Can You Donate Part of Your Liver to Someone with Cirrhosis?
Liver donation can offer hope to people with later-stage liver disease. Cirrhosis (liver scarring) is typically not reversible, so treatment aims to manage symptoms and help prevent further complications.
If a person wishes to become a liver donor, they and the recipient will need to consider certain factors and undergo evaluation before deciding on this option.
What is living liver donation?
Living liver donation is a procedure in which a healthy adult donates a portion of their liver to someone with end stage liver disease.
Living liver donation is possible because the liver is the only solid organ in the human body that can regenerate itself completely. In healthy donors, the donated liver portion is typically about half the total liver, and this can fully regenerate within a few months.
Who can receive a living liver donation?
Living liver donation is an option for patients with end stage liver disease and various other conditions that lead to liver failure, such as cirrhosis.
If you have a family member or friend who would like to donate part of their liver to you, speak with your transplant team to open up the discussion around this option.
What do liver donors need to know before donating?
When considering liver donation, you'll want to take into account certain factors, such as:
Donor assessment: Any organ donor must have a thorough evaluation to make sure they're healthy enough to donate. This will also include blood tests such as ALT and albumin to measure liver function.
Understanding: It's strongly encouraged that a donor understand the recipient's liver disease, their outlook, and the risks involved with the procedure for both parties. This information can help you make an informed decision about donation.
Aftercare: After donation, both the donor's and the recipient's liver cells will start to regenerate. It's important that you are aware of what you can expect following the procedure, including timelines for recovery, strategies to aid healing, and when to expect follow-ups with your care team.
Are there any conditions that disqualify someone from being a liver donor?
Yes, you will not be able to donate if you have a diagnosis of certain conditions that could affect the health of your liver or increase your risks of complications, such as cirrhosis or metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (previously known as nonalcoholic steatohepatitis).
Blood tests such as the ALT (alanine aminotransferase) test and albumin test are commonly used to assess liver function. The ALT test can detect liver damage or disease, often before symptoms appear, while the albumin test measures levels of a protein made by the liver, with low levels potentially indicating liver disease.
Can I donate anonymously to someone I don't know?
Yes, it's possible to donate part of your liver to someone you don't know. This is called non-directed or anonymous donation. Because the liver is able to regenerate, you can safely donate one part (or lobe) to someone in need.
You do not have to be a particular blood type to apply to donate, as liver donors do not necessarily have to be the same blood type.
How long does it take to recover after liver donation?
Donor surgery typically takes about 6 hours. Both the donor and recipient will typically stay in the hospital from 5 to 7 days, with close monitoring by their healthcare team while they recover.
After you donate, your liver cells will regenerate, and the organ will grow back to 90% of its original size within 6 to 12 weeks for healthy donors.
After you leave the hospital, it's important to work closely with your healthcare team to ensure your liver is healing properly.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
16 minutes ago
- Associated Press
New online tool helps women on Medicaid find prenatal care and family planning
At the University of Mississippi Medical Center, one researcher's full-time job for the past nine months has been to find out which clinics around the state offer different kinds of women's health care, and whether they accept various forms of Medicaid. The final result is a recently launched database aimed at helping women locate the nearest clinic that can offer the care they need. The work that went into creating it highlights a pervasive problem: Even making an appointment can be a barrier that keeps women from improving their lives. 'We Need to Talk' is a compilation of all Mississippi clinics offering prenatal care – specifying which ones also offer family planning, and whether they take Medicaid insurance, Medicaid waivers and see women whose Medicaid applications are pending. There is also a hotline designed to give additional support to anyone having questions or feeling overwhelmed about the process. 