DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - I want you to have my organs, but you can't have 'em

**BegeMoT** · 01-08-2008, 08:09 AM

Ben, you have to admit Asher has a point. Certainly there are instances where a gay man has about the same risk as a heterosexual and this can be determined relatively easily. How so?

What's to stop gay people from saying they are 'clean' so to speak? What this would do is force every donor to undergo testing for HIV, and that has problems with patient confidentiality and disclosure.

Honestly, screening is the better option.

Also, we should note that there probably will be instances where a gay dude's organ would be the only option for a patient, and in that case transplantation might be worth the risks. And if someone dies from HIV contracted from an organ donation where the organisation knew there was a risk of such occurring? They would be sued to bankruptcy. It's not worth the risk, of killing a patient by cutting corners.

Secondly, even if we did what Asher said, we would have an increase in unsuccessful donations, where the success rate would go down and a very small increase in the number of total donations. Is that increase worth the lower success rate? It won't solve the organ problem, and it will lower people's confidence in organ transplantation. If even one in ten organ donors change their minds, then that will have an overall negative effect.

01-08-2008, 08:09 AM	#32
BegeMoT Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 491 Senior Member	Ben, you have to admit Asher has a point. Certainly there are instances where a gay man has about the same risk as a heterosexual and this can be determined relatively easily. How so? What's to stop gay people from saying they are 'clean' so to speak? What this would do is force every donor to undergo testing for HIV, and that has problems with patient confidentiality and disclosure. Honestly, screening is the better option. Also, we should note that there probably will be instances where a gay dude's organ would be the only option for a patient, and in that case transplantation might be worth the risks. And if someone dies from HIV contracted from an organ donation where the organisation knew there was a risk of such occurring? They would be sued to bankruptcy. It's not worth the risk, of killing a patient by cutting corners. Secondly, even if we did what Asher said, we would have an increase in unsuccessful donations, where the success rate would go down and a very small increase in the number of total donations. Is that increase worth the lower success rate? It won't solve the organ problem, and it will lower people's confidence in organ transplantation. If even one in ten organ donors change their minds, then that will have an overall negative effect.
	Quote