> Was the kidney donor already dead, from something other than rabies, or were still alive for donation and later died?
FTA
> About five weeks later, the man started to hallucinate, have trouble walking and swallowing, and had a stiff neck, according to the C.D.C. report.
> Two days after his symptoms started, he collapsed of what was presumed to be a heart attack, the report said. The man was unresponsive and taken to a hospital, where he died.
> Several of his organs were donated, including his left kidney.
Seems like there is some part missing in evaluation procedure. If those symptoms were know at time I don't think he was eligible donator material anymore. Or at least to me it sounds like you want to know what was the cause behind those symptoms before harvesting anything.
Can't ask an unresponsive patient who then proceeds to die what his symptoms were ...
People seem to think that the TV doctor habits of testing the most out-there diagnoses possible until you get a positive hit are normal in the real world. They're not. Especially not with medical insurer's "advice" now being required for everything.
I think the criteria for donation are most easily met by people who die as a result of something like a vehicle collision, but an otherwise healthy person who experiences sudden heart failure may have viable organs... From the reporting, this donor was not otherwise healthy, but maybe the symptoms were not known at the time or dismissed for some reason.
Not really. Organs from people who have died are almost always nonviable. So when it comes to vehicle collision victims, only people who are slowly dieing of internal hemorrhaging are used. Sudden heart failure organs are bad for two reasons: first, if the heart actually fails, you have minutes before organs are nonviable. Second, the medication that's used for trying to keep the heart beating will actually accelerate death, including organ death, if it doesn't work.
Most organs come from from people, usually braindead, who are definitely going to die, but you have days or at least hours before the body actually loses the fight. And even then the extraction process needs to be started quickly, because in the process of dieing the body will, as it's losing blood, ie. power and oxygen, one-by-one cut off blood flow from organs to try to keep the heart, lungs and brain alive. Most organs that have had their blood flow cut off by the body can't be transplanted, so extraction needs to happen before that point.
(wait until you figure out the answer to the other question ... "wait, if organs after death are not used, nonviable, then what happens if I donate my body to science" ?)
Don't have access to NYTimes, but do they mention anything about all the other people that received an organ? I'm assuming they are tracking them down to get them rabies vaccine?
The donor's corneas were used for grafts for three others. The article states:
> The three patients’ grafts were removed, and one tested positive for rabies, the doctors said. None of the three patients had symptoms of rabies, but they were being treated with preventive drugs, the report said.¶ Since 1978, four organ donors have passed rabies to 13 organ recipients, the report said. Of the 13 recipients, six who received treatment for rabies survived. The seven others, who did not receive treatment, died.
The donor died from rabies, and then several of his organs were donated. Furthermore: "Doctors reviewed records about the kidney donor and learned that the Idaho man’s family had disclosed the skunk scratch to doctors when his organs were being donated, the report said."
