TL,DR: author voluntarily donated a kidney to his stepfather's brother, against the advice of much of his family. Years later, the recipient is doing fine but the author (on his way to becoming a doctor), has reviewed the risks of being a donor and now is nervous about the whole thing.
This is an accurate summary. One thing I'd like to add is that there was nothing that the receiver did that provoked the regret. I read this assuming that something happened that caused it to not be worth it.
While this is a good view on this situation, the article is basically a guy saying that his comfort and security to have a long life is more important than the other guy's life. So I assumed that the other guy had done something to bring this to light but that is not the case. The donator had simply researched more and decided he was nervous.
To be clear: His interest in being secure in his life is fine and expected and I'm not judging him by what I said.
"...the article is basically a guy saying that his comfort and security to have a long life is more important than the other guy's life. So I assumed that the other guy had done something to bring this to light but that is not the case."
This is how I went into the article as well. I expected seeing something about the recipient being a substance abuser or otherwise not careful with his gift, or some related drama. But it's really some light hypochondria and the recklessness of youth on display.
I don't begrudge his regret; I don't know if I would have donated in the first place if I had been in his shoes. I'm just not entirely convinced of the overall worth of the article.
I thought the article has overall worth because it's an honest reflection about something we usually think of as a simple feel-good story. We pay attention to selfless deeds when they happen, but usually don't follow up with the aftermath. Apparently, according to the author, neither do hospitals, which means there's a lack of data to do more longitudinal study.
Also, our worthless medical system doesn't do even the most basic data analysis to answer basic questions for common procedures and runs on half-truths and inertia.
> The truth is, it is hard to get good numbers about what happens to donors. Hospitals are required to follow them for only two years post-donation, which does not catch such long-term complications as chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular issues or psychiatric issues. There is no national registry for kidney donors or other large-scale means of tracking long-term outcomes.
That's surprising to me. Seems like it's one of the easier things to track. Though what is the status quo for health tracking beyond chronic diseases?
