Undoubtedly it is.
There wouldn't be much need for doctors to gave a person a third kidney as the body originally had only two, therefore the third kidney would probably be rejected by the immune system.
chemotherapy or a bone marrow transplant, both.
he performed the first heart transplant
if your kidneys fail completely, then you can go on a transplant list and get a kidney transplant if your kidneys are failing the doctors will put you on dialysis ... trying to keep your blood clean... eventually your kidneys will fail and then you will get a transplant
This supposed lung transplant need is something that has come from the tabloid press. There is no evidence that it is true.
Either you die a martyr or you sue each of the 20 doctors together as one suit for complete negligence.
Doctors not believe in cellular memorytransference because "These are thousands and thousands of transplant patients who don't report anything".
I believe this would be negligence simply because the doctor didn't intentionally administer the wrong anisthetic. The case itself is over whether the she was deprived due to negligence of the doctors.
When they do a kidney transplant, they just put in a new kidney. Doctors just attach the kidney to the vital organs needed to go to the bathroom. Doctors do leave the old, used kidney in.
Yes you can. Just make sure your body has totally healed and kidney working to the satisfaction of the doctors.
bone marrow transplant is the only known cure of sickle cell disease.
The patient goes through a "transplant assessment" - blood tests, MRI's, EEG's, ECG's, psychological assessment's, ultra sounds and x rays (and some other stuff) to check that they are suitable candidates. Only if they pass all of these are they considered "eligible" for a transplant.