Being alive is certainly better than the alternative in the vast majority of cases. However, a pacemaker has nothing to do with the function of the kidneys.
One is not "better" than the other - they will both perform exactly the same as a non transplanted heart or lungs. Neither will make the patient bionic or superhuman. A patient with heart failure would rather have a heart transplant than a lung transplant, and vice versa. It's whatever it "better" (more useful) for the patient, but neither hearts or lung transplants are "better" overall.
I think in-patient drug treatment id better than out-patient.
yes i do think you would feel better if you had a pace maker put in. but only if you need one.
we have been very patient
I think it would be excepted for hospice with stage 5 renal failure plus they take other conditions also it is like taking care of life stage ends making decisions that are very important in life and whats better for the patient they keep this in mind.
If you have a pacemaker, you need to hold the cell phone at least 6 inches away from your chest. Also the newer pacemakers are able to filter radiation from cellphones much better than the older pacemakers.
Patient need is an important consideration when planning services that the clinic will offer because it will better enable the clinic to provide the appropriate services, allowing for a better patient experience. When scheduling patient appointments, considering patient need can make things run more smoothly for the patient and the physician/staff.
You can check identi medical articles to get a better understanding on this topic
CLIENT would be a better answer i think
Living donors may be related or unrelated to the patient, but a related donor has a better chance of having a kidney that is a stronger biological match for the patient.
he was a better man for having attempted It.
To see if they're getting better or worse.