Organ Donation and Homosexuals

Nurses General Nursing

Published

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 to calm down. Anyway, he specifically told us about his partner being an organ donor. Even the coroner who came and ruled this a cardiac death mentioned to make sure about organ donation.

I call kidney one go through all their ?s and what happened. Then I progress to the next level and another rep calls me back go through EVERYTHING all over. Finally I mentioned something about the pt's life partner and slap instantly this pt's rejected due to "high risk behavior."

Now from my understanding the thing probably of concern is transmitting aids even with the organs tested if just infected will not show up. I really think this couple was in a monogamous relationship. They had been together for over 5 years. The guy was probably much healthier and less riskier than some other organs donated. I can see that with anal sex you can cause tearing more and transmit aids and that is probably the high risk the criteria is for but is ther percentage that great to reject organs for donation? I heard people with tatoos are rejected for blood (I don't know about organ donation). Still even with this in mind I was still quite surprised. Especially it deemed "high risk behavior." Because that is not necesarilly so. I would think risky behavior is multiple sex partners and yes that is but that's with all groups.

I mentioned this to my friend and instantly she states it's like this because aids is "astronomical" in homosexual populations. Is that really so? I know she is against homosexuality very much and absolutely know that is in her mind as well but with anal sex there is more tearing and potential but does anybody know actual numbers from an acredited sorce? I know in the 80s aids was really pushed out there because it was found in the homosexual poplulation. I suppose I can look on a main aids site or gov type thing. I'm comming accross just random pages with no substance to back it.

Is this risk really that relavant? And should it be deemed "high risk." And one article I read type cast homosexuals in general so what about lesbians? I know donations have to be screened excessively but is this too much?

--broke my huge paragraph up hope it helps to read it!!

Specializes in Public Health, DEI.

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.

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??

Specializes in CCU/CVU/ICU.

BUt what if...they put a homosexual's kidney into someone...and the recipient becomes gay!!! Oh the horror!!!

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-slut...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.

Specializes in med surg.

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?

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.

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.

Specializes in Med/Surg.

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 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.

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.

Specializes in home health, neuro, palliative care.

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 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

Specializes in Cardiac.
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?

+ Add a Comment