[Menierofe]

Devil's advocate.

What % of organs later found to be problematic, are from people in these "threat groups"?

What % of people in the "threat groups" donate organs?

What % of total organ donations, are from those in the threat group?

How difficult it is to screen organs?

How much testing is required to screenthem?

What % of the organs slip through screening and testing, even though they are positive for some disease?

I doubt any of the above questions really work in favor towards the policy quoted in the OP though, though those are the only really justifiable reasons.

[Kragh]

I certainly don't want a gay man's organ in me

[M1iFiNmC]

Asher, should they be able to donate blood too?

Really, it ain't about the rights of the donor but about the rights of the recipient.

The last thing we should be worrying about are hurt feelings of those who can't donate.

[ordercigsnick]

Screening is not perfect.

It is HYPOTHETICALLY possible that from a cost/benifit/risk analysis, it is most efficient to simply not accept organs from certain groups. I have trouble seeing how that could be the case though.

[vipluka]

I'm confused because every organ needs to be tested and screened anyway. Same with blood. I don't see why this makes a difference, especially when organs are always in desperate need. As is blood, but we still had tainted blood in the system that caused many problems. Have you forgotten about that Asher? Why take unnecessary risks when people's lives are at stake?

Again, if they rejected me because I didn't meet their standards, that would be a real shame, but I wouldn't go and cry about it.

[ClapekDodki]

Originally posted by Vesayen
Screening is not perfect.

It is HYPOTHETICALLY possible that from a cost/benifit/risk analysis, it is most efficient to simply not accept organs from certain groups. I have trouble seeing how that could be the case though. Why are we even repeatedly discussing this. There are ALWAYS shortages of organs for MANY reasons. ALWAYS.

Cost/benefit/risk analysis is stupid when so many people die waiting for organs for transplant.

The fact that "screening is not perfect" is also ridiculous. With organs being overly picky with general rules is deadly. I'm a gay man, sexually monogamous for 4.5 years, but I can't give blood or donate my organs (I did fill out my donor card), while some whore can.

[ChrisGoldstein]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why take unnecessary risks when people's lives are at stake? That presumes they are unnecessary risks, it might be the case that enough organs can't be procured elsewhere.

Edit: And what the other freak said.

[Andrew1978]

That presumes they are unnecessary risks, it might be the case that enough organs can't be procured elsewhere. Giving someone a diseased organ doesn't help them any. They need to be healthy otherwise the organ donation is a waste of time.

[fotochicaes]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Giving someone a diseased organ doesn't help them any. They need to be healthy otherwise the organ donation is a waste of time. A organ from a homosexual is not a "diseased" organ. Your religious bigotry is raising its ugly head again, Ben.

[ServiceColas]

From what I recall, organ screening isn't particularly good because it's such a short timespan - they do what they can but there are a lot of things they can't spot with enough accuracy. I'm not as sure about blood, there they have plenty of time; but HIV can be very hard to spot as it is, even with plenty of time; with the highly compressed timeframes of organ donation they presumably are making the decision to play odds (As Vesayen says) rather than take the risk.

I think you'd have to know the actual numbers better in order to really make a judgment on this; I tend to side with the authorities on this one, because a) I doubt they're homophobes (group of highly educated people with a scientific bias; much less likely to be homophobic); b) they're doctors and presumably care very much about saving lives; and most importantly, c) they know the facts and we don't.

If anal sex is the risk factor, they could certainly focus on that; but they probably want to reduce the chances of someone forgetting/lying. Also, given that they're not necessarily asking the actual person in these cases, they probably don't want to have to ask relatives that, of their dead gay son It's also less obviously a 'no' factor; people will tend to fudge when they know they're being asked a disqualifying factor more so than when they don't.

[Nosmas]

Originally posted by Asher


Why are we even repeatedly discussing this. There are ALWAYS shortages of organs for MANY reasons. ALWAYS.

Cost/benefit/risk analysis is stupid when so many people die waiting for organs for transplant.

The fact that "screening is not perfect" is also ridiculous. With organs being overly picky with general rules is deadly. I'm a gay man, sexually monogamous for 4.5 years, but I can't give blood or donate my organs (I did fill out my donor card), while some whore can. The whore part is very much not true. They screen for many things, including casual hetero sex (at least in the US). They also ask you if you've taken money for sex

[kentbrookug]

Originally posted by Asher


Why are we even repeatedly discussing this. There are ALWAYS shortages of organs for MANY reasons. ALWAYS.

Cost/benefit/risk analysis is stupid when so many people die waiting for organs for transplant.

The fact that "screening is not perfect" is also ridiculous. With organs being overly picky with general rules is deadly. I'm a gay man, sexually monogamous for 4.5 years, but I can't give blood or donate my organs (I did fill out my donor card), while some whore can. Even with a nation that has socialized medicine it costs money and manpower to screen organs. Nothing is free ever. So they have to go through a screening process on who to accept organs from because they do not have the money or manpower to test all of them.
It sucks but that is the way it is and always will be unless they come up with a dirt cheap and highly reliable process of testing.

[WomanBreast40356]

I think they also ban people who've been to the UK as well during that whole mad cow thing.

[rusculture]

Originally posted by Asher

Let's do a cost/benefit analysis for someone who needs a new heart within a year and has been on the list for, oh, 8 months:
- Receive no organ
- Receiver organ from gay man

Which is better from a cost/benefit analysis?
Unfortunately, that's not how the medical profession works. Let's assume that being gay means a 1% higher chance of having HIV or whatnot. You're comparing:
0% chance of being saved, 0% chance of screwup: No organ
99% chance of being saved, 1% chance of screwup: Organ

The medical profession, from what I have seen, generally looks at that and says "omg, 1% chance of screwup" and stops there...

[iuopyra]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So why should we accept donations that are harmful just to make the donor feel better? Are you seriously making the case that all gay organs are harmful?

And we should likewise accept organs from intravenous drug users? No, because intravenous drug users are -- by the very activity -- ****ing up the body and exposing themselves to all kinds of issues. Monogamous, long term gay couples are no more a risk than a married straight couple, for obvious reasons.

If 2 percent of your donors are 50 percent of your problems,wouldn't it make more sense to screen them out and cut your problematic donations in half? Not when you have people dying while waiting for the organs. Every organ counts, every life counts. And if you're going to spew BS numbers, cite them. Otherwise, can it.

[VUzgOhgv]

I would take a heart, for instance, from probably anyone. I can't imagine not accepting it.

[MyOwnStyle]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I would take a heart, for instance, from probably anyone. I can't imagine not accepting it. The fact that they no longer even give the patients the choice is also ridiculous. It's a flat-out ban, anyone who is gay for any reason can't give organs, even if they want or desperately need it. It's indefensible.

[23InetrySypekek]

You can not forget the liability cost of one person suing who recieves an organ with say, HIV.

The lawsuit and damages the state will have to pay out, will be more then the cost of 40 other transplants.

Organ screening must be difficult because of the short time in which they are taken from one body and put into another. You can't put them in a freezer for a month while you test the car accident victim of every disease.

[mosypeSom]

Are you seriously making the case that all gay organs are harmful? No, they are a high risk population. Same as intravenous drug users.

No, because intravenous drug users are -- by the very activity -- ****ing up the body and exposing themselves to all kinds of issues. 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.

[wp6Eg2Fm]

Originally posted by Vesayen
You can not forget the liability cost of one person suing who recieves an organ with say, HIV. 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.