Women giving their body parts to men-kidneys

[1Endeavour2]

Women donate more kidneys than men. Men receive more kidneys than women. Surprise me!

@KidneyNewName why would you be so angry about this?

There is plenty of evidence, here is just one publication pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17582366/. The same trend is seen in women outnumbering men significantly in blood donation and in bone marrow donation. You mentioned post mortem donation but again, more woman than men are registered as organ donors in the UK. The difference however is that men are far more likely to die the kind of deaths that make a organs suitable for post mortem donation (such as vehicle accidents). But in every single example, more women are the ones volunteering to donate.

The woman who donated to you did that out of choice. It's not about you. It's about why, again and again, the men aren't making these choices. Health seems unlikely - men might be more likely to have diabetes, but women can't be a live donor when pregnant or breastfeeding and can't get pregnant a year after donation (and there are elevated risks even many years after).

From a macho perspective, live donation could be framed as an incredibly tough and blood-spattered kind of endeavour. But instead it's more often the women are putting themselves forward to literally give parts of their body, to a group of beneficiaries who are far more likely to be men. Feels uncomfortable to me - and think that there needs to be more targeted messaging

This a far more nuanced take on it than the OP's unsubstantiated opening post.

There are imbalances but not nearly as stark as the OP claims and the reasons are more complex than the simplistic "women lovely and kind, men horrible and selfish"

wellcomecollection.org/articles/XP4bGxIAADCGoFOi

Not RTFT.

There was a thing with women in poverty in some countries selling kidneys.

Also I think some stuff about people being drugged or something and waking up having been operated on.

Wiki-

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), illegal organ trade occurs when organs are removed from the body for the purpose of commercial transactions.[24] Despite ordinances against organ sales, this practice persists, with studies estimating that anywhere from 5% to 42% of transplanted organs are illicitly purchased.[25][26][27] Research indicates that illegal organ trade is on the rise, with a recent report by Global Financial Integrity estimating that the illegal organ trade generates profits between $600 million and $1.2 billion per year, with a span over many countries. These countries include, but are not limited to:

Angola
Brazil[28][29][30]
Canada[31]
China[32][33][34]
Colombia[35][36]
Costa Rica[37]
Eastern Europe
Ecuador[28]
Georgia[38]
Haiti[39]
Israel[40][41][42]
Kosovo[43]
Libya[44]
Mexico[45]
North Macedonia
Pakistan
Peru[28]
Philippines[46][47]
Russia
South Africa[28][30]
The United Kingdom
The United States of America[30]
Criminal networks increasingly engage in kidnappings, especially of children and teenagers, who are then taken to locations with medical equipment. There they are murdered and their organs harvested for the illegal organ trade.[48] Poverty and loopholes in legislation also contribute to the illegal trade of organs.[49]

Google is great isn't it!

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1124370/

'The report points to a study at a large Canadian transplant centre that found that 36% of wives who were acceptable for donation did in fact donate, compared with 6.5% of husbands. Data from Germany on kidney transplants shows that women are about twice as likely to donate to their husbands as the men are to their wives. But although women donate more organs, more men than women are recipients.

The report says that economic, attitudinal, or psychosocial factors are the most likely explanations for the sex differences in organ transplantation.'

[quote KimikosNightmare]This a far more nuanced take on it than the OP's unsubstantiated opening post.

There are imbalances but not nearly as stark as the OP claims and the reasons are more complex than the simplistic "women lovely and kind, men horrible and selfish"

wellcomecollection.org/articles/XP4bGxIAADCGoFOi[/quote]
What do you think it means when they say women are more 'pro-social'? Or get a 'warm fuzzy glow' from donating?

I actually think the writer is leaning too much to the 'women lovely and kind' angle, by failing to interrogate why it is that men aren't donating.

The breadwinner angle mentioned is going to be relevant in some cases - but most families bow have 2 working partners, and in many ways a sahp unable to work is as disruptive if not more, because they won't get any kind of paid leave and in any case will not be able to care for children while in hospital or in the case of complications, often requiring the working partner to take time off anyway. I'd also argue that the fact you can't do it while pregnant or planning should also put a decent number of women out of the equation to counterbalance it.

Sorry, I stand by my comment. I'm angry that the OP has started a thread with a very unclear statement not back by fact that has led a number of posters to make sweeping comments about a process, many of which are simply untrue.

And I'm therefore trying to establish the data source. Note, I'm not saying this isn't true but the specific data set is valuable for a proper discussion. Is it live transplant or deceased? This makes a massive difference? Is this developed or developing world (this then opens up organ trafficking and selling debate) etc.