'Having gone through the work, it was remarkable. It wasn't easy to figure out where you should go for care,' said Dr. Thomas Dobbs, former state health officer and dean of the John D. Bower School of Population Health at UMMC, who oversaw the project. 'And that should be one of the most basic bits of information we have.' The idea was born from the recent 900% increase in babies born with syphilis, Dobbs explained, which he called a 'canary in a coal mine' signaling more danger to come. An investigation into the epidemic showed that one of the driving factors was delayed prenatal care, caused in large part by inaccessible information and concerns about cost, Dobbs said. Finding reproductive and prenatal care can be difficult for several reasons. For one thing, there are many different kinds of clinics in Mississippi, making it hard for patients to know what to search for. The list includes federally qualified health centers, county health department clinics and private OB-GYNs. Another reason is that many clinics don't specify online whether they take Medicaid, much less what their policy is on specific or temporary Medicaid coverage. Calling doesn't always guarantee patients a comprehensive or accurate answer. The new database is an initiative of UMMC's Myrlie Evers-Williams Institute – housed in the Jackson Medical Mall – which is committed to eliminating health disparities by studying the intersection of health and social issues. The institute has a clinic on site that practices what's called 'social medicine,' a key element of eliminating those disparities, the institute's executive director Victoria Gholar explained. 'If you have a patient who has asthma and they're living in a situation where mold is in their environment, it will really be hard for them to get better,' Gholar said. 'Or, if we have a patient who has to use an electronic (medical) device, and their electricity is no longer available because they weren't able to take care of their utility bill, then we try to work with them and connect them to resources that might be able to help.' The institute employs a wide range of professionals who work on health from a non-clinical standpoint, such as researchers, community engagers, social workers and registered dietitians. It hosts events like food drives and offers free support from budgeting strategies to meal preparation for those with conditions like diabetes or high blood pressure. Aside from knowing what to search for, finding clinics that accept Medicaid can also be complicated because Mississippi Medicaid eligibility is constantly changing for a woman based on her age and circumstance – what kinds of services she's seeking, as well as whether she's pregnant. Medicaid eligibility in Mississippi is among the strictest in the nation, with one exception – pregnant women. That means many low-income women only become eligible for Medicaid once pregnant. And since an application can take up to eight weeks to be processed, the chances that a woman in this situation will be able to use her newly acquired Medicaid insurance in the first trimester are slim. A law that would cut out this interim period and allow low-income pregnant women to be immediately seen by a doctor passed the Legislature in 2024, but was never implemented because of legislative errors. The policy went back through the Legislature in 2025, passed overwhelmingly again, but is not yet in effect. Some doctors already see women whose Medicaid application is pending, and the UMMC tool specifies at which clinics that's the case. Women of reproductive age seeking reproductive health care are also eligible for leniency in the typical Medicaid stipulations. These women can apply for a Medicaid family planning waiver, which allows them to access Medicaid for family planning purposes, even if they don't qualify for general Medicaid coverage. The income requirement for pregnancy Medicaid and the family planning waiver is a household income of less than 194% of the federal poverty level, or about $2,500 a month for one person in 2025. Dobbs, who has been the main point person on the project, said he hopes the online database is one more resource improving health care accessibility and women's health metrics in Mississippi. 'This isn't about getting patients to UMMC at all,' Dobbs said. 'It's about empowering patients to be able to get the care they need where they live.' ___ This story was originally published by Mississippi Today and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.
