I want you to have my organs, but you can't have 'em

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Wezil
Blood donation is under Food & Drug ( ) but I can't pin down the organ donation regs.

Oddly enough regulation is mostly left to the states within the confines of the National Organ Transplant Act of 1968.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Japher
Unless, that is, gay organs make you gay!

Depends on which organ, where it goes, and how much you enjoy it.

[Patroklos]

Btw guys, I will ask the girlfreind when I get home unless you guys have any other transplant recipients readily accessible, but she talks a lot about her transplant mates at the hospital who struggled/suffered and died for months or a year with perfectly healthy organs transplanted. I will ask, but I am pretty sure people might not want to put themselves through the pain/sufferening/doubt/strain of a procedure that will just cause them to live a horrible existance for a year or two (for those of you who said you would knowingly take and infected organ over no organ).

And HIV would kill you in short order. Phuemonia is certain death for a lung transplant victim becasue the drugs you get with it destroy your immune system.

I don't think it is just an organ, ANY organ game. Nor do transplant doctors give organs to just anyone, the recipients have to pass lifestyle screening as well.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Patroklos
...(for those of you who said you would knowingly take and infected organ over no organ).
...

Noone in the thread said he/she would knowingly take an infected organ.

The general consensus was, that they would knowingly take an organ from a gay (or other risk group) even if the risk might be higher that it has diseases that weren´t detected in the normal screening before transplantation

[MOBIUS]

Wow, homophobes attracted like flies to **** in this thread...

Basically the way I see it all those arguing against gay men being able to donate are homophobes.

Some like Ben Kenobi, and Patroklos actually give their prejudices away by basically assuming that gay = infected...

Classy.

Personally it's simple. ALL organs that are available should be used, with gay men's organs being screened in the same way as the rest.

Then, if really necessary, a fast-track scheme could be set up for gay organs for those who aren't particularly fussy where they come from.

Imagine, in the UK for example people can spend absolutely months on kidney dialysis - a sort of horrible living death...

Imagine if some said you could have a transplant the next day instead of waiting months. Would you not jump at the chance?

Of course people like Ben and Patroklos obviously would rather die than have a gay organ inside them...

Yaaay for homophobia - alive and well on Poly...!

[Ming]

Let's take the personal crap out of this discussion... or you might find yourself removed from it

[Patroklos]

Some like Ben Kenobi, and Patroklos actually give their prejudices away by basically assuming that gay = infected...

Edit:As if everyone wasn't thinking exactly what I wrote here the second they saw your post, but anyway...

Where exactly did anyone say all gay men were infected with HIV?

[MOBIUS]

I agree. You know who the homophobes are. I don't need to continue the naming and shaming exercise...

[Ben Kenobi]

Some like Ben Kenobi, and Patroklos actually give their prejudices away by basically assuming that gay = infected

No, we didn't say that. All I said is if you have restrictions on one lifestyle which has severe health consequences, then it makes sense to maintain it in other cases with similar consequences.

Not all drug users have HIV, and yet folks are well warranted in barring them from donation of both organs and blood.

Of course people like Ben and Patroklos obviously would rather die than have a gay organ inside them...

Right, I'd be fine with any that didn't have a risk of HIV transmission. It's the HIV not the sexual orientation, I mean I wouldn't have a problem with a lesbian's heart.

Clearly it's all about hatred for teh gays and lesbians.

[Ben Kenobi]

In your world, the gay organs = at risk, the straight organs = not at risk?

If you bothered to read my argument, you would have said that I said a risk was associated with both.

Yes, the risk is higher for gay organs if you're ONLY using umbrella statistics.

That's my point. We aren't discussing 'subcultures', which btw admits that there is a gay culture that values promiscuity. We are discussing them as a whole. Should the group as a whole be allowed to donate? Should intravenous drug users who only use morphine be accepted over heroin users?

This is the point you refuse to acknowledge. You also refuse to accept that all organ donations are risky, gay or straight.

Again, if you read my earlier argument, I said the amount of risk increased, that assumes there is an existing level of risk already there.

The doctors don't think it's an unreasonable risk after the tests.

