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

[Asher]

BTW:

In Canada, heterosexual women now make up 20 percent of all HIV infections (as of 2006), a statistic that has risen 6 percent from 2002. They are trending upwards, homosexual infection share is trending downwards.

How many years from now will we outlaw women from donating?

[Proteus_MST]

I absolutely agree with Asher.

It would be a good system if implemented.
Maybe even before an organ is available.

People are informed about a slightly higher risk for diseases that gay might have and then have to sign that either
a) I want an organ even if it is from a gay person
or
b) I only want my organ from a hetero, even if it means that I have to wait longer until it arrives or it might mean that I die waiting for the organ.

With nowadays databases it is easy to just introduce a "gay"-flag in donor databases and adjust the SQL-Statements accordingly, so that you can specifically search for donors without the gay flag active.

[Vesayen]

This is not an issue of civil rights or respect, or equality.

It is an issue of public health and the related statistics.

None of us have all the relevant information, so is this discussion, not moot?

It is not fair to criticize and second guess a decisicion which is based entirley on statistics, information and formulas we do not have.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Asher
if it tests clean and the patient was a 100% healthy, sexually monogamous gay man.

No alternate set of donor eligibility criteria (even including practice of safe sex or a low number of lifetime partners) has yet been found to reliably identify MSM who are not at increased risk for HIV or certain other transfusion transmissible infections.

That's just for blood. Why should the criteria be less strict for organs?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Vesayen
This is not an issue of civil rights or respect, or equality.

It is an issue of public health and the related statistics.

None of us have all the relevant information, so is this discussion, not moot?

No, because the issue is they don't even let patients or doctors override the politician's rules. This legislation removes the decision-making from the doctors completely with a blanket decision from politicians.

It's not a moot issue. The fact that the doctors doing the transplantation have publicly said they will, in fact, defy the current policy also tells us that they don't seem to agree with it.

[Patroklos]

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!

I think you thought that was clever. That is sad

In Canada, heterosexual women now make up 20 percent of all HIV infections (as of 2006), a statistic that has risen 6 percent from 2002. They are trending upwards, homosexual infection share is trending downwards.

So you admit that homosexual populations have an abnormally high instance of HIV and thus statistically probably fail the cost benefit analysis (unless you can prove otherwise).

Excellent. And yes, if heterosexual woman eventually fail cost benefit, ban them too. Though your 20% number is meaningless by itself, as you know full well

[Asher]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

No alternate set of donor eligibility criteria (even including practice of safe sex or a low number of lifetime partners) has yet been found to reliably identify MSM who are not at increased risk for HIV or certain other transfusion transmissible infections.

That's just for blood. Why should the criteria be less strict for organs?

1) Blood is FAR more abundant. If you can't get the blood from the gay man, there's still straight people to get it from.
2) This statement just says increased risk for HIV, it has no relevance on anything after the testing has been done to determine if it's positive or not

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos
So you admit that homosexual populations have an abnormally high instance of HIV and thus statistically probably fail the cost benefit analysis (unless you can prove otherwise).

It's obvious the infection rate is higher among homosexuals if you don't look at anything further. Not all homosexuals are made equal. It's the behaviour that is crucial, not the orientation.

Further, "cost/benefit" is bull**** here. 13 donors per 1 million people. Think about that. Tossing out 2 of those donations per million people will likely mean 2 people die. Every life counts.

Again -- and I do hope I get to stop saying this at some point -- this removes the "cost/benefit" analysis from the doctor completely. It's hogwash bull**** that the doctors doing the transplants do not agree with. Patients dying while waiting for transplants will obviously probably have issue with it also.

Excellent. And yes, if heterosexual woman eventually fail cost benefit, ban them too.

This is so, so, so stupid. Not all homosexuals have sex with 10 partners a night. Why, why, why exclude those who are healthy and monogamous when people are dying waiting for organs.

It's murder.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Asher
2) This statement just says increased risk for HIV, it has no relevance on anything after the testing has been done to determine if it's positive or not

Actually it does: http://www.fda.gov/cber/faq/msmdonor.htm

Apparently you fall into the largest category of people found to be HIV+ by blood donor testing. Given the fact that donor testing isn't an exact science particularly during the window period, why should the bar be lowered from the criteria for blood donations to make you feel better? People can die without a transfusion during a shortage just as easily as they can without a transplant

[Asher]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Actually it does: http://www.fda.gov/cber/faq/msmdonor.htm

Apparently you fall into the largest category of people found to be HIV+ by blood donor testing. Given the fact that donor testing isn't an exact science particularly during the window period, why should the bar be lowered from the criteria for blood donations to make you feel better?

FOR THE LAST TIME.

This has nothing to do with "feelings". It has everything to do with the fact that organs are NOT a dime a dozen like blood. People die on a REGULAR BASIS waiting for organs.

Further, homosexuality isn't INHERENTLY risky. It is by blanket statistics for HIV, but monogamous homosexuals are no more risky than monogamous heterosexual couples. Factors like this are COMPLETELY ignored by this new policy. In addition, doctors can no longer make judgment calls based on the patient's condition -- eg, if they're 1 week from death without an organ and a homosexual's organ becomes available, a doctor who doesn't perform such a surgery might as well have killed the patient themselves.

People can die without a transfusion during a shortage just as easily as they can without a transplant

And the risk varies per patient and their situation. Why remove the doctor's abilities to make the call?

Is this really about making me feel better -- or is it about patients lives? Or is it about making you feel better, not having one of them gays inside you if you need a transplant?

While you and Ben would likely rather die than take a healthy organ from a homosexual, I'm sure most people are more reasonable.

[lord of the mark]

I must say, I agree with Asher. I really don't think this policy makes sense.

[Perfection]

I think the real problem is if you accept a gay organ it makes you gay.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Patroklos


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

But presumably, teh doctors' are.

[SlowwHand]

If you're about to die because your heart is on the verge of giving out, what does anything else matter?
You don't want to risk the chance of AIDS? Horse****.
Give me those dice, get out of the way and let me roll.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Asher
Further, homosexuality isn't INHERENTLY risky. It is by blanket statistics for HIV, but monogamous homosexuals are no more risky than monogamous heterosexual couples.

There's been no reliable way shown to pick you out of the population of sluts. We covered that a few posts up.

In addition, doctors can no longer make judgment calls based on the patient's condition

Now I'm curious. Were the organ categorized as being straight or gay before because if not how is the doctor treating the patient going to know if a gay organ comes available?

Or is it about making you feel better, not having one of them gays inside you if you need a transplant?

Not really. If there were a reliable way to get the non-infected organs (which apparently there isn't or I doubt the Canadian govt would have made the decision), I wouldn't care either way.