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

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Socialized health care

You're confusing the issue. Health Canada has an equivalent organization in the US. It's just the government branch that determines health care guidelines.

In any case, the simple fact is people have crunched the numbers and that is that. The risk outweighs the benefits, and until someone crunches the numbers different (and the doctors in the article didn't) that is the way it is.

I think it's a terribly bad assumption to assume that the government employees at Health Canada did such a thing. My SO just spent 4 months doing a study at Health Canada (about lead levels found in homes), and the scientific methods they use are brutal. The employees are hired not for their qualifications, but mainly for their minority status.

The fact that the doctors in charge of most of the transplants have now publicly said they plan to continue testing ALL organs for viability tells me that they think the "risk" is worth it. And I'd trust them over politicians on this stuff.

You can not screen for HIV for things like heart and lung transplants, the operation goes down within 48 hours (maybe less) of organ availability.

They can and are tested for HIV, by law. They get fast tracked by the labs.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos


For what, and how accurately? What are the time periods required for some of these tests? Are they longer than the timeline needed for a lung transplant?

Just how long do you think it takes to test for HIV, westnile, Hepatitis, etc? The reason it takes long for most people and most tests is they get queued.

Canada has an organ donation rate of 13 per million people. Over 4,000 people are waiting for transplants.

By most estimates, this will eliminate 7 out of 100 possible organs for transplantation regardless of the health of the individuals.

This directly affects people's lives on the list. I think a lot of you keep forgetting this. Even if they said they WANTED the gay man's organs, even if they signed liability waivers, right now they can't get it. Most will die waiting for transplant, so why waste perfectly good organs. It's criminal, is what it is.

I thought Ben was pro-Life.

[Arrian]

I see the risk argument, but I'm thinking the patient should be able to override the ban.

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

Just how long do you think it takes to test for HIV, westnile, Hepatitis, etc?

I don't know, and neither do you, so your assumptions here are not particularly informed.

I do know cultures usually take 24 hours normally. Where is Guy when you need him

I see the risk argument, but I'm thinking the patient should be able to override the ban.

They don't have a say in anything other than "Do you want a Transplant Yes/No." I have been dating a double lung transplant recipient for almost a year.

[Asher]

By the way, in 2006 when the actual doctors that perform organ transplants met in Canada, they talked about this specifically.

Their findings:

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/174/6/S13

The forum recommends that there be no predefined demographic factor or organ dysfunction that precludes provision of consent for individual organs or the offering of organs for transplantation.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos
They don't have a say in anything other than "Do you want a Transplant Yes/No." I have been dating a double lung transplant recipient for almost a year.

Yes, but the key word in his statement was should.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Arrian
I see the risk argument, but I'm thinking the patient should be able to override the ban.

In what system is the patient even asked what kind of person they want a heart from?

[Asher]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
In what system is the patient even asked what kind of person they want a heart from?

The same system that interrogates the family of donors about who they sleep with at night.

[Patroklos]

The forum recommends that there be no predefined demographic factor or organ dysfunction that precludes provision of consent for individual organs or the offering of organs for transplantation.

Sweet, I can't wait to get my Congolese ebola ward patiet heart! I bet it is totally worth the time/money of transplant centers to do such a procedure.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Asher
The same system that interrogates the family of donors about who they sleep with at night.

Is this you just going into gay hysterics a la MrFun or are patients actually asked what kind of people they want a heart from in Canada? Because that just seems wierd.

[Asher]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Is this you just going into gay hysterics a la MrFun or are patients actually asked what kind of people they want a heart from in Canada? Because that just seems wierd.

Why do you and Patroklos have issues with the word should?

This clearly is not the case now. It SHOULD be the case if the doctors find a clearly healthy organ from a gay man. Rather than tossing it in the garbage, they can ask the patient: "We found a heart, but it is from a gay man. Do you still want it?"

It's definitely not too much to ask, especially given these new policies of sending interrogators to family's residences after the patient dies to quiz them on the sex life of the deceased.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Sweet, I can't wait to get my Congolese ebola ward patiet heart! I bet it is totally worth the time/money of transplant centers to do such a procedure.

Good point. Now that they barred teh gays they should also bar black people and jews, you can't be too careful. Not too mention muslims? Muslims are teh evil and their organs are filled with bile and terrorism! Honest hard working canadians shouldn't be exposed to this. They should have clean, white christian organs dammit!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Asher
Why do you and Patroklos have issues with the word should?

What other health risks should we allow the patient to ignore while dangling what may or may not be a useful organ before them?

[Asher]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What other health risks should we allow the patient to ignore while dangling what may or may not be a useful organ before them?

An organ that is tested is not a huge health risk. Just like it's not a huge health risk to get a blood transfusion after it was tested.

Further, right now NO ONE can legally override the use of the organ. Somebody could be one week from death unless they get a new heart, and a perfectly viable heart will be thrown out under the current laws even if it tests clean and the patient was a 100% healthy, sexually monogamous gay man. The doctors, or the patients, have no room for discretion. Which is criminal.

[Arrian]

Of course, my idea only works if they accept gay organ donations and keep them separate.

But I don't see why, if a patient is clearly going to die for want of an organ, and is too far down on the list to get a doubleplusgood straight organ transplant, they shouldn't be offered the opportunity to get an ungood gay organ and hope for the best...

Then again, I dunno how that scenario would really play out. Aren't people who are on death's door moved up the waiting list anyway?

-Arrian