Skip to comments.Transplant patient got AIDS from new kidney (Gay kidney doner - Outrage!)
Posted on 03/20/2011 8:42:35 PM PDT by wac3rd
A transplant patient contracted AIDS from the kidney of a living donor, in the first documented case of its kind in the U.S. since screening for HIV began in the mid-1980s.
It turns out the donor had unprotected gay sex in the 11 weeks between the time he tested negative and the time the surgery took place in 2009.
In a report Thursday on the New York City case, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that organ donors have repeat HIV tests a week before surgery.
"The most sensitive test needs to be done as close as possible to the time of transplant," said Dr. Colin Shepard, who oversees tracking of HIV cases for the New York City Health Department.
The CDC also said would-be organ donors should be told to avoid behavior that can increase their chances of infection.
Living organ donors in the U.S. are routinely tested for infectious diseases such as hepatitis and HIV. But the organization that oversees organ transplants in the U.S. does not have an explicit policy on when such screening should be done. That's left up to transplant centers.
Because of patient confidentiality, health officials released few details about the donor, recipient, their relationship or the hospital where the transplant took place, except to say that it is in New York.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Obama and the Democrats are pushing for gays to be able to donate blood and organs, as to not, "discriminate", if I remember correctly.
I feel horrible for the person who received the kidney and the pain and stress they must be under knowing someone went out and had unprotected gay sex weeks before donating a vital organ.
The gay/illegal immigrant/Muslim/Liberal/Environmental agenda will neuter you, then bankrupt you, then eventually, kill you.
What idiot wouldn't already know this.
I have no idea, you would think that people would be “low-risk” in the weeks preceding an organ donation...
Donated blood and removed organs for transplants should be thoroughly tested before reuse.
>>Political correctness (meaning making sure testing was done 1 week before donation) overrules common sense and now we have a someone who needlessly has a life-threatening illness. <<
Shorter version: Political Correctness kills people.
You are correct. Prayers to the victim.
I have a friend who got hep C from blood during heart surgery in the 80’s.....try and get someone’s particular blood for a surgery - you cannot....they just put it into the “pool” for general use, and you get whatever comes to you.
Is there a test that can detect HIV that soon?
Either way, you should not be having unprotected gay sex if you’re going to donate an organ!!!
Lawmakers are so intent on making illegal song downloads a felony but this sort of thing goes right by. The donor should be charged with attempted murder.
Obama and the Democrats are pushing for gays to be able to donate blood and organs, as to not, “discriminate”, if I remember correctly.
I’m sorry, but putting someone at serious risk of contracting HIV, which is incurable and expensive to treat, in this case, the rights of the public health should be way more important than individual rights, sort of how it was right in the late 19th/early 20th centuries to put a person infected with tuberculosis under house arrest or quarrantine them. We didn’t care about granting this TB infectee his/her rights so much as we cared about protecting everyone else from contracting a disease that was, without the development of antibiotics, fatal.
It’s pretty sad how political correctness is pretty much about flushing the true order of public health procedures down the toilet.
Would the transplant recipient be considered a “little” gay now?
Homosexuality... the disease (voluntary) that keeps on giving.
wow. This is exactly why we need more restrictions.
“What idiot wouldn’t already know this.”
A lot of them, or they don’t care. The CDC now want’s to use HIV drugs for prophylaxis because they can’t get the message to use a condom. I wonder if the public understands how much of our medical dollars are going to this one segment of the population?
This is a tragedy arising from the dimwittedness of a jerk who appears/happens to be gay.
The leap made by most posters here is truly unfortunate.
And I’m not defending (or attacking) the donor being gay. To me it’s simply irrelevant.
Not at all irrelevant. Your chances of contracting AIDs from the blood or organs of an sexually active homosexual are manyfold that of a heterosexual donation. Transplants are a bit of a crapshoot anyway, why on earth would anyone want political correctness to increase the risk?
In other news, homo activists insist on lifting a ban on homos giving during blood drives...........
“Why don’t they want to share?” one activist was heard to whine.....