Medscape
22 minutes ago
- Medscape
A PCP Guide to Emerging Therapies for Resistant Hypertension
This transcript has been edited for clarity. Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders . I'm Dr Matthew Frank Watto, here with my great friend and America's primary care physician, Dr Paul Nelson Williams. Paul, this is a topic you know a ton about, isn't it? Paul N. Williams, MD: It's one I always have questions about; I think this is our 37th episode on high blood pressure, if I'm not mistaken. Watto: The audience can't get enough of it — turns out, neither can I. Williams: Me neither! Watto: I love talking about high blood pressure, and this was with a great guest, Dr Jordy Cohen. She's a hypertension expert and a nephrologist. Paul, to start us off, what are we doing with blood pressure cuffs these days? Those manual ones on the wall, those are the way to go, right? Williams: This is a scenario we talk about all the time, and we've beat this drum a lot in prior episodes. I think we've all experienced a patient whose initial triage blood pressure reading is elevated, and either you or the patient will ask for a recheck and you're tempted to use a blood pressure cuff that's been hanging on the wall, has not been calibrated in 17 years, has a decaying spiral cord, and looks like it would fall apart if you touched it. Turns out that's probably not the best way to do it, Matt. So, to reiterate: Automated cuffs are the preferred option. They are more accurate. In this episode with Dr Cohen, we talked about making sure we use the appropriate cuff size and when we have patients who have large arms, you may have to use a wrist measurement every so often. In these circumstances, positioning matters: feet flat, back supported, elbow resting on a table, and have two fingers on the opposite clavicle so that everything is at heart level. If you're taking the blood pressure reading using a cuff around the arm itself, again, you should make sure the patient's arm is resting on a tabletop, bedside, or even on your own arm to ensure it's at heart level. You also shouldn't talk with the patient during that process so you can give them every chance to have an accurate blood pressure reading. That's the first thing: Get an accurate reading. Then everything else follows that step, as you should only treat a diagnosis that you've appropriately made. Watto: All the goals are based on a properly taken blood pressure, so if your patient's blood pressure hasn't been appropriately measured, you might overtreat or undertreat someone. For most patients who are nonfrail, we're now shooting for a blood pressure that is below 130/80 mm Hg. The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guidelines for patients with chronic kidney disease state that normal blood pressure should be below 120/80, which is very hard to do. If we're getting people with a systolic in the 120s, that's probably about as good as we're going to get. For treatment, Dr Cohen and I have adopted this practice of using combination pills for hypertension management — either a calcium-channel blocker with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB). I usually prefer a calcium-channel blocker with an ARB or the 'triple pill,' a single-pill combination of a calcium-channel blocker, an ARB, and a diuretic. That's what I go to now as my first-line agent. I'm using a lot of either low-dose or medium-dose combination therapy. I don't usually go to the highest dose unless I'm in a situation where I have to decide between starting a fourth medication or going to a higher dose. That's really been a practice change for me. Dr Cohen reiterated that point and emphasized that it's easiest for the patient and they usually experience fewer side effects when you choose a low-to-moderate dose in comparison to a high dose. Williams: It's a point that we've made in prior episodes, as well. As you start to max out the doses of these medications, you get diminishing returns in terms of their efficacy in lowering blood pressure efficacy and patients can start to experience increased side effects. It's a far better option to start with a kind of median dose as opposed to really trying to crank up the dose, because you just don't get that much more benefit with that approach. Watto: We're going to discuss some of the newer blood pressure–lowering agents. Paul, the first one I want to ask you about is not quite a blood pressure medication, but it does lower blood pressure. Which medication am I talking about here? Williams: I think you're probably referring to semaglutide, Matt. I think we all have a fair amount of comfort with these diabetes and weight loss medications. These are remarkable medications and the indications keep piling on, which is great. Semaglutide, in particular, is not approved for hypertension, but it does lower blood pressure, likely as a result of the weight loss that is achieved with the medication. So, it's not technically an antihypertensive, but it provides a great blood pressure benefit. I think there's also some 'fancy pants' medications coming down the pipeline that we should probably be aware of, right? Watto: Yes, and the first one I'll mention is endothelin receptor antagonists. As a generalist, you're probably not going to be prescribing these; they will probably be prescribed by a hypertension specialist. Compared with placebo, they have a modest effect in lowering blood pressure (~4 mm Hg), but they are officially approved, so they're out there. What's more exciting, Paul, are