Organ Donation and Homosexuals - page 8

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   maryshome8
    Quote from 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.
    I'll be happy to tell you why I "buy" that there is no such thing as the Gulf War Syndrome, and this may fall under the catagory of TMI, but here it goes.

    The guy I dated for two years practically lived with me. He received about $1200 from the gov't per month after 11 years in the Army and rec'd a medical discharge due to GWS.

    The entire time I dated him, other than the fact that I saw his disability checks and the money go in the bank, and the papers showing that is the reason he was medically discharged, that is all the "evidence" I saw of his illness.

    Can you tell me how someone can run 5 miles every morning and have sex 3 to 4 hours almost every night is handicapped so much that they supposedly couldn't function in the Army to such a level that they received a medical discharge?

    If the Army diagnosed him with GWS, and it really exists, then I need to wait for the Great Pumpkin to visit my daughter this Halloween.

    Keep in mind that the Federal Gov't doesn't believe Black Lung is a disease that coal miners get, yet it killed both of my grandfathers and my uncle.
  2. by   maryshome8
    Quote from vlsgrl
    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.
    I think, and I could be wrong here...that the most sophisticated HIV test that we have can show only 3 months from initial infection. I do know that there is a considerable "lag time" for it to build up in the body for it to show up on a test.

    You can still get HIV from blood transfusions and organ donations if the person was infected with the virus so close to the donation, that it won't show up on a test, but will show up in the recipient later if the blood is infected.
  3. by   Melina
    Mary-
    Just because some people take advantage of the system doesn't mean that the disability is not real. There are plenty of people who DO suffer. That is like saying that, just because some people fake their pain to get meds, there is no such thing as pain.

    ~Mel'
  4. by   leslie :-D
    i just can't imagine anyone exposed to war, WOULDN'T be affected.
    ptsd manifests itself in different ways, but does have predictable presentation.
    exercise is therapeutic.
    just because your boyfriend didn't appear depressed, doesn't mean he wasn't feeling agitated or anxious.
    maybe he was on meds you didn't know about?
    again, i just cannot imagine fighting in a war and not being traumatized.
    as far as i'm concerned, any war vet should qualify for ptsd benefits, whether they're symptomatic or not.


    leslie
  5. by   cardiacRN2006
    Quote from Melina
    Mary-
    Just because some people take advantage of the system doesn't mean that the disability is not real. There are plenty of people who DO suffer. That is like saying that, just because some people fake their pain to get meds, there is no such thing as pain.

    ~Mel'
    Wow, great analogy!

    So, Maryshome you will discount an entire syndrome just because of one persons unethical behavior?
    Last edit by cardiacRN2006 on Oct 1, '06
  6. by   mercyteapot
    Quote from maryshome8
    I'll be happy to tell you why I "buy" that there is no such thing as the Gulf War Syndrome, and this may fall under the catagory of TMI, but here it goes.

    The guy I dated for two years practically lived with me. He received about $1200 from the gov't per month after 11 years in the Army and rec'd a medical discharge due to GWS.

    The entire time I dated him, other than the fact that I saw his disability checks and the money go in the bank, and the papers showing that is the reason he was medically discharged, that is all the "evidence" I saw of his illness.

    Can you tell me how someone can run 5 miles every morning and have sex 3 to 4 hours almost every night is handicapped so much that they supposedly couldn't function in the Army to such a level that they received a medical discharge?

    If the Army diagnosed him with GWS, and it really exists, then I need to wait for the Great Pumpkin to visit my daughter this Halloween.

    Keep in mind that the Federal Gov't doesn't believe Black Lung is a disease that coal miners get, yet it killed both of my grandfathers and my uncle.
    So because one person that you know abused the system, therefore thousands of other veterans are lying? Sure. That makes sense to me. And I'm sure your grandfathers and uncles would appreciate knowing that you've learned nothing from their experience.
  7. by   maryshome8
    Quote from Melina
    Mary-
    Just because some people take advantage of the system doesn't mean that the disability is not real. There are plenty of people who DO suffer. That is like saying that, just because some people fake their pain to get meds, there is no such thing as pain.

    ~Mel'
    I never said he was taking advantage of the system..an Army doctor had to make the diagnosis or else he would not have received the benefit.
  8. by   maryshome8
    I think I need to clarify something before people start skipping over posts and making assumptions.

    I NEVER MENTIONED IN ANY WAY THAT POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER WAS NOT REAL...IN FACT, I NEVER MENTIONED IT AT ALL, SOMEONE ELSE DID.

    I ALSO NEVER SAID THAT ALL "WAR RELATED" ILLNESSES WERE NOT REAL.

    I ONLY MENTIONED THE GULF WAR SYNDROME, based on personal experience, personal obvervation, and no, my former boyfriend was NOT the only person in my life that I have met that claimed to have GWS.

    Having a set of symptoms, to me, doesn't necessarily EQUAL a handicap so severe that it renders you legally disabled. There is a difference.

    That is my belief today...if you asked me again 5 years from now, I may give you a different answer.

