

[jrandom]

How many times must I tell you, Harleys go potatoe potatoe NOT tomato tomato

I'll have you know, matey, that around here, Harleys go 'kumara kumara'.

[Paul in NZ]

I'll have you know, matey, that around here, Harleys go 'kumara kumara'.

Mate.... I've been to west awklund... Out there, Harleys go in about 30 minutes from where you parked it last...

Paul N

[James Deuce]

But what about the Tim Tams???

[jrandom]

But what about the Tim Tams???

They don't go well with kumara.

[Motu]

The Day of the Triffids is nigh! Potatoes and tomatoes are related - fruit or vegetable,kinda a moot point if you ride a Harley.

Back to the subject - one of my best friends son rejected his mother's kidney last year...he's just a 20 something guy,wrote off a 250 Kawasaki,got a Subby,cute girl friend,has aged his parents 20 years with the stress....damn,life is just so unfair at times eh?

[Paul in NZ]

....damn,life is just so unfair at times eh?

Yeah.... Too True.... But it's still a shit load better than the alternative...

Paul N

[NC]

:eek: People give you money for a kidney ...

Wooohooo!

[Back Fire]

I've already lost enough bits through operations so I think I'm going to hang to what I have left