Quote:
Originally Posted by edithr
When she told me yesterday about the lowering of the age limit, I asked about my being a donor (I'm a match, yea!), she wasn't sure. She thought they might use an unrelated younger match, rather than an older (ouch, that hurts) match. Also, my concern is that they are potentially eliminating a big segment of the available population. If my son had the choice between a 60 year old donor and no donor, I'd take the chance.
Why do you think they're going in that direction? Isn't 50 the new 30?
|
There's been controversy over just that question. Read
Why are there age limits for registry members?, a blog post by the NMDP's Chief Medical Officer. Then read the comments posted in reply, many of them angry.
Due to the outcry the NMDP posted again:
Follow up to “Why are there age limits for registry members?”
The gist of their argument against donors over 60 is that it's unknown whether their bone marrow can last for the remaining lifetime of a younger recipient. They claim that "a lot of doctors are reluctant to do the experiment". But they don't resolve some obvious questions:
- Would a doctor really let a patient die rather than accept an older donor when it's the only choice?
- If "a lot of doctors" won't use older donors, what about the other doctors? Shouldn't doctors and their patients have the choice?
- What about older recipients? Why can't a 66-year-old patient receive bone marrow from a 61-year-old donor when younger donors aren't available?
Their followup post generated even more replies, but the continuing complaints don't seem to have influenced the NMDP's thinking.