Man's Organ Donation Rejected Because He Was Gay

[GotZoom]

I agree.

----

Albert Soto, a Tucson actor and community activist who died Saturday, intended to donate his eyes and tissue after death, but both were rejected because he was gay.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has established guidelines allowing centers to reject donations from men who have had sex with men within the past five years, said Sara Pace Jones, a spokeswoman with the Donor Network of Arizona.

Soto, an administrator with the Tucson Pima Arts Council, died after suffering a stroke on Thanksgiving Day. Though Soto, 51, intended to be an organ donor, the organ recovery network rejected his donations.

The decision has outraged Soto’s family members. They are trying to rally the support of local elected officials to have the guidelines changed.

“It’s an odd thing to have to deal with,” said Anthony Bernal, 32, Soto’s godson and nephew.

“You’re trying to mourn, but you’re getting caught up in the trampoline of ups and downs of politics,” Bernal said.

Bernal said Soto is being robbed of his last wish.

Rejecting organ donations called discrimination

“It’s unfortunate that it hinges on that issue,” he said.

In addition to his eyes and tissue, Soto’s other organs were rejected, but the reason is not clear.

Patient confidentiality bars the network from discussing specific cases, but Pace Jones said fewer than 1 percent of deaths result in suitable organ donations. In some cases, the cause of death can affect whether donations will be accepted.

Pace Jones urged others not to avoid signing the Arizona Donor Registry, a database of people who have agreed to be donors.

“There’s definitely a shortage of organ donors, so we need everyone to sign up,” Pace Jones said.

More than 44,000 people have signed, she added.

“Don’t rule yourself out medically,” she said. “You may be ruled out for tissue, but you may be able to donate organs for the purpose of transplantation.”


http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/news/local/112905a1_albertsoto

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

Wheew it said eyes....

I was getting a little worried there.
IT JUST SAID ORGAN IN THE TITLE!

But yes, I agree too.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

It would be nice if there was some way the organs could be used though... maybe if you couldn't get something off the good organ list, you could take a risk and look for something on the risky list...

 

[GotZoom]

It would be nice if there was some way the organs could be used though... maybe if you couldn't get something off the good organ list, you could take a risk and look for something on the risky list...

I can see it now....Two organ donor lists. The first for "Non-Risk" donors and the second for "Risk" donors.

 

[MissileMan]

I can see it now....Two organ donor lists. The first for "Non-Risk" donors and the second for "Risk" donors.

Gives a whole new meaning to "Queer eye for the straight guy"...

But seriously, don't they screen for HIV before using donated organs/tissues?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I can see it now....Two organ donor lists. The first for "Non-Risk" donors and the second for "Risk" donors.

I dunno, if I was in trouble and I needed a transplant and nothing was available, I'd like organs from people who may have the potential for complications to be available... maybe list the details of why they were placed on the risk list so you can make an educated decision as to whether or not it's worth it... I'm sure there are good organs that get thrown away.

Wishful thinking, I know.

 

[Mr. P]

This is a tough one.

First, there must be high standards, and they must be set by the medical experts, not “the local elected officials” the family is appealing to for change.

I can see Zoomers point, “Two organ donor lists. The first for "Non-Risk" donors and the second for "Risk" donors.”, this could develop into those that have insurance vs. those who don’t. It’s possible.

On the other hand if you have a risky donor match, and a patient will die in hours without a transplant, what do you have to lose? I think the option should be available as Clay suggests.

As far as testing for HIV, they do it for blood, I’m sure they do it for organs too.

I’ll guess that since HIV may be missed at certain stages, this is a liability issue, more than a medical one. If that’s the case, give the recipient a choice.

 

[dmp]

Last I checked no organization is FORCED to accept a donation...Likewise, nowhere are people guaranteed their final wishes will be kept - simply because they are dead now.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Gives a whole new meaning to "Queer eye for the straight guy"...

Best line of the century award goes to......


Good one, man. I MAY have to rep you.

 

[KarlMarx]

This is a tough one.

First, there must be high standards, and they must be set by the medical experts, not “the local elected officials” the family is appealing to for change.

I can see Zoomers point, “Two organ donor lists. The first for "Non-Risk" donors and the second for "Risk" donors.”, this could develop into those that have insurance vs. those who don’t. It’s possible.

On the other hand if you have a risky donor match, and a patient will die in hours without a transplant, what do you have to lose? I think the option should be available as Clay suggests.

