Organ Donation and Homosexuals - page 7

Hey everyone. I had a pt come into the ER in full cardiac arrest. Didn't make it. 56 yr old really sad. He had a life partner who was extremely distraught and actually signed in to get medication... Read More

  1. by   nursesaideBen
    Going by what my NP told me when I first became sexually active, anal sex is more "dangerous" so to speak than other forms of sex. She said this is so because the rectum is so vascular and bodily fluids such as semen are easily absorbed in the rectum. Makes sense to me.
  2. by   caroladybelle
    Quote from maryshome8
    I actually understand why they won't allow cancer patients to donate...because ultimately, no one knows what causes cancer.
    Actually, that is incorrect...in some cases, we do know what causes the cancer, though not in all obviously.

    In addition, studies have been done in areas where such donations are permitted. There has been no consistant link of cancer problems from donors with treated solid tumors in unrelated organs to transplant recipients of solid organs. There is a higher rate of cancer in general in the transplant population (regardless of status of the donor) due to use of immunosuppressive meds in the postop period.

    There is no data on blood (nonsolid tumors) cancer patients and organ donation. Given the nature of the disease and the extensive effect on other organ systems, as well as the effects of treatment, I doubt if they will ever be considered suitable.
  3. by   maryshome8
    Quote from emsboss
    I have never claimed to "gulf war syndrome" Have no ideas about it...BUT!!!!!!!! When the NBC(Nuclear-Biological-Chemical) guys all run for their vehicles and the alarms go off!?!?!?!?! Makes one go...HMMMMMM...I wonder????
    I'm sorry, I didn't mean for it to sound like you did.

    I was just speaking in general.
  4. by   maryshome8
    Quote from caroladybelle
    Actually, that is incorrect...in some cases, we do know what causes the cancer, though not in all obviously.

    In addition, studies have been done in areas where such donations are permitted. There has been no consistant link of cancer problems from donors with treated solid tumors in unrelated organs to transplant recipients of solid organs. There is a higher rate of cancer in general in the transplant population (regardless of status of the donor) due to use of immunosuppressive meds in the postop period.

    There is no data on blood (nonsolid tumors) cancer patients and organ donation. Given the nature of the disease and the extensive effect on other organ systems, as well as the effects of treatment, I doubt if they will ever be considered suitable.
    Actually, I didn't know the rate was higher for cancer for recipients of organs....that is a good thing to know.

    When I said we don't know what causes cancer...I should have elaborated. For example, when we say that if someone is a chain smoker and gets lung cancer, we can safely say that smoking was the cause...but then you have other chain smokers that never get lung cancer...so what causes one to get it and another not to?

    That is more along of the lines I was thinking when I said that no one knew what caused it.

    Obviously, with genetic research, we are getting closer to knowing what other risk factors set the stage in motion
  5. by   mysticalwaters1
    I found out my father said he can't donate blood due to his diabetes. I know guidlines are strict but I didn't realize how strict. I know it's suppose to be based on science but maybe it all has to be reviewed. Isn't the big thing now that many people do not know they even have hiv?
  6. by   ortess1971
    Quote from EricEnfermero
    The problem lies in the fact that no test is ever 100% foolproof, so the national standard for donor blood collection involves a combination of blood testing and donor interview to screen for high-risk practices. I'm sure that the same premise underlies some of the guidelines for organ donation.
    This makes sense...but I don't see whythe interview is seen to be this important filtering out system of "high risk" people. I also agree with those who feel that gay people(those that take precautions and are monogomous) aren't any higher a risk than straight people..I had a friend who dated a guy for years and thought they were monogomous..turns out, he was bisexual and was having unprotected sex with her and others..Aids may have come to public attention as a gay disease but the virus doesn't care what you are. Plenty of people may stretch or distort the truth during the interview because of denial or embarrassment or fear of what the interviewer may think. I still believe that a gay person who practices safe sex and is monogomous is not any greater a risk than a straight person who does the same. Like I said before, HIV infection is taking off in the straight female population, because many young women "feel funny" about insisting her partner wear a condom..
  7. by   mercyteapot
    I used to wonder who could possibly buy the government's claim that there is no such ''thing'' as Gulf War Syndrome, given the constellation of symptoms showing up in so many vets and given the exposure to the number of agents that the rest of us just aren't exposed to... now I know.
  8. by   MissJoRN
    Quote from Jules A
    Smoo, I agree 100%. This makes me sad and disgusted it is wasteful and insensitive. Just for the record if I ever need a transplant I would be honored to receive organs from a homosexual person, or any person at all for that matter, sheesh.
    Sorry, I didn't read every post (skipped the more philosophical ones) and may have missed if this was covered. I also agree with this being a wasteful practice. I was shift charge in the OR one night and waiting for a go-ahead on a procurement candidate before deciding who to send home, put on call, etc and was getting conflicting info on whether or not the procurement would happen at all. Finally I went over to ICU to talk to the Kidney One nurse myself for the real scoop. Turns out the pt was Hep C positive so they were waiting to see if any doctors would accept his organs. It was NOT a K1 decision to make... all up to the recieving transplant Dr. I told her I was surprised as I thought it was an automatic rule-out but she said no... after all, the people on the top of the list have about 24 hrs to live... they may be happy to take that chance! Really put it in perspective for me. I hadn't known just how many people are expected to die every day waiting! So, if K1 policy to to attempt to place a Hep C organ, why not a homosexual one??
  9. by   Dinith88
    BUt what if...they put a homosexual's kidney into someone...and the recipient becomes gay!!! Oh the horror!!!