aldosterone synthase inhibitors. The generic names for these include baxdrostat and lorundrostat. They're not yet approved, but I believe they are in phase 2 or phase 3 trials, depending on the indications. They seem promising, as they have a much stronger effect on blood pressure (~10-15 mm Hg) compared with placebo. Dr Cohen thinks these medications are probably going to be in the primary care wheelhouse soon. Cost will probably an issue with these medications at the start, but otherwise, these are pills that are taken once a day and they don't have the antiandrogen side effects that you can get with the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), like spironolactone. Dr Cohen was really excited about being able to prescribe these at some point. Williams: And the MRAs are traditionally a fourth-line medication (unless you have compelling indications), so to have something else in your armamentarium that has less side effects is super exciting. It'll be great to see these in the pipeline. Watto: Now, what would you say, Paul, if I told you there was a medication for blood pressure that is only administered once every 6 months and will shut down the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS)? How does that sound? Williams: As someone who's taken medical school physiology, it sounds lightly terrifying! It feels like you do need the RAAS for some things, but I think for patients that are less interested in taking medications — which turns out to be most patients — it could potentially be exciting. I think as long as we have a way to reverse the effects of this medication if needed, then I think there's potential for excitement around this medication. Watto: I'm of course talking about a small interfering RNA (siRNA) agent. The one we talked about in this episode was zilebesiran; it's an siRNA agent and is administered once every 6 months. But no one would feel comfortable giving this unless there's an antidote, because if a patient gets septic, they probably need their RAAS to help them out there. Williams: Or if you have a patient who is pregnant — lots of reasons why you might actually want that system working. Watto: Exactly. Now, some people just don't want to take medications even if they need them, Paul. What else might be offered to a patient with high blood pressure? And how excited should we be about this next therapy? Williams: I feel like you're asking the wrong guy, Matt! I think you're alluding to renal denervation therapy. I feel it had a lot of wild enthusiasm initially, then it kind of waned, and now I feel like enthusiasm is back, baby — we're back into renal denervation. It sounds like a great option and I think we're doing a little better job with it, but its effect on lowering blood pressure is about equivalent to the effect you observe with a single-agent medication. So, realistically, these patients may still need to be on medications for blood pressure control. It's only effective for about two thirds of patients who get the procedure; that's 33% of your patients who would go through this invasive procedure where we're frying a nerve and in the end, they may not actually experience any blood pressure benefit. I think there's still a population that would benefit from and be interested in this option, but I don't think it's something that we should consider as first-line therapy for the majority of folks because of that potential for treatment failure and the continued need for medications among a substantial portion of the patients who undergo this procedure. It's still exciting that there's evidence for it and it does cause significant blood pressure lowering, so it's nice to have another option. Watto: Yeah, and I think patients are going be coming in and asking about it, so having some knowledge about the pros and cons of the procedure is important.
Forbes
22 minutes ago
- Forbes
Brave The Awkward: Because Real Connection Requires Embracing Discomfort
We've never been more connected—yet we've rarely felt more alone. Chances are, you've witnessed it too: a group of young people sitting around a table at a restaurant, each staring at their phones instead of conversing with each other. They'd sooner take a selfie and post it than lay down their devices and talk about the insecurity that's driving their deep need to be seen and validated by 'likes' on the latest post. I call this the connection paradox: surrounded by communication tools, yet starved of real connection. At the heart of this paradox? Our growing reluctance to brave the awkward moments that real connection demands. The technology that's connected us has made it too easy to avoid the discomfort of genuine connection. The technology that's connected us has made it too easy to avoid the discomfort of genuine connection. We've become masters of impression management but amateurs at vulnerability. We filter our flaws, script our replies, and polish our professional personas—all while dodging the discomfort of direct, human-to-human interaction. From awkward silences to unresolved tensions, most of us would rather scroll, text, or disappear than risk a moment of raw, honest connection. The pressure to look like we've got it together—to say the right thing, to be perceived the right way—is amplified by status anxiety. Social psychologist Amy Cuddy calls this "presence under threat"—when fear of judgment overrides our ability to be authentic and present. Our natural need for approval has made us vulnerable to technologies that exploit our