As far as testing for HIV, they do it for blood, I’m sure they do it for organs too.

I’ll guess that since HIV may be missed at certain stages, this is a liability issue, more than a medical one. If that’s the case, give the recipient a choice.

Sorry for the family, but public health comes first.....

The last time I donated blood (which has been a while), the guidelines were similar and even stricter. If you were a man who had sex with another man even once since 1977, you were automatically rejected.

 

[Annie]

There is a rather long possible incubation period for AIDS:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...pdf+HIV+incubation+period&hl=en&client=safari

 

[Mr. P]

Sorry for the family, but public health comes first.....

The last time I donated blood (which has been a while), the guidelines were similar and even stricter. If you were a man who had sex with another man even once since 1977, you were automatically rejected.

I could care less about the family; as far as I'm concerned what they want doesn't matter.

Public health does come first, I agree. I also think if a viable organ is available, even if it is high risk, a patient should be able to say, yes or no.

A simple treatment contract would take care of that..
“If you reach a point that your death will occur within hours (say 12), and no primary organ matches have been found, would you accept a high risk organ”? Etc.

As far as the blood, people lie, that’s why they test.
From the American Red Cross site..

Testing your blood
Your blood will be tested for syphilis, HIV (the virus that causes AIDS),

 

[MissileMan]

There is a rather long possible incubation period for AIDS:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...pdf+HIV+incubation+period&hl=en&client=safari

There is a difference between being HIV positive and having AIDS. You can test for the HIV virus in a few minutes.

From http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/PUBS/faq/oraqckfaq.htm

When testing a fingerstick specimen, the fingertip is cleaned with alcohol and pricked with a lancet (needle) to get a small drop of blood. The blood is collected with a specimen loop and transferred to a small plastic vial containing a premeasured volume of developing solution, into which the sample is mixed. The testing process is the same for a whole blood specimen obtained by venipuncture. The specimen loop is inserted into the tube of blood after the tube has been inverted to ensure the blood is well mixed. The loop is then inserted into the test vial. Results of the test can be read in as little as 20 minutes.
How well does the test work?

In the clinical studies by the manufacturer (OraSure Technologies, Inc.), the OraQuick test correctly identified 99.6% of people who were infected with HIV-1 (sensitivity) and 100% of people who were not infected with HIV-1 (specificity). The Food and Drug Administration expects clinical laboratories to obtain similar results.

 

[Annie]

There is a difference between being HIV positive and having AIDS. You can test for the HIV virus in a few minutes.

From http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/PUBS/faq/oraqckfaq.htm

Perhaps I don't understand this:

http://www.cdc.gov/search.do?action=search&queryText=hiv+incubation&x=0&y=0

 

[MissileMan]

Perhaps I don't understand this:

http://www.cdc.gov/search.do?action=search&queryText=hiv+incubation&x=0&y=0

When they talk about incubation, they mean the time from being infected with the HIV virus until you develop AIDS, and yes, that can in some cases take years. The whole time though, you can pass the HIV virus to others. If donor organs are tested for the HIV virus and the test is negative, the odds are very good that there is no danger from their use.

 

[Annie]

When they talk about incubation, they mean the time from being infected with the HIV virus until you develop AIDS, and yes, that can in some cases take years. The whole time though, you can pass the HIV virus to others. If donor organs are tested for the HIV virus and the test is negative, the odds are very good that there is no danger from their use.

But if I'm reading some of those links correctly, from the CDC, it seems even HIV isn't necessarily picked up that quickly. Do you really believe Red Cross or LifeSource are homophobic?

 

[MissileMan]

But if I'm reading some of those links correctly, from the CDC, it seems even HIV isn't necessarily picked up that quickly. Do you really believe Red Cross or LifeSource are homophobic?

Nope! And my link didn't say anything about an up to 6-month window where the virus, but not antibodies might be present. I stand corrected.

 

[Annie]

Nope! And my link didn't say anything about an up to 6-month window where the virus, but not antibodies might be present. I stand corrected.

 

[Mr. P]

And there is the "at risk" transplant..Few and far between I'm sure...
Not worth eliminating ALL those organs, IMO.

 

[Hobbit]

Hospitals simply cannot take risks like that. If there's even a minute possibility that you could be carrying a terminal disease, you can't donate any body parts to anybody. For example, I couldn't give blood or organs for five years because I'm a cancer survivor (scariest f*cking thing imaginable, believe you me, especially when you're fifteen and your youthful illusion of immortality is shattered 15 years early).