[jdynwa]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Thank you Asher.

For the same reason we exclude gay men because by the very activity they are ****ing up the body and exposing themselves to all kinds of issues.

Game, set, match. Please provide your rationale for how a monogamous gay couple is any more at risk for disease than a monogamous heterosexual couple. You'll find there's no difference, because the "monogamous" part is pretty important.

Please take the time to think extra hard before replying to me. I have little patience for this ****.

[bubbachew14]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Now you're being ridiculous ... patients don't have a say in what organs they get (plus or minus), the system is too tightly run for that time-wise (and then you'd be asking for an organ from a younger/healthier/cuter person... ) They do it for the odds, just accept that, unless you can bring the statistics and knowledge to disprove it ... What?

If a patient gets a kidney with HIV, the medical system will likley lose the money to treat 40 other people with the same condition.

Serious measures may then be justified, to prevent that.

[Fiipolera]

Jrabbit: Seems to me the potential recipients should be deciding what risks are acceptable to them.

In what system of organ donation does that generally happen?

[seosoftseo]

Originally posted by Vesayen


What?

If a patient gets a kidney with HIV, the medical system will likley lose the money to treat 40 other people with the same condition.

Serious measures may then be justified, to prevent that. You seem to think that the Canadian health care system has a finite budget and never, ever has cost overruns? That's not how it works.

[Rqvtwlfk]

Originally posted by Vesayen


What?

If a patient gets a kidney with HIV, the medical system will likley lose the money to treat 40 other people with the same condition.

Serious measures may then be justified, to prevent that. That was to Asher's post.

[autoloanexpert]

Originally posted by Asher

Duh.

Also duh statements:
Heterosexual organs are not guaranteed disease free.
Homosexual organs are not guaranteed disease free.

What's important is the activities the person engages in, and that alone. As I've said, a monogamous, healthy young gay man is a far better candidate than a slutty, obese, old heterosexual man, but these guidelines don't differentiate this at all.

As a result of the lack of organ availability, people will die. If you even want to try to argue this point, do a quick google search for how many people die waiting for transplants. Clearly I can't persuade you to believe that anyone knows more than you, so this isn't going anywhere... but this most certainly is not something that was decided lightly and without clear knowledge of the actual statistical risks of the situation. Canada may make its rules by random bureaucrats, but in the US it is a group of doctors, and they have the same rule. I for one am not so full of myself to believe I know better than everyone else...

[Fegemiembendy]

Originally posted by Asher


You seem to think that the Canadian health care system has a finite budget and never, ever has cost overruns? That's not how it works. I do not know the details of how Canada finances it's health care but no budget is unlimited. Even if they do increase the budget, they are not going to increase it enough in time to help those other 40 people worth of money they lost.

People will also lose confidence in the health system and not go for treatment every time they learn someone got a kidney with HIV.

[FUNALA]

Originally posted by Vesayen
I do not know the details of how Canada finances it's health care but no budget is unlimited. Even if they do increase the budget, they are not going to increase it enough in time to help those other 40 people worth of money they lost. It's the government, Ves. When the money's not there, they get it. They spend and ask questions later. You should definitely know that by now, what with Bush's spending habits.

[VtLe67WR]

It would seem to me they could just state the regulation in terms of "Number of Different Sexual Partners in the last year" and cut it off at what every number they like. Promiscuous Gay and Strait people would be excluded and they wouldn't have all this flak.

[triardwonvada]

Originally posted by Asher

Here's something that may sound like a foreign concept to you Americans: Health Care in Canada isn't for profit. The idea is to save lives. The more I think about it the more this sounds like someone trying to save money. If they were running into a capacity bottleneck then they could still accept organ donations from everyone,but as untested organs build up they can junk the riskier ones. Also that sounds unlikely that they'd have that many organ donors,or that they'd be in such dire straits with regards to organ testing.

[gabbaman]

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. 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.

As such I think it's evident a straight ban should not be done.

[BegeMoT]

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.

[kjanyeaz1]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
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. Shouldn't all donors be tested anyways?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
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. Well, they'd definitely would need to provide informed consent of the risks here. With that could include liabiltiy waivers.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
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. This seems more like a data presentation problem then an actual problem. We could for instance take data for both high risk operations and low risk operations.

[lesso73]

Every blood donation is screened prior to use so I figure every organ is as well.

[Cengaeas]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

So why should we accept donations that are harmful just to make the donor feel better?
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.

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.

And whose "feelings" are more hurt?
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?

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

[Biassasecumma]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I'm sure a perforated rectum is high and an associated infection would be high on the list of things that I would want to have. Maybe I should post some pictures too. How does an infection in a perforated rectum affect, say, the heart? And how often do you think this happens? I know a LOT of gay people, but none have ever experienced this. What's the rate of this, since apparently you think it's quite high?

They both have inherent health risks. No, they don't. A monogamous gay relationship is no more a health risk than a monogamous heterosexual relationship.

You should call a spade a spade. An insult is an insult, I'm sure you would consider it a 'pertinent observation' if I called you brainless. Since I have demonstrated the capacity for original thought not shoved down my throat by church doctrine, it would not be a pertinent observation.

I think the point is clear, if we allow gay men to donate then we ought to lift the same ban on intravenous drug users. Your point is clear, but it's nonsense. There is nothing inherently dangerous to the organs of a person by having monogamous sex, whether it's hetero or homo. Despite the fact that you think gays have cooties, that's not relevant here.

After all the security of the blood supply is less important then assuaging hurt feelings. As has been repeatedly said -- it's not about hurt feelings (and this isn't about blood supply, please focus), it's about the fact that a huge portion of people waiting organ transplants die waiting. And this blanket rule will needlessly throw out perfectly healthy organs that the doctors (and most patients) themselves would prefer to use.

[Celeliamend]

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but Health Canada is a beurocratic nightmare of an entity full of politicians and people with degrees from 3rd world countries. Socialized health care

In any case, is not the instance of HIV dramatically higher in the gay community in the US and Canada?

And prescreening organs only goes so far. There is nothing to stop you from doing all sorts of risky behavior between that screening and your horrific car accident.

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.

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.