*Your chances of contracting AIDs from the blood or organs of an sexually active homosexual are manyfold that of a heterosexual donation. *
True, but if this gay dude had been a good heterosexual who just happened to also be an IV drug abuser, would that make the system/process/doctors any less negligent?
Hope this results in a HUGE lawsuit against the morons that recruited gays to donate kidneys. Absolutely stupid to let a ‘high risk lifestyle’ person to infect others.
By the way, if homosexuality is “high risk behavior” how exactly is it natural? Shouldn’t we be banning it like cigarettes or at least warning the public of the health effects of engaging in this dangerous lifestyle choice?
If you know the surgery is coming, you can donate blood to yourself.
I've seen that in action. You get “blood”. Not necessarily YOUR blood.
No, this tragedy was the direct result of the homosexual engaging in homosexual sex with reckless disregard for his own life and the life of the recipient.
As a simple logical proposition, one or both of the following was involved ...
EITHER the patient was unaware of the risks his homosexual activity posed the organ recipient OR he proceeded knowing what he was doing.
These are not mutually exclusive. Outreach, education, and screening may have been less than complete; and based on limited but not full knowledge the donor’s behavior may have been wreckless.
But being gay does not make a person wreckless. Surely you do not want to make that argument, because it leads inexorably to the conclusion that gays are not accountable for their behavior ... you are effectively saying that gays can’t help it. This is neither true nor in anyone’s interest to assert. We don’t want anyone to have such an excuse, gay or not.
There are jerks in the world, and so we must redouble our efforts to reach out, to educate, and to screen. Gays who are taking risks sexually should not donate organs; and to the extent that outreach, education, and screening do not address the underlying problem — if this is happening with any real frequency — then political correctness be dammed, the organs of all gay donors should be rejected.
I don’t think we are on different pages on the fundamentals here. But too many people want to blame gays when the real need is to blame jerks. Doing anything else backfires.
By the way, among the egregious failures here is to let 11 weeks lapse between the test and the donation. I don’t know how the process would be improved, but that is the first place I would look ...
It's not irrelevant to the patient who received his AIDS-infected kidney.
You can do specified donation for surgery. You get the blood that people you know have donated for your surgery. It does require your doctor filing a request with the Red Cross and your donors going to a specific location and telling them they are there to give for you.
We have a winner!
I dont know how the process would be improved, but that is the first place I would look ...
Maybe you should've kept reading in the posted excerpt? It clearly says, " the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that organ donors have repeat HIV tests a week before surgery."
Of course it is. How do you know the recipient isn't also gay? You don't. What's objectively relevant is the ridiculous 3 month gap between HIV test and organ donation.
It's fascinating to me we don't know "anything" about the donor, the recipient, their relationship if any, or even what hospital because of "medical privacy" but somehow we are told the donor contracted HIV from some kind of unprotected homosexual sex in the weeks before the transplant. That information itself seems to violate medical privacy and only serves to inflame opinion rather than inform.
I know you can do specified donation for surgery....however, I do NOT believe the actual blood that was donated goes to YOU, ie your brother’s blood goes to you....at least that’s what we’ve been informed more than once....the donation just helps the person who is having surgery get “credits” for blood....unless things have changed recently.
The kind of idiot that would willfully engage in it.
The donor should be tried for attempted murder or at least aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
Why he isn’t is beyond comprehension.
I tried to donate blood for my husband and was told by the hospital that it could not be done.
The inanity of this statement proves how insane we have become through immersion in political correctness. ANY PERVERTED SEX should bar you from giving organs. Would you want an organ from someone who has had sex with prostitutes every night, as long as they wore "protection?"
This is why homosexual sex bars you from donating blood, even if you wore "protection." It should be no different for organs.
Put this one on the “PC-caused death” list right after Jerod Loughner & Tuscon, which is below Ft Hood, etc.
I’m waiting for the opportunity to come up to ask a [very] pro-gay inlaw MD whether she would consider male homosexual activity to be medically contra-indicated or not.
