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

[DinoDoc]

Jrabbit: Seems to me the potential recipients should be deciding what risks are acceptable to them.

In what system of organ donation does that generally happen?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by -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.

Not feasible... not only is there not enough time to make an informed decision, but the recipient generally won't be capable of making an informed decision on the risks; particularly in the case of emergency transplants (for an acute condition rather than a long-term one) there are too many emotional issues involved.

That, and doctors most certainly prefer to keep the knowledge to themselves as much as possible...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Vesayen


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.

You seem to think that the Canadian health care system has a finite budget and never, ever has cost overruns? That's not how it works.

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

What risk is there if an intravenous drug user insists he never shares a needle with anyone else?

I'm surprised all gay men don't insist that they are clean and monogamous, it's clearly more often true then not.

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

Clearly all gay men are clean just as all intravenous drug users are clean.

Awesome argument Asher.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Vesayen


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.

That was to Asher's post.

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Not feasible... not only is there not enough time to make an informed decision

HORSE****.

These new regulations ADD to the bureaucratic red tape needed. Health Canada -- A GOVERNMENT AGENCY -- needs to send people out to the donor's family to INTERVIEW them now due to these new regulations.

So how can you make the case it's not enough time to make an informed decision, when the whole point of this new law is to add a huge, time-expensive prcoess to the donation process?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Asher

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.

Clearly I can't persuade you to believe that anyone knows more than you, so this isn't going anywhere... but this most certainly is not something that was decided lightly and without clear knowledge of the actual statistical risks of the situation. Canada may make its rules by random bureaucrats, but in the US it is a group of doctors, and they have the same rule. I for one am not so full of myself to believe I know better than everyone else...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What risk is there if an intravenous drug user insists he never shares a needle with anyone else?

Still high due to the suspect origin of the drugs.

Clearly all gay men are clean just as all intravenous drug users are clean.

Awesome argument Asher.

I never said all gay men are clean. Not even close. You insult me with this stupidity, and I won't reply further unless you want to use your brain in a discussion on this forum.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Asher


You seem to think that the Canadian health care system has a finite budget and never, ever has cost overruns? That's not how it works.

I do not know the details of how Canada finances it's health care but no budget is unlimited. Even if they do increase the budget, they are not going to increase it enough in time to help those other 40 people worth of money they lost.

People will also lose confidence in the health system and not go for treatment every time they learn someone got a kidney with HIV.

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Clearly I can't persuade you to believe that anyone knows more than you, so this isn't going anywhere... but this most certainly is not something that was decided lightly and without clear knowledge of the actual statistical risks of the situation.

Given that the doctors consulted in the article -- including the centre that does by far the most transplants in Canada:
1) seemed unaware of the law
2) seemed to disagree with the law

I'm going to say your statement is not relevant.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Vesayen
I do not know the details of how Canada finances it's health care but no budget is unlimited. Even if they do increase the budget, they are not going to increase it enough in time to help those other 40 people worth of money they lost.

It's the government, Ves. When the money's not there, they get it. They spend and ask questions later. You should definitely know that by now, what with Bush's spending habits.

[Ben Kenobi]

Still high due to the suspect origin of the drugs.

And HIV is the only health consequence commonly associated with homosexuality?

Please continue Asher. I'm enjoying this discussion.

I never said all gay men are clean.

Thank you. This is why we should exclude them because they are a high risk population and there is little marginal benefit in adding them to the pool of donors. If we should include gay men then we should also include intravenous drug users.

Wow, I've graduated all the way up to 'brainless'. Got anymore insults that advance your argument?

[Impaler[WrG]]

It would seem to me they could just state the regulation in terms of "Number of Different Sexual Partners in the last year" and cut it off at what every number they like. Promiscuous Gay and Strait people would be excluded and they wouldn't have all this flak.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
And HIV is the only health consequence commonly associated with homosexuality?

Please continue Asher. I'm enjoying this discussion.

It's not a discussion, you're not hearing anything I'm saying.

What kind of diseases do you think monogamous homosexual couples get, Ben? What has your church told you?

Thank you. This is why we should exclude them because they are a high risk population and there is little marginal benefit in adding them to the pool of donors. If we should include gay men then we should also include intravenous drug users.

The difference is: intravenous drug use is inherently risky.
Monogamous gay sex is not.

This has been clarified repeatedly.

Wow, I've graduated all the way up to 'brainless'. Got anymore insults that advance your argument?

It's not an insult so much as a pertinent observation. I don't know how many times I hammer the points, but they go whizzing on by.

[Whoha]

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.

The more I think about it the more this sounds like someone trying to save money. If they were running into a capacity bottleneck then they could still accept organ donations from everyone,but as untested organs build up they can junk the riskier ones. Also that sounds unlikely that they'd have that many organ donors,or that they'd be in such dire straits with regards to organ testing.