insecurities. Just last week, I heard through a mutual friend that someone had misinterpreted something I'd said. My first thought was to send a text, explaining the misunderstanding. But I caught myself and picked up the phone. Within five minutes, what could have become a drawn-out misunderstanding was resolved through the warmth of actual conversation where she could hear the tone of my voice—something that would have taken days of back-and-forth messages, if it could be resolved at all. Yet I constantly hear of people having conflicts via text exchanges because it feels safer. The data tells the story: in 1990, 75% of Americans had a best friend and only 3% had no close friends at all—today, those figures have plummeted to 59% and 12% respectively Digital communication can never replace the human When we choose AI-scripted messaging over less polished but fully human conversation—when we trade authenticity for something sanitized and 'perfect'—we cut ourselves off from the deep connection we crave and the many benefits it brings. We end up in carefully controlled exchanges that protect our ego but starve our soul. I call it the 'timidity tax'—the hidden cost we pay in our relationships, workplaces, and communities when we avoid the awkwardness of showing up fully human. In the end, it's our raw edges—not our perfection—that give others something real to hold onto. Younger generations are particularly vulnerable. While they may be fluent in memes and emojis, many haven't developed the interpersonal muscles needed for meaningful dialogue, emotional nuance, or face-to-face disagreement. The pandemic made this worse. Just when many young people should have been building the relational skills essential for navigating life's complexities, they found themselves isolated at home, tethered to devices that promised connection but delivered only its shadow. Those formative years—when resilience is built through awkward conversations, messy disagreements, and the trial-and-error of human interaction—were replaced by the sanitized safety of screens. Here's the thing: if the quality of our relationships is determined by the quality of the conversations we have within them, then those who've never learned to navigate the awkward terrain of addressing tension or sharing a personal challenge will struggle in the years ahead. They're entering marriages, friendships, and yes—workplaces—without the conversational courage needed to work through inevitable disagreements constructively, express vulnerability, or build the level of trust needed to sustain relationships over time. The more we rely on technology, the more we must practice what makes us human This connection crisis isn't contained to our personal lives—it's reshaped how we work too. A recent Gallup report revealed that only 23% of employees strongly agree they feel connected at work. According to McKinsey, Gen Z reports the highest levels of anxiety and loneliness in the workplace. This isn't coincidence—it's the predictable outcome of a generation that knows how to post but not how to pause, reflect, and connect through discomfort. Think about the executive who sends three carefully crafted emails instead of making a two-minute call that could resolve the issue. Or the team member who stays silent in meetings—not because they lack ideas, but because they fear saying the "wrong" thing might damage their reputation. The result? Declining engagement, rising burnout, and teams that struggle to collaborate beyond surface-level interactions. In the end, our willingness to express vulnerability will be our greatest source of strength, connection, and true security in a GenAI world that's increasingly scripted and superficial. Online relationships are more prone to becoming less human—reduced to performative exchanges that lack the messy authenticity of real connection. Digital interactions, no matter how frequent or clever, cannot replicate the subtle dance of in-person communication: reading between the lines, sitting with uncomfortable silences, or finding resolution through the shared vulnerability that is felt when two people occupy the same physical space. Connection doesn't happen by accident—it happens through shared discomfort, mutual vulnerability, and the courage to show up without a script. It requires us to step away from our screens and into the uncertain territory of genuine human interaction, where miscommunication is possible, feelings might get hurt, and resolution isn't guaranteed with the click of a button. The connection we crave most lays the other side of the awkwardness we least want to risk. If we want to build relationships and communities that unite people across generations, identities, and perspectives, we must be willing to 'brave the awkward'. That means embracing the awkward silences, leaning into our nervous vulnerability, and starting the conversations we'd sooner avoid. This requires courage—the courage to lay our vulnerability on the line, to show up fully, speak honestly, and risk the judgment we fear. It demands connection built on empathy, trust, and our common humanity. In a world where we can quickly curate our communication, outcomes won't be shaped by those who can say the smartest thing in the most polished way. Rather it will be shaped by those willing to brave the awkward and say the real thing—even when their words don't come out perfectly, even when the silence stretches too long, and even when there's no emoji to capture what needs to be said. Actually, especially then.
