Organ Donation and Homosexuals

LydiaNN · Oct 1, 2006

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.

maryshome8 · Oct 1, 2006

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.

maryshome8 · Oct 1, 2006

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.

Brian, ASN, RN · Oct 6, 2006

I re-opened this thread, cleaned up a few personal attacks, off topic post etc... Please keep to the original topic. Thanks and enjoy!

caroladybelle, BSN, RN · Oct 6, 2006

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.

olderthandirt · Oct 7, 2006

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.

Home Health Columnist / Guide · Oct 7, 2006

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

Pilotboy · Oct 7, 2006

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.

kenny b · Oct 7, 2006

You know, if myself or a family member was going to die without a transplant of some kind and there was another person willing to donate I would take it regardless of sexual preference. I guess I just don't understand. It's sad to think someone's life could have possibly been saved, but because the person was homosexual he couldn't donate an organ to save that life.
What if it is a heterosexual who has had an active sex life? Are they disqualified too?
smoo

It is sad. But I suspect that IF it is the official policy, then it is probably liability-driven. Not THAT is really sad. While a great deal of good has come from the right to sue, certainly frivolous lawsuits have cost lives and created suffering in a far-reaching way.

Please recall that there was a group of lawyers prepared to sue the builders of the twin towers because it had supposedly not been built to withstand the direct impact of an airliner.

Regards,

Kenny B.

i_am_acat · Oct 7, 2006

Its rather sad. Screening organs are judged on arbitrary standards. What is "high risk" anyway? Furthermore, it isn't only gays who have anal sex; a surprising number of hetersexual couples do too.

suzannelb3 · Oct 7, 2006

Tweety, you hit the nail on the head. Sometimes people are so narrow-minded that they don't see the big picture.

RN34TX · Oct 7, 2006

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.

"Abnormal lifestyle"?

Haven't heard that one in a long time and I live in ultra-conservative South TX. Makes me feel like I'm part of some radical cult like the Manson Family or something.

Anyway, yes there are things that should be and things that are, I agree.

As a gay man, I accept the fact that I cannot donate blood. My hospital continues to whine about major shortages trying to get employees to donate all of the time and I must simply shrug my shoulders and say "I can't help you". That's the way it is today.

Meanwhile I get to watch my straight co-workers who pick up new guys at the bar every weekend (some of whom don't even use protection) and have 3-4 children from 3-4 different fathers give blood on a regular basis.

Statistically, I wonder which employees in this hospital are more likely to be infected with HIV?

Oh I know, it's the gay guy who's had the same exclusive partner for 4 years and gets tested at least yearly.

Good luck to you in your BSN program. My program likes to really harp on cultural competence and sensitivity. I've learned a lot about things from Vietnamese to Italian traditions and healthcare beliefs/practices.

No mention has ever made in all of this cultural sensitivity coursework or any of our textbooks about interacting with gay patients and their families.

I've brought it to the school's attention and am trying to get it changed and you are a great example of why it's so important to me.

The thought of any school granting a nursing degree to anyone who is so distant from, and disconnected with, the gay community that they still refer to it as an "abnormal lifestyle" someday becoming my nurse really scares the heck out of me.

I hope your nursing program is better than mine at teaching students how to become competent practitioners with respect to gay patients because no matter where you live or work, you will be taking care of gay people, and hopefully you will give them the care that they deserve.