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

[Asher]

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

Yes, there is, because you can ask friends and family. Exactly what this new policy demands.

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?

I don't know or care how it was done before. We're discussing potential solutions. Please focus on that.

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.

You constantly avoid the simple fact that this regulation takes out any kind of decision making by doctors from the equation.

Scenario: You're a week from certain death if you don't get a new heart. You've been on the list 3 years. Finally, a heart becomes available. It's from a fit 24 year old male, who according to family and friends was in a 5-year monogamous homosexual relationship. The heart was tested and deemed to be free of diseases.

Do you turn the heart down, or do you take it?

If anyone, anywhere answers "take it", then this policy is misguided. Period.

[Ming]

Originally posted by 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.

Pretty much sums up my opinion on the subject.
I think testing should be the key factor, not broad generalizations that are not applicable.

Doctors should be allowed to make the call, and be able to offer up the opportunities to potential recepients.

[DinoDoc]

Scenario: You're a week from certain death if you don't get a new heart. You've been on the list 3 years. Finally, a heart becomes available. It's from a fit 24 year old male, who according to family and friends was an IV drug user. The heart however was tested and deemed to be free of diseases.

Do you turn the heart down, or do you take it?

If anyone, anywhere answers "take it", then a policy of banning IV drug users from donating is misguided. Period.

[Asher]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Scenario: You're a week from certain death if you don't get a new heart. You've been on the list 3 years. Finally, a heart becomes available. It's from a fit 24 year old male, who according to family and friends was an IV drug user. The heart however was tested and deemed to be free of diseases.

Do you turn the heart down, or do you take it?

If anyone, anywhere answers "take it", then a policy of banning IV drug users from donating is misguided. Period.

Actually, I agree with this as well. Beggers can't be choosers. It should be documented as a potential risk, but it should be up to the doctors and patient.

So, what is your answer? Do you take the heart in my scenario, or do you die?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Asher
So, what is your answer? Do you take the heart in my scenario, or do you die?

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

[Asher]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
If there were a reliable way to get non-infected organs from the MSM population (which apparently there isn't or I doubt the Canadian govt would have made the decision), I wouldn't care either way.

Answer the question directly.

Do you take it, or die?

BTW, DD: Do you realize you are advocating government oversight and intervention at the expense of patient rights?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Scenario: You're a week from certain death if you don't get a new heart. You've been on the list 3 years. Finally, a heart becomes available. It's from a fit 24 year old male, who according to family and friends was an IV drug user. The heart however was tested and deemed to be free of diseases.

Do you turn the heart down, or do you take it?

If anyone, anywhere answers "take it", then a policy of banning IV drug users from donating is misguided. Period.

QFT

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Patroklos


I think you thought that was clever. That is sad

Not really. It was more a reflex than anything else... My heart wasn't really into it.

[Patroklos]

I don't want Asher's heart anyway, it is too black and cold to be compatible with my cheery demeanor

Not really. It was more a reflex than anything else... My wasn't really into it.

[Ming]

Even with a risk of an infected organ, I would still want to be able to make my own choice on whether I want it.

Let's get serious here... if the option is death or a possibly infected organ, the choice is still a very simple one. The fact that the government seems to want the power to condemn me to certain death by not allowing me and my doctor a choice at this option certainly sucks

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I don't want Asher's heart anyway, it is too black and cold to be compatible with my cheery demeanor

reminds me of this joke (link only, to avoid threadjacking - please post followups to THAT thread in the History subforum - lets see if this works)

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=5163499&t=8582#post5163499

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark




reminds me of this joke (link only, to avoid threadjacking - please post followups to THAT thread in the History subforum - lets see if this works)

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showt...82#post5163499

Gracias, LOTM.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Ming
Even with a risk of an infected organ, I would still want to be able to make my own choice on whether I want it.

Let's get serious here... if the option is death or a possibly infected organ, the choice is still a very simple one. The fact that the government seems to want the power to condemn me to certain death by not allowing me and my doctor a choice at this option certainly sucks

How does this possibly work? They have everyone in their health system sign a waver saying they won't hold the medical system responsible if they get an infected organ?

[Asher]

Yes?

[Ben Kenobi]

It's obvious the infection rate is higher among homosexuals.

Thank you.

Glad you finally conceded this point.

Now my question is for you, what percentage of donors are going to be eligible if we lift the ban? 2 percent?

If the total donors are as you say, 13 per million, that means there are roughly 400 organ donations a year here in Canada.

Now, supposing we lift the ban. That means we get 8 more organ donations. 8.

That's all.

Now, if 10 percent of existing donors check out because they fear for the safety of donation, then what do we end up with?

Best case scenario we get 8 more donations. If ten percent of the previous total check out, we lose 40 donations. Now after allowing gay men to donate, we get 32 fewer donations a year.

This is why this policy is flawed Asher. At best we have a tiny increase in the total donations, and at worst, we have a drop in the total donations as more people check out then check in.

As for those gay people who would still qualify, what are we talking about? 10 percent at best? I'd like to see some figures Asher. How many gay men have 1 partner in their lifetime? How many would have 5? It's not about this 10 people everyday, it's about the giant leap in risk when you go from under 5 to over 100.

Say if we only allow donations from gay men who are monogamous meaning we trust them not to lie, then we only get about 10 percent of the two percent, meaning we increase our donations by 2 tenths of a percent. With 13 donors per million and 400 total donations a year, this means that we increase the total from 400 donations to about a single donation a year.

Now, is it really worth the risk of transferring an HIV positive organ for 1 donation a year? Frankly, I'd say no, the risk was not worth the very low benefit.