Finally, a good point. This, IMHO is the best argument for separate policies. Why do the doctors have a different opinion. It's because of the battery of tests given to any organ. If the tests can be assured, it really doesn't matter where they come from provided they are done correctly.

Now if you had argued this from the start I'd be less inclined to conclude that it was about the policy and not about the hurt feelings of the donors themselves.

Like you said we should screen out risky behaviours, I'm taking it from the horses mouth. That includes gay men, along with intravenous drug users. You seem to see the common sense associated with the screening, so I'm curious why you are so upset by the policy?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Right, I'd be fine with any that didn't have a risk of HIV transmission. It's the HIV not the sexual orientation, I mean I wouldn't have a problem with a lesbian's heart.

Most people with HIV in Canada are heterosexual, just so you know. Heterosexual women are by far the fastest growing demographic still.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If you bothered to read my argument, you would have said that I said a risk was associated with both.

Actually, I just now re-read all of your posts, and your statements the entire time associate the risk with homosexual organs. You may think both have a risk, but you only want to eliminate one of them.

That's my point. We aren't discussing 'subcultures', which btw admits that there is a gay culture that values promiscuity.

Uh, what the ****. I've mentioned repeatedly that there are many different types of people that are gay.

And yes, it "admits" that there are gay people that "value" promiscuity. Just like there are straight people who value it. What the hell, Ben, what the hell. You're in another world in these discussions, debating ghosts and strawmen while everyone else scratches their heads.

We are discussing them as a whole. Should the group as a whole be allowed to donate?

The problem, which has been REPEATEDLY HAMMERED to no avail...is WHY are you looking at the group at a whole? Doing so disregards VALUABLE and LIFE-SAVING organs that have NO ADDITIONAL RISK than heterosexual monogamous couples. This is THE CENTRAL ARGUMENT HERE. Please please please argue this, not more strawmen.

Finally, a good point. This, IMHO is the best argument for separate policies. Why do the doctors have a different opinion. It's because of the battery of tests given to any organ. If the tests can be assured, it really doesn't matter where they come from provided they are done correctly.

Now if you had argued this from the start I'd be less inclined to conclude that it was about the policy and not about the hurt feelings of the donors themselves.

For **** sakes. I've said POINT BLANK on at least THREE different occasions in this thread that it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING DUE TO HURT FEELINGS. THIS argument about it being medically beneficial has been said by myself alone AT LEAST HALF A DOZEN TIMES in this thread.

One of my very first posts says this:

I'm confused because every organ needs to be tested and screened anyway. Same with blood. I don't see why this makes a difference, especially when organs are always in desperate need.

Which mimics the argument above that you say "finally a decent argument".

Where the hell are you, Ben -- come back to planet Earth. What makes you so incredibly frustrating is you never debate the topic of discussion. You're so used to a little delusional world that whenever something makes sense contrary to your twisted value system, you subconsciously misconstrue all of the arguments to be ridiculous.

[Thoth]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Like you said we should screen out risky behaviours, I'm taking it from the horses mouth. That includes gay men, along with intravenous drug users. You seem to see the common sense associated with the screening, so I'm curious why you are so upset by the policy?

Ben not all gay men engage in risky behavior. Over half of the gay men that I know are in stable long term monogamous relationships. They pose a damn sight lower risk than many of the heterosexual tramps I've met.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Thoth


Ben not all gay men engage in risky behavior. Over half of the gay men that I know are in stable long term monogamous relationships. They pose a damn sight lower risk than many of the heterosexual tramps I've met.

He has already been told this explicitly and repeatedly. He's mentally incapable of understanding that not all homosexuals are sadistic sex maniacs with 10 partners per night. He still thinks homosexuals only make up 2% of the population too. Out of sight, out of mind.

It's how some homophobes deal with their homophobia.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben not all gay men engage in risky behavior. Over half of the gay men that I know are in stable long term monogamous relationships. They pose a damn sight lower risk than many of the heterosexual tramps I've met.

I already said that, and I made the point that not all intravenous drug users have HIV either. Still, Asher seems perfectly willing to adopt a stereotype if it fits common sense.