This summit will be a start, but there is still a lot of work to be done. The proclamation outlining the details for preventing and controlling these diseases is still in draft form. And there have been no goals set for reducing the number of preventable deaths. Nations are at odds on the important issues of reducing tobacco and salt consumption. Norway’s proposal to set a salt reduction target of 5 grams per person per day worldwide by the year 2025 has been removed from the Outcome Document. This is disheartening. To get some perspective, the average American diet contains 12 to 14 grams of salt per day. Reducing salt to about a teaspoon a day would mean fewer strokes, fewer heart attacks, fewer deaths, fewer cases of hypertension, and by implication, fewer instances of chronic kidney disease. A recent study on salt published in the British Medical Journal showed that reducing salt intake by 3 grams per day in the U.S. “…would result in up to 120,000 fewer cases of coronary heart disease, up to 66,000 strokes and up to 99,000 heart attacks annually.” The NCD Alliance estimates that “…reducing global salt consumption by just 15% through mass-media campaigns and reformulation of processed foods and salt substitution could prevent an estimated 8.5 million deaths in just 10 years.”

The EU, Australia, Japan, the United States, and Canada currently oppose Norway’s salt target. The global group World Action on Salt and Health (WASH) recently issued a press release urging those nations to reconsider their position on salt reduction. News stories about the reasons behind the attempts to block reductions in salt, as well as sugar and fat have appeared in the Canadian press, but the media in the U.S. has yet to pick up on the story. It could be because Hurricane Irene and the unstable economy have dominated our recent news. However, one could argue that becoming a healthier nation in a healthier world would help our economy by saving money in the long run.

As this story evolves, we’ll keep you updated. Let’s hope the EU, Australia, Japan, the United States, and Canada reverse their position on salt. Stay tuned!

Share on Facebook

In this amazing story, a 59-year-old man who once suffered from diabetes, was tested and cleared to donate a kidney to his brother. The two turned out to be identical twins, so there is no need for a lifetime of immunosuppressant drugs. – Diabetic Brothers Complete Triathlon

A 66-year-old-donor participates in a new robot-assisted transplant operation in this video report. – Robot Assists AGH Surgeon During Kidney Transplant

And here are two wonderful stories about healthy donors in their 60′s. – Tampa Nuns Say It’s a Miracle Kidney Donation Fit and Paired Kidney Donations Save Two Lives, Enrich Two Others

Share on Facebook

Editorial in the New York Times, Transplants and Rationing

Published: February 27, 2011

The number of kidneys available for transplants falls far short of the need, so there is no choice but to ration them. An emotionally difficult proposal to change the first-come-first-served transplant system makes good sense.

There are nearly 90,000 people on waiting lists to receive kidney transplants, and in 2009 there were only some 10,400 kidneys from dead donors to give them. And about 6,300 kidneys were transplanted from living people who donated one of their two kidneys and usually specified the recipient.

Currently the kidneys from dead donors are provided, through an organ procurement and transplantation network, to people who have been waiting the longest. That may seem fair since many transplant candidates wait for years, and some die while waiting.

But the system has serious shortcomings. Some elderly recipients get kidneys that could function far longer than they will live and that could have done more good for a younger recipient. Some younger recipients get kidneys that will fail and will need to be replaced, using up another scarce kidney.

These problems could be eased through a proposal under consideration at the transplant network to better match the likely longevity of the patient with the likely functional life of the kidney.

The patients and kidneys would each be graded separately. About 20 percent of the kidneys predicted to have the longest functional lives would be provided to the youngest and healthiest patients. The other 80 percent of kidneys would go to patients who are no more than 15 years older or younger than the donor.

The approach seems likely to make it harder for elderly people to get a kidney. But when kidneys are already scarce — and apt to get scarcer as much of the population ages and sickens — it is a rational choice.

UKRO Founder’s Response

March 4, 2011

A discussion on how best to distribute the limited number of kidneys available for transplantation is appropriate, but this will not resolve the problem. Quite simply, too many people have kidney disease—nearly 30 million in the United States alone—and millions more are at risk. Only research can hasten the discovery of more effective treatments for kidney-related diseases, and in the process diminish the growing need for transplants.

The enormity of human and economic losses from kidney disease cannot be over­stated. Nonetheless, kidney disease research remains a low priority nationally and is chronically under-funded. Bringing kidney research to the top of the public mind—like AIDS, cancer, heart disease, etc.—can help make vital funding a national imperative.

Kenneth Kleinberg, President, UKRO

Share on Facebook

Share on Facebook

Share on Facebook

Share on Facebook

Share on Facebook

Share on Facebook

Share on Facebook

Share on Facebook