"Kidney Dialysis" is a good example of a paper on transplantation and donation. Kidney dialysis, an artificial means of partially replacing functions of the kidney (disease), is one of the lifesaving means in patients with kidney function deficits. It is because of its capability to remove uremic waste from the blood, what the Greek discoverer of a procedure called uremic poisoning of the blood. The question about all procedure is if it is worth one to go through the procedure or just consider a kidney transplant. Current statistics show that those who undergo the two or three sessions of dialysis every other week spend a lot of money compared with the ones that decide to have a kidney transplant.
Additionally, with the advent of many infectious diseases such as hepatitis B and HIV and AIDS, those patients that undergo through the dialysis process in the hospitals (not those with personal hemodialysis machines) are more likely than not to be infected with this dreadful disease. This will compound the disease that already the patient has of the kidney. Should the patient and government consider having kidney harvesting to perform the transplant than relying on dialysis? The other aspect of dialysis is that the patient is likely to have serious hemorrhages before, during, and after the dialysis.
The patients have kidneys that are pathological, and the very kidney is the one supposed to form the blood cells that are lost during the dialysis process (Ronco, Pg. 63). With that in mind, it is arguable if the therapeutic process called dialysis is worthwhile or just decides on the kidney transplant. In a kidney transplant, the patient undergoes one procedure of transplanting a healthy kidney from a donor to the recipient who is the patient.
Should a patient go through a relatively cheap dialysis procedure but expensive in the end, as compared with a kidney transplant? I stand firmly on the support of kidney transplants compared with kidney dialysis that is much practiced to the disadvantage of the patient. Most pundits who are pro kidney dialysis argue that the process has many advantages. There are fewer diet restriction and fluid. It has seen that the patients should rather eat any food such as protein and in any quantity.
It should be remembered that protein is the number one contributor to nitrogenous waste products that the kidney should work exercise to remove the waste from the circulating product. Since the dialyzer is effectual in removal if this waste, it is seen as an advantage. The financial implication and the risk of often dialyzing blood should be set aside. The long-term implication of dialysis should be central. It will be of no good the blood to be taken, the whole of it, outside the body, and then return inside the body in the name of dialysis with the only advantage that the patient has no restriction of the meals and fluid taken(Claudio, Pg.
112). What about the risk of hepatitis B infection? What of the hemorrhage risk just before, during, and after the dialysis? The aspect of the financial implication of the procedure to the patients should also be central when prescribing these procedures to the patients. Essential treatment is the one who is rational, effective, and affordable. Given that there is no timing and date for stopping, dialysis can never be affordable in the long run.
This procedure, therefore, negates the principle of effective treatment as postulated by W. H.O. Others argue that dialysis, especially hemodialysis, has flexible treatment time. One session on the hemodialysis machine last for about three to four and thrice a week (Morton et al. , pg. 11). The above "flexible time, " is a gross time wastage in the end. A patient who has been dialyzed for one year is likely to have lost four hundred and sixty-eight of working hours.
There is a lot of time wasted in both the financial status of the kidney patient and the economics of the country. For a patient who has undergone kidney transplant will not have to waste any minute in the dialyzing machine. This will be economical to the country in terms of the time and even the patient. One will be able to have full time a week to boost his financial status. Assuming averagely, that a kidney patient earns 200$ per hour. In a year, a kidney patient on dialysis will lose 93,600 $ in what pundits put it as "flexible time. " On the other side, a patient who has been successful through a kidney transplant will have no hour to lose since he is being dialyzed by the implanted kidney (Morton et al. , pg.
12). The argument put across as to why dialysis (most commonly hemodialysis) is good is the pre-textual fact that the procedure has done with the full monitoring of a doctor or nurse with a specialty in the renal field. Yes, it is healthy and secure to have a visiting doctor but the most essential part postulated by world health organization is the affordability of the procedure or the treatment.
It may be cheap for once or twice to have that doctor or nurse in the area in the therapeutic procedure (van Nooten et al. , pg. 245). In the end, the procedure has heavy financial implications and perhaps even health effects such as infection of most dreadful diseases such as hepatitis B, HIV/AIDS, and even causing anemia to already complicated blood-forming organs. It is for the reason there is a sense of objection to this procedure. Basing on the argument that is unequivocal above for kidney dialysis and their reputation in equal measures, it appears with strong evidence that kidney transplant remains the best, cheap, and the only treatment to the patient with renal failure.
The benefits of kidney transplants by far outweigh having the routine dialysis that has many risks in the long run. Such a negative side of kidney dialysis may include an increase in toxins in the blood through the frequent taking of blood outside the body and back to the body.
The blood may be picking even small components of the conduits and pipes to and from the pipe. On the other side of the argument, kidney transplant, with its limited demerits such as organ rejection that is usually pre-tested, has a number of merits that by far outweighs the demerit. They include the following: it may be started prior to the start of dialysis. The patient on this merit will be saved of the havoc of undergoing the many dialyzes that is very tiresome before the patient copes with it. Another benefit that a patient may benefit from a kidney transplant right away may include, better genetic knowledge and match lessen the possibility of rejection of the foreign kidney (Morris, Pg.
223). This reduces the risk of patients suffering from rejections. Other advantages include the efficiency (one of the postulates of the WHO of the best therapeutic procedure) of the procedure is working. The foreign kidney removes uremic waste and toxins. This will save time that the patient will have to go through the dialysis process.
This time will be directed to another economic activity to raise the money for the family (if the patient is a parent), and at the same time is building the nation. This is because the patient will have improved health and a more active lifestyle (Murtagh et al. , pg. 1956). In conclusion, kidney dialysis has helped and is still helping a lot in saving the lives of many with chronic kidney disease. This at first has appeared to be cheap to the patient both financially and health-wise.
The underlying long-term financial implication and health risks associated with it are usually ignored yet they matter a lot. A single patient undergoing the two or three sessions per week of dialysis has the capability of doing kidney transplants for two patients if the fee is accumulated in the end. The best option of dealing with this disease is not to take the cheap option in the short-term measure but very expensive in the long run but just expensive and once. The government should take a role since the labor force that undergoes the dialysis will devote most of the time in building the nation rather than losing the minimum possible of four hundred and sixty-eight hours a year!
Claudio, Claudio. Vascular Access, Hemodialysis, and Peritoneal Dialysis Access: 24 Tables. Basel [u.a.: Karger, 2004. Print.
Morris, Peter J, and Stuart J. Knechtle. Kidney Transplantation: Principles and Practice. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders/Elsevier, 2008. Internet resource.
Morton, Rachael L. et al. “Factors Influencing Patient Choice of Dialysis versus Conservative Care to Treat End-Stage Kidney Disease.” CMAJ 184 (2012): n. pag.
Murtagh, Fliss E M et al. “Dialysis or Not? A Comparative Survival Study of Patients over 75 Years with Chronic Kidney Disease Stage 5.” Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association 22 (2007): 1955–1962.
Ronco, C, and Mitchell H. Rosner. Hemodialysis: New Methods and Future Technology. Basel: Karger, 2011. Print.
Van Nooten, Floortje E et al. “Burden of Illness for Patients with Non-Dialysis Chronic Kidney Disease and Anemia in the United States: Review of the Literature.” Journal of medical economics 13 (2010): 241–256.