    <ok, bad joke>

    Or...what if the 'recipient' is gay...would it then be ok to donate a gay persons organ?

    Or...what if he's a gay man with one sex-partner his whole life? His organs would be less desirable than a heterosexual nymphomania-****...his/her organs would be preferable?

    Come on...this is falling down a slippery slope of stupidity.

    This is a silly thread and i hope the oranization in question hasnt made this a standard policy. If so, it requires national attention...as the premise/assumption/paranoia behind it is way off.
  10. by   daisey_may
    I really think that the entire donation process should be reviewed. There are too many flaws in it...both scientifically and logically.

    As for some of the things that people aren't allowed to donate because of medical conditions they have (I think diabetes was mentioned) is it that they can't ACCEPT his blood or is it too much of a risk for the donor to give up that blood?
  11. by   EricJRN
    Quote from daisey_may
    I really think that the entire donation process should be reviewed. There are too many flaws in it...both scientifically and logically.

    As for some of the things that people aren't allowed to donate because of medical conditions they have (I think diabetes was mentioned) is it that they can't ACCEPT his blood or is it too much of a risk for the donor to give up that blood?
    Agencies like the FDA and AABB do meet regularly to discuss and review guidelines for accepting/deferring blood donors. Significant changes are generally handed down from the FDA at least annually, based on new information.

    Some of the rules governing donation are set by the FDA (like the deferral for a male who had sexual contact with another male since 1977), while some are set by the individual donor center.

    A deferral due to a medical condition may be related to either donor safety or patient safety.

    Diabetes is not a common reason for deferral in most places. At the center where I worked, diabetics were not deferred unless they had systemic complications like ESRD.
  12. by   EricJRN
    Quote from jnette
    A lot of talk on this topic, but I agree wholeheartedly with the above.

    "high risk" encompasses so much more than the "sexual behavior" of ONE particular population.
    A great point... and I'm sure you wouldn't be surprised that the vast majority of people deferred from blood donation for high-risk behavior are not gay.
  13. by   AuntieRN
    I am really confused about something. I could have sworn I learned in my chronic illnesses class that you could not spread HIV or aids through an organ transplant, that they tested the organs for these diseases. I remember distinctly questioning my instructor about this because it made no sense to me. Some people do not even know they are HIV+ or can be HIV+ and it has not shown up yet so they would transplant their organs. So I ask what is the difference between knowingly using an organ from a person who for a lack of better wording "engages in high risk behavior" (due to sexual preference) and a person who you do not know "engages in high risk behavior"...if the OP had not mentioned the partner noone would have even asked and his organs would have been used. I just do not get society. (Not to get off subject but it also reminds me of an instructor telling me she does not let her students start IVs on HIV+ patients...we start IVs on pts all the time that we do not know their HIV status so whats the difference?) Nothing is 100% guaranteed safe or foolproof. I personally would want to take the chance and take the organ if I or my family member needed one.

close