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

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369
The medical profession, from what I have seen, generally looks at that and says "omg, 1% chance of screwup" and stops there...

If this were true, why are circumcisions still legal?

[SlowwHand]

I would take a heart, for instance, from probably anyone. I can't imagine not accepting it.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Asher


If this were true, why are circumcisions still legal?

Do I have to bring LotM in to explain this one to you?

[Asher]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I would take a heart, for instance, from probably anyone. I can't imagine not accepting it.

The fact that they no longer even give the patients the choice is also ridiculous. It's a flat-out ban, anyone who is gay for any reason can't give organs, even if they want or desperately need it. It's indefensible.

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369


Do I have to bring LotM in to explain this one to you?

No, because I could easily refute that by saying some cultures believe female genital mutilation is also acceptable. His beliefs doesn't change the fact that your statement is demonstrably wrong.

[Vesayen]

You can not forget the liability cost of one person suing who recieves an organ with say, HIV.

The lawsuit and damages the state will have to pay out, will be more then the cost of 40 other transplants.

Organ screening must be difficult because of the short time in which they are taken from one body and put into another. You can't put them in a freezer for a month while you test the car accident victim of every disease.

[snoopy369]

Now you're being ridiculous ... patients don't have a say in what organs they get (plus or minus), the system is too tightly run for that time-wise (and then you'd be asking for an organ from a younger/healthier/cuter person... ) They do it for the odds, just accept that, unless you can bring the statistics and knowledge to disprove it ...

[Ben Kenobi]

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

No, they are a high risk population. Same as 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.

Thank you Asher.

For the same reason we exclude gay men because by the very activity they are ****ing up the body and exposing themselves to all kinds of issues.

Game, set, match.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Asher


No, because I could easily refute that by saying some cultures believe female genital mutilation is also acceptable. His beliefs doesn't change the fact that your statement is demonstrably wrong.

You totally missed that joke

[Asher]

Originally posted by Vesayen
You can not forget the liability cost of one person suing who recieves an organ with say, HIV.

Here's something that may sound like a foreign concept to you Americans: Health Care in Canada isn't for profit. The idea is to save lives.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Asher

Here's something that may sound like a foreign concept to you Americans: Health Care in Canada isn't for profit. The idea is to save lives.

Yes, but there is still a cost... both in faith in the system, and in less lives saved if you have less money available. Faith in the blood bank and organ supply being disease free is very important.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Thank you Asher.

For the same reason we exclude gay men because by the very activity they are ****ing up the body and exposing themselves to all kinds of issues.

Game, set, match.

Please provide your rationale for how a monogamous gay couple is any more at risk for disease than a monogamous heterosexual couple. You'll find there's no difference, because the "monogamous" part is pretty important.

Please take the time to think extra hard before replying to me. I have little patience for this ****.

[-Jrabbit]

Seems to me the potential recipients should be deciding what risks are acceptable to them. Restrictions of this sort just encourage well-meaning people to lie. And that's something you can't screen for.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Now you're being ridiculous ... patients don't have a say in what organs they get (plus or minus), the system is too tightly run for that time-wise (and then you'd be asking for an organ from a younger/healthier/cuter person... ) They do it for the odds, just accept that, unless you can bring the statistics and knowledge to disprove it ...

What?

If a patient gets a kidney with HIV, the medical system will likley lose the money to treat 40 other people with the same condition.

Serious measures may then be justified, to prevent that.

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Yes, but there is still a cost... both in faith in the system, and in less lives saved if you have less money available. Faith in the blood bank and organ supply being disease free is very important.

Duh.

Also duh statements:
Heterosexual organs are not guaranteed disease free.
Homosexual organs are not guaranteed disease free.

What's important is the activities the person engages in, and that alone. As I've said, a monogamous, healthy young gay man is a far better candidate than a slutty, obese, old heterosexual man, but these guidelines don't differentiate this at all.

As a result of the lack of organ availability, people will die. If you even want to try to argue this point, do a quick google search for how many people die waiting for transplants.