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

[SlowwHand]

What if you're one of the eight? Eight people will be one of the eight. The 9th one is S.O.L., as is the family.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Thank you.

Glad you finally conceded this point.

It was never contended because it's irrelevant.

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

7%, from the article, on average.

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.

8 human lives, Ben. Your callousness is astounding, but not surprising. Pro-life my ass.

BTW, given your 400 organ donations a year and the 7% rate given in the article, this is 28 people...

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

You really, REALLY think people will refuse donations because there are "gay" organs in the pool? Seriously?

You lose, Ben.

[Wezil]

I just heard an interview with the Dr. in charge of organ donations. He says nothing has changed Asher - donate away.

(I apologize if you dealt with this in the thread already...)

[Ben Kenobi]

8 human lives, Ben. Your callousness is astounding, but not surprising. Pro-life my ass.

That's best case, assuming we don't give people any tainted organs.

You really, REALLY think people will refuse donations because there are "gay" organs in the pool? Seriously?

It's happened with blood. The way this whole organ donation works, is that people agree to enter the pool if they believe that if they should need an organ or blood that the blood would be there for them.

What benefit do people get if the blood supply is insecure? Absolutely none. More and more people will check out because they are unwilling to put their own children or family at risk. Instead, they will simply donate to their own family, as a donation is needed rather then relying on the public blood supply. Or they bank their own blood for storage later on.

Really Asher, that is the primary consequence of this. For the sake of marginal donations you destroy people's faith in the system, that it will be there for them should they need the donation.

[Proteus_MST]

Why would any donor check out of the program just because gays are allowed to donate?

This sounds completely BS to me. You either donate your organ, because you think you can help other persons with oit, or you don´t.
I can hardly imagine anyone who donates his organs to back dowbn just because of abovementioned reasons.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That's best case, assuming we don't give people any tainted organs.

That's not best case. RTFA. 7% of the organs would be ineligible. That's 28 people. 28 human lives per year. "That's all".

What benefit do people get if the blood supply is insecure? Absolutely none. More and more people will check out because they are unwilling to put their own children or family at risk.

The problem is the blood supply can never be guaranteed to be secure. Half of all HIV cases are in heterosexuals too. If you're going to play this game, no one wins.

Really Asher, that is the primary consequence of this.

This is pure bull****. Only a complete idiot would turn down any and all organs that they NEED to live when most never even get the opportunity for ANY organ -- especially when the reason is "they might get a gay one".

Your disconnection from reality is very amusing, though.

[Ben Kenobi]

They aren´t harmful.

We´re talking about organs that are perfectly O.K. but whose donors are disallowed to donate them just because oif their sexual preference.

And my point is that you are exposing people to the risk of infected organs in the effort to get at the 'safe' donations.

I haven´t seen a study to date that puts gay persons at such a high risk that the risk involved in getting organs from gay persons cancels out the usefulness of the organs given by them.

It depends on what increase in risk you feel is acceptable.

That of the gay man dying and not being able to donate his perfectly healthy organs, or that of the possible receiver who finally dies, because the only suitable heart he could gave gotten was in the body of a gay person?

Why is this even an issue? It's only an issue because gay people are insisting that they ought to be allowed to donate even given the higher risk factor.

Again, if we allow them why should we screen any risky behaviours at all?

Well, even if the risk for gay persons might be slightly higher, you could just screen the organs of gay men more thorougly before transplantation.

As opposed to screening them right from the start? Frankly, it seems everyone is saying that gay people should be under higher scrutiny. The question is whether the increase in the donations is worth the increased risk that you are exposing everyone. Is it worth doubling the risk of a tainted organ to gain 7 percent more donors?

Every life counts, even the life of those whose life might only be saved by accepting organ donations from gay persons.

At the risk of doubling your factors of having HIV in the organ? No thanks. I don't think it's worth it because people are going to check out and protect themselves as they do now because of the tainted blood scandal. We are having a hard enough time with organs, we don't need to be experimenting with organ donation, unless we are going to significantly increase the supply.

There are a number of other innovations, including the use of adult stem cells to grow organs, which hopefully we will be able to use, so that each person could grow their own organs and signficantly reduce the risk of rejection.

That would be an innovation that would revolutionise transplantation. This, just destroys people's faith in the system.

[Wezil]

Gay donors are still allowed....

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
And my point is that you are exposing people to the risk of infected organs in the effort to get at the 'safe' donations.

In your world, the gay organs = at risk, the straight organs = not at risk?

