Do you think it is morally wrong for people with high-risk lifestyles to donate organs?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071116/ap_on_re_us/aids_transplants;_ylt=AmVLEf4l.v7vlFQdLJ_3L_us0NUE

People have received diseased organs because people with high-risk lifestyles (I assume gay and/or promiscuous) are allowed to donate.

Should they be prevented from donating organs and blood since screening tests aren't always effective?

notice I said and/or, so I'm not singling them out. I should add IV drug user, ect...

Screening test often miss diseases in early stages.... is it worth the risk to use the organs?

Jon M-- I like your answer.

Answer 1

It is against the law.

No gay man who is out and honest will donate organs, even if he is HIV negative.

It is only the closet-cases, who are forced to live in denial and oppression because of the opprobrium society has for them, that do hateful things like donate organs when they know they are at risk.

Tell me again -- why do the fundamentalists want us all to go back to the closet and pretend to be straight?

Answer 2

first its illegal. Second tests can be very accurate but many times the time involved for getting the person an organ limits the time let alone many more organs from black market vs actual legitament facilities.

The other major issue is peoples perception just because someone is gay doesnt mean they are any more high risk then a straight man or woman. I know more promiscuous straight men then I do gay. The fact that HIV+ numbers are continually on the uprise in the straight groups proves my point.

The other problem is there are so few organ donors. Very little is done in terms of screening.

Im gay married to my partner. Will I no not because Im "high risk" or because Im gay but because I dont want my organs saving someone I dont know. I have donated blood, even a kidney to a family member, but thats as far as I go.

Answer 3

For those saying that as long as they are tested then there is no problem. You do realize that there is a window where you can not detect any viruses in donated blood/organs, but they are still there, right? You can't blame the doctors for when this happens, besides the doctor has no role in inspecting the organs or blood...that is for the lab to do. But still, you can't even blame the lab because their tests would show nothing...then months or years down the road the organ/blood recipient could develop the disease.

So yes, if you want to be more safe...you filter out those that have a high risk lifestyle...that does not read "Gay". That is a lot of things that if people would just be honest on the questionnaires, it would cut this problem dramatically.

Answer 4

There is no scientific support any longer for the 1985 FDA decision for a lifetime restriction against blood donation from people who engage in homosexual activity. However, religious zealots are afraid of anything they don't understand. Try a google search for details.


Isn't the HIV test accurate enough to identify all HIV positive blood donors?

HIV tests currently in use are highly accurate, but still cannot detect HIV 100% of the time. It is estimated that the HIV risk from a unit of blood has been reduced to about 1 per 2 million in the USA, almost exclusively from so called "window period" donations. The "window period" exists very early after infection, where even current HIV testing methods cannot detect all infections. During this time, a person is infected with HIV, but may not have made enough virus or developed enough antibodies to be detected by available tests. For this reason, a person could test negative, even when they are actually HIV positive and infectious. Therefore, blood donors are not only tested but are also asked questions about behaviors that increase their risk of HIV infection.

Collection of blood from persons with an increased risk of HIV infection also presents an added risk to transfusion recipients due to the possibility that blood may be accidentally given to a patient in error either before testing is completed or following a positive test. Such medical errors occur very rarely, but given that there are over 20 million transfusions every year, in the USA, they can occur. For these reasons, FDA uses a multi-layered approach to blood safety including pre-donation deferral of potential donors based on risk behaviors and then screening of the donated blood with sensitive tests for infectious agents such as HIV-1, HIV-2, HCV, HBV and HTLV-I/II.



That 1 in 2,000,000 risk is much lower than other risks. The lifetime deferral should be lifted.

Answer 5

No, run-of-the-mill people like you and me have no training on how or where organs will be used.

That is the business of doctors and hospitals. As the first-level "collectors" of the items (meaning organs), and the ones who will decide what to do with them, they should be best prepared to decide whether or not to accept an organ or to use it (either immediately or at some future point in time)

I would never want to make a decision that my lifestyle may or may not enable someone to live, or to put back meaning in someone's life. Although more educated then most, I couldn't even begin t make that call, and I don't see how anyone else could either.

Answer 6

This was the fault of the hospital, not of the donor.

I don't think we should put moral judgment on the donor. When he donated his organs, he did it as a kindness. The bodies and organs of those who have lived high-risk lifestyles can be useful to medical research and for other purposes.

Most of the people who have HIV and hepatitis acquired it from intravenous drug use, not sexual immorality.

Answer 7

Everyone should be allowed to donate organs. It's the medical professionals' job to figure out what organs are safe and what aren't. For example, a liver from a chronic alcoholic might be a bad bet, but there's no reason not to use the heart if it's in good condition.

Answer 8

I think organ recipients should be given as much information about their donor as is available so they can make an informed decision. I don't believe that "high-risk" people should be excluded from donation, but I think that it should be a consideration factor in the organ-matching process. Example: An HIV+ donor's organ should only be given to another HIV+ patient (ideally), unless there's an immediate, deadly threat.

Answer 9

It is the responsibility of the medical professionals to screen those organs for diseases before they transplant them no matter what the source is.

Also, your presumption is offensive. Suppose I, a gay man, disease free, not the least promiscuous, died and you needed my liver to survive and it was the only one available at the time. Would you choose to die for the sake of your bigotry rather than accept it?

Answer 10

Men are the most likely to contract HIV. So I can understand the whole being cautious with homosexual male donors, just based on statistics.

However, I am a lesbian, and women are the least likely to contract HIV. So, should I not be allowed to donate because of my "high risk" life? No -- because I do not live a high risk life. If anything, lesbians should be the most sought after when donating because they are least likely of contracting HIV.

Think about it -- you get a donor who has never been with a man and sleeps with someone who has never been with a man. There is zero chance of HIV.