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 Emergency.

The other thing we are missing back to the original concern is that someone who is getting an organ transplant is going to be taking immunosuppressant drugs. This fact in its self is going to increase that persons risk of aquiring any disease that the the donor potentially may be caring.

As well organ donors are actually screened more thourghly than blood donors. The call to the donor agency is just the first step, unless one works in such a postion we dont probably know the half of it.

The other thing is that the questions asked when one donates blood are based on science not just whims. Part of that process includes a look at the kind of people who donate blood. What is the mind set of the people who donate for example. Is the system perfect, no its not. But until there is a substitute for human blood its never going to be.

Rj

Specializes in Hemodialysis, Home Health.
TOTALLY agree Tweety. a nurse is "exposed" to EVERYTHING.... so maybe nurses shouldnt be able to donate blood or organs due to their "high risk" atmosphere.

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.

Specializes in ICU/CCU/CVICU/ED/HS.
On a related side note; Soldiers that have spent a certain number of days in certain countries overseas cannot donate blood, either.

This is true...As a Desert Storm vet I have been refused and told that my blood is "no good for donation.":nono: BUT!!!!!!!!!!...We were NOT exposed to anything harmful to our health:rolleyes: . YEAH....RIIIIIGHT. (sorry...bitter vet here):mad:

This is true...As a Desert Storm vet I have been refused and told that my blood is "no good for donation.":nono: BUT!!!!!!!!!!...We were NOT exposed to anything harmful to our health:rolleyes: . YEAH....RIIIIIGHT. (sorry...bitter vet here):mad:

Actually, I agree with this decision. There are too many vets making claims for Gulf War Syndrome..which is of an unknown cause.

I dated a guy for 2 years that received a medical discharge from the service b/c of this...and never did figure out how he was supposed to be "handicapped".

I personally don't believe in the Gulf War Syndrome or the "9/11 Syndrome".

But if people are making medical claims because of this...that is what happens.

Specializes in Oncology, Research.

Perhaps one testing for HIV, HCV, etc becomes part of our routine medical care these outdated fears of tainting our blood/organ supply will finally come to an end.

Specializes in ICU/CCU/CVICU/ED/HS.

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????

Specializes in Medical Telemetry, LTC,AlF, Skilled care.

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.

Specializes in Oncology/Haemetology/HIV.
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.

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.

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

Specializes in ER (new), Respitory/Med Surg floor.

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?

Specializes in OR.
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..
+ Add a Comment