Yes, the risk is higher for gay organs if you're ONLY using umbrella statistics. If you look at sub-cultures within the "homosexual" statistics you'll see some of them have identical infection rates to married straight couples.

This is the point you refuse to acknowledge. You also refuse to accept that all organ donations are risky, gay or straight.

It depends on what increase in risk you feel is acceptable.

How many people have died in Canada after accepting an HIV-infected organ, Ben? Name one such case. I've heard of none, the doctors don't think it's an unreasonable risk after the tests, so who are you to disagree -- you must have some kind of stats? What? No, you don't?

Why is this even an issue? It's only an issue because gay people are insisting that they ought to be allowed to donate even given the higher risk factor.

The gay risk factor isn't inherently there because the person is gay! Do you not understand statistics at all? This is amazing.

Again, if we allow them why should we screen any risky behaviours at all?

We should screen RISKY BEHAVIORS, not sexual orientations. The sexual orientation itself is not the risky behaviour, the sexual promiscuity a lot of gay people engage in is a risky behaviour that should be excluded, but not all gay people.

Is it worth doubling the risk of a tainted organ to gain 7 percent more donors?

Doubling the risk? Source it or shut up.

At the risk of doubling your factors of having HIV in the organ? No thanks.

Source it or shut up. This isn't one of your artsy classes, Ben, this is the real world -- you need to cite the bull**** you throw out there.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


And my point is that you are exposing people to the risk of infected organs in the effort to get at the 'safe' donations.



It depends on what increase in risk you feel is acceptable.



Why is this even an issue? It's only an issue because gay people are insisting that they ought to be allowed to donate even given the higher risk factor.

Again, if we allow them why should we screen any risky behaviours at all?



As opposed to screening them right from the start? Frankly, it seems everyone is saying that gay people should be under higher scrutiny. The question is whether the increase in the donations is worth the increased risk that you are exposing everyone. Is it worth doubling the risk of a tainted organ to gain 7 percent more donors?



At the risk of doubling your factors of having HIV in the organ? No thanks. I don't think it's worth it because people are going to check out and protect themselves as they do now because of the tainted blood scandal. We are having a hard enough time with organs, we don't need to be experimenting with organ donation, unless we are going to significantly increase the supply.

There are a number of other innovations, including the use of adult stem cells to grow organs, which hopefully we will be able to use, so that each person could grow their own organs and signficantly reduce the risk of rejection.

That would be an innovation that would revolutionise transplantation. This, just destroys people's faith in the system.

But What if people could choose?
Asher made a fine proposal.

Patients are able to choose wether they prefer to get their organs only from straight persons, taking into account that they might have to wait longer until their get their organs (and also being in a higher danger of dying befoe an organ is available)

or to include gays as eliglible donators for their organs taking possible risks that might arise from undiscovered diseases in these organs, how high it ever might be.

This way everyone takes the risk he chooses for himself and people who fear that organs from gays might be contaminated can well avoid the risk by choosing to get their organs from straight people only

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wezil
Gay donors are still allowed....

Yes, the original article mentions that the MEDICAL DOCTORS (Pay attention, Ben!) are not going by these guidelines.

That will likely change soon if the government gets its way, thus the discussion continues.

But the fact that the doctors see no problem with gay donors while the politicians do certainly eliminates the argument that the people who know better decided this. They did not.

I'll note that the two people opposing gay donations are religious conservatives. Anyone care to guess why they really oppose this, even though it will kill 28 people per year given Ben's numbers?

[b etor]

i like reading this thread.
asher

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Asher
I'll note that the two people opposing gay donations are religious conservatives.

Pat never struck me as a religious conservative.

I think the real problem your hissy fit seems to highlight is that Canada has among the lowest donation rates among industrialized nations. That seems to be the real issue. How can we get more people to donate?

[Aeson]

Asher

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Asher

Yes, the original article mentions that the MEDICAL DOCTORS (Pay attention, Ben!) are not going by these guidelines.

That will likely change soon if the government gets its way, thus the discussion continues.

But the fact that the doctors see no problem with gay donors while the politicians do certainly eliminates the argument that the people who know better decided this. They did not.

Again, I apologize. It's not an issue that affects me personally in any respect and I'm not interested enough to read several pages of what was no doubt a very fine discussion.

Apparently this is accomplished through informing the potential recipient of an elevated risk donation and letting them decide.

I gather this has already been the practice in the past but now it has been codified.

I'm not sure this "change" is politically motivated as you seem to be. I suspect the reason has more to do with thwarting potential litigation.