It looks like the PC koolaid has really pickled your brain.
If she’s pro-”gay,” I think you already have the answer. Such a worldview has already flushed all rational brain function.
I read all. I’m not myself familiar with the process and so I don’t pretend to know. That’s all I was saying.
It is criminal to willfully, voluntarily, recklessly put another at risk of a deadly illness - period.
Fine. It’s criminal whether or not the person who does this is homosexual. Why in the world would you only single out gays for this standard?
It’s not my brain that’s pickled, sir. It’s yours.
It’s not irrelevant to the patient who received his AIDS-infected kidney.
Well, actually what would be relevant to me in that situation is not so much that they were gay; it is that they engaged in wreckless behavior.
This should be obvious to anyone with more than a middle school education.
I’d want the testing done in the hospital’s pre-op center before either of us was carted off to the OR.
Obviously, my post hit a nerve. Too bad.
To others who I suspect will take me on, I am exiting now and won’t engage further. In my absence, please refer to Occams Razor, explained here:
The more expedient explanation for this tragic outcome is that the perpertrator has a wreckless disregard for the lives of others. Anyone is welcome to assert instead that the tragic outcome is that a homosexual perpetrator has such a wreckless disregard.
But, as it turns out, on an objective and common sense level my reasoning trumps yours.
For a variety of other CONSERVATIVE reasons, as well, mine is the better explanation. My approach puts accountability where it belongs, on the wreckless behavior rather than the homosexuality. Taking the latter approach provides the perpetrator with an excuse.
Have a great day, folks.
“It’s just about love.”
And Im not defending (or attacking) the donor being gay. To me its simply irrelevant.
I doubt many of us would feel much differently. However, among the many groups considered high risk for donating blood and organs(previous prostitution, IV drug use, men who have sex with men) It’s this single group that seems to be the ones having the problem with accepting the priority of public health when it comes to acting as organ/blood donors, at least they’re the ones making such a fuss about the standards. I personally have problems with being allowed to donate blood for reasons of my own, but some people just can’t seem to shut up and care that rights have limits, which are when you infringe upon others’ rights by putting them in serious danger.
HIV is the one disease for which they WILL NOT STOP until they find a cure.
The Gay Lobby knows that unless and until HIV is cured, they will be second class citizens, and never equal in the eyes of the law, or the perceptions of most voting idiots.
In NC it can be done, BUT it requires preplanning and your doctor must send a request to the Red Cross designating that the patient will be doing dedicated donations.
The donors must go to the main Red Cross location and be sure to tell them that this blood is for patient X.
A transplant patient contracted AIDS from the kidney of a living donor,
Charge the health officials with aiding and abetting manslaughter. How many other organsblod has the AIDS patient donated to murder others?
OK, just kidding about not staying engaged. Yours was an excellent post, and I agree. And I think I agree 100%, though I have not parsed your words carefully enough to stand by them to that extent.
The distinction you make may seem subtle but I think of overriding significance. A subset of gays, likely quite small, engages in wreckless behavior. If we have no other way to guard against that wrecklessness, then perhaps the public health risk is so great that we need to restrict the prerogatives of all gays, even when this is ultimately a truly selfless act.
HOWEVER, that is an infringement that none of us should take lightly, because we could extend it perhaps in other settings to smokers, philanderers, and ... well, almost anyone.
And if we do take that action, we should not find it necessary to focus on the gayness of organ donors, even if all of their rights to donate are being infringed. Whatever we think of homosexuality, this seems gratuitous to me. We should instead seek to emphasize that the reason we must do this is because some gay donors — again, likely a very small fraction — are behaving irresponsibly, and it is regrettable but necessary to restrict the prerogatives of all gay organ donors.
And this action should only be taken as a last resort, as a response to a very significant problem (e.g., that outweighs the many, many, many lives that gay organ donors are saving every year), and so forth.
Why would this level of prudence strike any poster here as “drinking the PC koolaid?”
OK, now I really do have to go.
Truly, thanks to all for reading this.