And I'm not 'making it all about me' but myself and my friend are actually one of those statistics so I'm sharing the feedback my nephrologist gave me. Which is despite who may want to donate, (anecdotally) men's kidneys deteriorate faster than women's and the threshold to donate is minimum 80% kidney function) which is extremely high. If we take this as read (again, it's one nephrologist so not a sample) then the debate is around health and lifestyle and it may be women who are more likely to 'go on' to donate but doesn't include those who came forward to test. Again, data set would be useful here.

My point is, without the backing data it becomes a complete mishmash and speculation rather than a focused debate on reasons why that is around the actual data pool.

Most studies people have posted are sample size and very old (15 years) in some cases. I've been trying to find actual up to date data on live transplants for all organs by gender and can only find it for deceased.

I am not challenging that the opening post is wrong, I'm saying it's unhelpful to start such a debate without setting out the source.

@KidneyNewName surely as a recipient yourself, you would want to maximise the potential pool of donors for the sake of others? You're still not communicating why you feel personally attacked by hearing that men far more often fail to step up when it comes to volunteering for any kind of donation, as shown by study after study after study.

The report points to a study at a large Canadian transplant centre that found that 36% of wives who were acceptable for donation did in fact donate, compared with 6.5% of husbands.

That is an absolutely staggering disparity, and yet not surprising. I wonder how many of those 36% believed wholeheartedly that their husbands would do the same for them if it came down to it?

@allmywhat

The report points to a study at a large Canadian transplant centre that found that 36% of wives who were acceptable for donation did in fact donate, compared with 6.5% of husbands.

That is an absolutely staggering disparity, and yet not surprising. I wonder how many of those 36% believed wholeheartedly that their husbands would do the same for them if it came down to it?

Yes, it's a very sad statistic.

I hate that so many women have no idea how little their own husband cares about them, it's very upsetting.

@OverTheRubicon Personally attacked? Not sure where you have got that from? At no point have I said I feel attacked. At no point have I even argued with the opening ascertain. And my first paragraph above 👆🏻 literally explains why I am angry at a vague opening post with no follow up data?

Several other posters have also asked for sources and questioned the point of it, not sure why you're focusing on me asking the same question? Given the next post by the OP, it's worth asking, no?

And there are only two studies posted here, one from 2002 and one from 2006. I have asked if anyone has up to date organ donation data based on sex as I can't find it anywhere! Not because I disagree with it but because it is a very interesting subject and we can all list a bunch or reasons but wouldn't it be more useful to see it over the years, countries etc and then take the debate from there?

In turn, I'm not sure why you're so angry I'm asking some questions? I'm literally sat in the hospital for my monthly bloods now so this is really close to my heart but it frustrates me when it generates posts littered with misinformation. You seem to think I'm arguing with you personally? I'm not, I'm not even disagreeing!! I'm just asking for the data to discuss. Calm down.

@KidneyNewName you keep asking for data, as if you couldn't also do a pubmed search. As it is, here is a 2016 study which not only shows the gender disparity in donation but also highlights research in how female to male kidney donation has a lower success rate. So as is often the case, inequality is harming men as well as women.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4964018/#!po=41.0714

You say you're not personally attacked, but you did reference the gender of your donor and others tested, and you do say you're angry. Given that all the evidence points strongly to higher rates of female donation and volunteering for donation (in the case of post mortem donation) in every single medical donation opportunity, surely that energy and anger is better used to fight for higher donation rates, or better treatment.

Don't most people have their donor status on their DVLA record?
Surely a FOI to ask DVLA what percentage of men are registered as donors and what percentage of women are would provide better stats re. potential willingness?

The law has changed.

The figures needed now are the demographics of those who have opted out

A previous poster mentioned other forms of donation. The biggest issue in demographics for bone marrow transplant up is the lack of BAME people who have registered. Also only 5% of blood donors are from BAME communities. With the first in particular, there are huge consequences (likelihood of finding a match at all).

The figures needed now are the demographics of those who have opted out

Of course, I had forgotten. But as the number of opt-outs is likely skewed by delays (ten year driving licence might not be due for renewal), the percentage of the population who were/are unaware/uninformed/didn't understand, and the percentage who didn't opt out because of whatever reason but who don't really want to be donors, perhaps historic records could be of some use? The ten years preceding the change, which percentage of men proactively signed up and what percentage of women?
Then whether men are less likely to be able to donate is factored out, to some extent.

I think, given the cancer divorce stats, that it is likely fewer men would even have signed up, but that might be wrong.

@FlyingOink

Don't most people have their donor status on their DVLA record? Surely a FOI to ask DVLA what percentage of men are registered as donors and what percentage of women are would provide better stats re. potential willingness?

There is research on this, again more women than men sign up but not such a strong association as it is for blood donation or living donation.

It would be interesting to understand whether it's the thought of pain that makes more men reluctant, or the added work/hassle involved, and to find good messaging to address that.