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

[Ben Kenobi]

That presumes they are unnecessary risks, it might be the case that enough organs can't be procured elsewhere.

Giving someone a diseased organ doesn't help them any. They need to be healthy otherwise the organ donation is a waste of time.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Right, as if there are so many healthy gay men out there to have a significant impact on the overall shortage of organs out there.

Every life counts, Ben.

It's a cost benefit analysis. The marginal benefit is less then the hassles associated. They would save themselves time and money by screening out folks automatically.

Let's do a cost/benefit analysis for someone who needs a new heart within a year and has been on the list for, oh, 8 months:
- Receive no organ
- Receiver organ from gay man

Which is better from a cost/benefit analysis?

Which is why I'm an organ donor. That's why I don't care about the people on the organ waiting list.

We don't play games with people's lives just because of other people's hurt feelings. Like I said, it's about the recipients not about the donors.

We don't play games with people's lives -- yes. That means not giving them perfectly healthy organs because the owner was gay is ridiculous. I'm glad you agree with me.

While I'm sure you'd rather die than have a gay man save your life, other people -- namely those who spend years waiting for compatible organs -- may not be so stupid.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Giving someone a diseased organ doesn't help them any. They need to be healthy otherwise the organ donation is a waste of time.

A organ from a homosexual is not a "diseased" organ. Your religious bigotry is raising its ugly head again, Ben.

[Ben Kenobi]

Remind us all how that scandal occurred. For those unaware, like Ben, the blood was actually not screened and that's why the Red Cross was held accountable.

Which is why we should play games with people's lives and accept donations from a high risk population.

I'm so convinced that you have the best interests of the recipients when you are whining you can't donate. I mean really, it doesn't matter one bit. The primary issue is the health of the patient and the safety of the blood supply.

[snoopy369]

From what I recall, organ screening isn't particularly good because it's such a short timespan - they do what they can but there are a lot of things they can't spot with enough accuracy. I'm not as sure about blood, there they have plenty of time; but HIV can be very hard to spot as it is, even with plenty of time; with the highly compressed timeframes of organ donation they presumably are making the decision to play odds (As Vesayen says) rather than take the risk.

I think you'd have to know the actual numbers better in order to really make a judgment on this; I tend to side with the authorities on this one, because a) I doubt they're homophobes (group of highly educated people with a scientific bias; much less likely to be homophobic); b) they're doctors and presumably care very much about saving lives; and most importantly, c) they know the facts and we don't.

If anal sex is the risk factor, they could certainly focus on that; but they probably want to reduce the chances of someone forgetting/lying. Also, given that they're not necessarily asking the actual person in these cases, they probably don't want to have to ask relatives that, of their dead gay son It's also less obviously a 'no' factor; people will tend to fudge when they know they're being asked a disqualifying factor more so than when they don't.

[DinoDoc]

If they can't donate blood why should they be able to donate organs?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Asher


Why are we even repeatedly discussing this. There are ALWAYS shortages of organs for MANY reasons. ALWAYS.

Cost/benefit/risk analysis is stupid when so many people die waiting for organs for transplant.

The fact that "screening is not perfect" is also ridiculous. With organs being overly picky with general rules is deadly. I'm a gay man, sexually monogamous for 4.5 years, but I can't give blood or donate my organs (I did fill out my donor card), while some whore can.

The whore part is very much not true. They screen for many things, including casual hetero sex (at least in the US). They also ask you if you've taken money for sex

[Ben Kenobi]

Every life counts, Ben.

So why should we accept donations that are harmful just to make the donor feel better?

Let's do a cost/benefit analysis for someone who needs a new heart within a year and has been on the list for, oh, 8 months:
- Receive no organ
- Receiver organ from gay man

Which is better from a cost/benefit analysis?

And we should likewise accept organs from intravenous drug users?

While I'm sure you'd rather die than have a gay man save your life, other people -- namely those who spend years waiting for compatible organs -- may not be so stupid.

If 2 percent of your donors are 50 percent of your problems,wouldn't it make more sense to screen them out and cut your problematic donations in half?

[Reiko]

Originally posted by Asher


Why are we even repeatedly discussing this. There are ALWAYS shortages of organs for MANY reasons. ALWAYS.

Cost/benefit/risk analysis is stupid when so many people die waiting for organs for transplant.

The fact that "screening is not perfect" is also ridiculous. With organs being overly picky with general rules is deadly. I'm a gay man, sexually monogamous for 4.5 years, but I can't give blood or donate my organs (I did fill out my donor card), while some whore can.

Even with a nation that has socialized medicine it costs money and manpower to screen organs. Nothing is free ever. So they have to go through a screening process on who to accept organs from because they do not have the money or manpower to test all of them.
It sucks but that is the way it is and always will be unless they come up with a dirt cheap and highly reliable process of testing.

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I think you'd have to know the actual numbers better in order to really make a judgment on this; I tend to side with the authorities on this one, because a) I doubt they're homophobes (group of highly educated people with a scientific bias; much less likely to be homophobic); b) they're doctors and presumably care very much about saving lives; and most importantly, c) they know the facts and we don't.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but Health Canada is a beurocratic nightmare of an entity full of politicians and people with degrees from 3rd world countries. My SO just spent a workterm there.

You'll note from the article, the doctors are the ones who didn't exactly side with the decision.

If anal sex is the risk factor, they could certainly focus on that; but they probably want to reduce the chances of someone forgetting/lying.

Yes. The logic simply doesn't make sense.

Are sexually active people more at risk for HIV/hepc? Yes/no.

The answer is yes. Gay or not, straight or not.

A healthy, monogamous gay man should still be able to donate blood & organs. A slut of a gay man, ditto for a slut of a straight man, shouldn't be able to for obvious reasons.

They're asking the wrong questions.

[DinoDoc]

I think they also ban people who've been to the UK as well during that whole mad cow thing.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Reiko
Even with a nation that has socialized medicine it costs money and manpower to screen organs.

Absolutely ridiculous argument. Do you have any idea how few organ transplants there are? Hint: read the article.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Asher

Let's do a cost/benefit analysis for someone who needs a new heart within a year and has been on the list for, oh, 8 months:
- Receive no organ
- Receiver organ from gay man

Which is better from a cost/benefit analysis?

Unfortunately, that's not how the medical profession works. Let's assume that being gay means a 1% higher chance of having HIV or whatnot. You're comparing:
0% chance of being saved, 0% chance of screwup: No organ
99% chance of being saved, 1% chance of screwup: Organ

The medical profession, from what I have seen, generally looks at that and says "omg, 1% chance of screwup" and stops there...

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Giving someone a diseased organ doesn't help them any. They need to be healthy otherwise the organ donation is a waste of time.

True, I just have a sneaking suspicion that the benefits of allowing gay organ donation after screening in certain cases outweighs the risks and that the elimination of gays has only been implemented for liability purposes.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So why should we accept donations that are harmful just to make the donor feel better?

Are you seriously making the case that all gay organs are harmful?

And we should likewise accept organs from intravenous drug users?

No, because intravenous drug users are -- by the very activity -- ****ing up the body and exposing themselves to all kinds of issues. Monogamous, long term gay couples are no more a risk than a married straight couple, for obvious reasons.

If 2 percent of your donors are 50 percent of your problems,wouldn't it make more sense to screen them out and cut your problematic donations in half?

Not when you have people dying while waiting for the organs. Every organ counts, every life counts. And if you're going to spew BS numbers, cite them. Otherwise, can it.