    For right now, that is my belief, and all the ranting and raving on the message board isn't going to change that. It doesn't mean my opinion is wrong, invalid, stupid, or idiotic...it's just different from some others.
    Last edit by maryshome8 on Oct 1, '06
  9. by   Brian
    I re-opened this thread, cleaned up a few personal attacks, off topic post etc... Please keep to the original topic. Thanks and enjoy!
  10. by   caroladybelle
    Quote from maryshome8
    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
    For info. ( and sorry to stray Off Topic)

    The 9/10/2006 issue of Oncology Times has nice article about cancer risk in transplant patients on immunosuppressive drugs.

    Overall they have a 3-4 greater risk of developing cancer than the general population. The vast majority of these are viral related cancers.

    Lymphomas (related to Epstein-Barr) increases 100 fold for post transplant patients. Skin cancer is the most common cancer post transplant, even though lymphoma ranks high.

    As far as your chain smoker analogy, it doesn't quite work. You can inoculate people with viruses/bacteria, and some will get sick, and some will not. There are plenty of nurses on here that have had infected needlesticks, that have never developed disease from such. People have received blood, later determined to be contaminated, and yet have never tested positive for the indicated disease. We know of plenty of carcinogens, but no,few if any product/disease/condition has a 100% guarantee of disease.
  11. by   olderthandirt
    Playing the devil's advocate: It would be difficult knowing that a person is dying from kidney failure especially family, but imagine getting that kidney which came from a "high risk" person and then when it looks like the patient is well and enjoying life have to warch them die a looooong death from AIDS. I understand the concern, I am not sure how I feel about it either way.
  12. by   NRSKarenRN
    excellent 03/28/2003 medscape article (free registration required) :

    organ and tissue donation and recovery
    by susan l. smith, mn, phd
    site editor and program director, medscape transplantation

    includes: determining suitability of the cadaveric organ donor

    during this initial review, special emphasis should be placed on gathering information on periods of hemodynamic instability and other vital sign trends, use of vasoactive drugs, periods of hypoxia, oliguria, and trends in laboratory test values. if the potential donor has been hospitalized for several days, a comprehensive review can take several hours to complete. next, a thorough physical examination is performed following the same guidelines as for any other patient in an icu. the presence of tattoos, body piercing jewelry, or suspected prehospital needle track marks should be further investigated.

    obtaining a thorough and accurate medical and social history is one of the most important aspects of determining donor suitability. the opo coordinator conducts a medical and social history interview designed to elicit information from family members and/or significant others about general health and lifestyle information (including risk factors for the transmission of hiv) pertinent to the potential donor. the person or persons responding to the questionnaire are first asked if they knew the deceased well enough to answer questions regarding their medical and social history.

    answers to these questions from the most knowledgeable historian can make the difference between acceptance or refusal of a particular organ or tissue for transplantation.[10] although the donor's family and/or significant other will usually be able to provide this information, medical records must also be reviewed and discussions with physicians, nurses, friends and other healthcare agencies may be necessary to answer social and past medical history questions.....

    ...hiv infection. serologic tests for hiv i and ii antibody and htlv i antibody are performed on all potential donors. according to unos policy, detection of the hiv i and ii or htlv i antibody is an absolute contraindication to donation unless subsequent confirmatory testing indicates that the original test results were falsely positive. due to the risk of transmitting hiv to blood, tissue, and organ recipients, the centers for disease control (cdc) developed guidelines for prevention of spreading hiv to recipients.[13]
    regardless of potential donors' hiv antibody status,donors who meet the cdc criteria listed in table 1 should be excluded from donation of organs and tissues unless the risk to the recipient of not performing the transplant is deemed to be greater than the risk of hiv transmission and disease. in such cases, organs may be recovered without restrictions, but the transplant center is required to inform the recipients of the potential risk of transmission of hiv infection from the donor.[14]

    even though htlv i has been transmitted via blood transfusions, the transmission of htlv i by solid organ transplantation has not been clearly demonstrated and, therefore, some opos and transplant programs do not reject donors who are htlv i antibody-positive. thus, depending on a potential recipient's severity status, he/she may have little alternative but to accept an organ from such a donor.[14] ...
    and determining the quality of donor organs


    from 2001 medscape: donation and transplantation: into the new millennium
    Last edit by NRSKarenRN on Oct 6, '06
  13. by   Pilotboy
    Homosexual men are many times more likely to be infected with AIDS than a heterosexual man. So putting the political correctness aside, it is good policy not to let these individuals donate. One could be offended because of the philosophical aspect of it, however, there are things that ought to be and then there are things that are. If a patient is infected with AIDS through organ donation and the hospital knew the individual had the abnormal lifestyle, the hospital could and probably would be sued for negligence, and rightly so.
    Some of you were making the argument that there are many heterosexuals with risky lifestyles as well, but because there is no way of finding out each person's past, the best that can be done is to go on what is statistically known for a group. Didn't you all have to take statistics? I know what I am talking about; I am an attorney who used to represent clients who sued hospitals. If I threatened with a lawsuit over a matter like this, do you know how quickly the hospital would settle out of court because they know I would win in litigation? I am now leaving that field and getting my BSN.
    Last edit by Pilotboy on Oct 6, '06

close