Posted on 12/07/2005 7:49:57 PM PST by xzins
Donor Network Right to Refuse Organs from Homosexual, Says Christian Doc
By Mary Rettig December 7, 2005
(AgapePress) - Friends and family of a Tucson man are crying discrimination after the homosexual man's organs were rejected by the Donor Network of Arizona. However, a Kansas surgeon who works in organ transplantation says the decision was a good one.
Albert Soto, 51, intended to donate his eyes and other tissues after death, but a spokesman from the Network says the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta has established guidelines allowing centers to reject donations from men who have had sex with men in the last five years. Dr. David Pauls, a spokesman for the Christian Medical Association, says those guidelines are needed regardless -- even if the donor is HIV negative, as in Soto's case.
"Number one, HIV in early stages cannot be detected on testing; it takes a little bit [of time] there," Pauls explains. "But even if he's HIV negative, there's other infectious diseases that are fairly common within the homosexual population -- particularly hepatitis, which can be a very deadly complication in somebody who receives a transplant, and that sometimes also can be missed by screening."
Pauls says the organ donation and transplant business is heavily reliant on trust. "Trust is probably one of the most valuable commodities we have," he says. "If I ... as a physician am going to be doing a transplant, I'm want to do everything I can to make sure that the organs or the tissue that I'm transplanting is safe and is not going to cause other problems or other diseases in that patient."
Transplant patients, he says, obviously should have the same concerns. In Soto's case, Pauls says the man's risky sexual behavior makes using his organs a high risk for the recipient, who otherwise might be put in a position of being exposed to deadly infections. Meanwhile, Soto's family is petitioning officials in Tucson to change the CDC guidelines. The man died after suffering a stroke on Thanksgiving Day.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Rettig, a regular contributor to AgapePress, is a reporter for American Family Radio News, which can be heard online.
Just why exactly are people based on personal political opinion allowed to petition to change medical safety standards? Isn't that on the list of the most ignorant things you've ever heard?
What difference does it make if the organ was from a homosexual? An liver's a liver.
Same as blodd, why take the chance. It is common sense. AIDS is primarily a behavior-preventable disease and acknowledging high-risk behavior should disqualify you.
But, but, what about Soto's self esteem! /sarcasm
These people ARE mentally ill....to even think of doing that to an organ recipient.
Uh...you might want to educate yourself about diseases and organs and other related medical issues. You're young....you'll figure it out.
yea, parts is parts
Sorry. I'm probably going to be flamed for that.
I didn't realize their was a higher AIDS risk from gay donors.
Good thing I deleted instead of hitting post then.
Freep on...:)
Good luck!
Got to agree! When you are dying of thirst, what's the difference between pepsi and coke?
It can take up to 6 months for an HIV test to become positive after an individual is infected with the AIDS virus. Therefore there is up to a six month window that those with AIDS could be HIV negative but still infectious, particularly through organ transplant.
I would not think that you should take an organ transplant from someone that would be disqualified giving blood.
Most diseases are undetectable in the early stages, as are most types of cancers. So using Dr. David Pauls reasoning, no one should be able to donate their organs because they MIGHT be infected, but if said patients don't receive organ replacements, they are going to die sooner anyway.
By denying patients from receiving organs from those willing to donate them after death, Dr. David Pauls has blood on his hands.
Your first reaction is understandable, given the need for organ donors.
Or, we could just take better care of our bodies and then less of us would need organ transplants anyway.
By implanting a potentially deadly disease into someone who could (possibly?) have survived to take a clean organ, the doctor exposes himself to millions in liability suits and the end of his career.
"Same as blood, why take the risk?"
Hell, I'd risk it.
Yeah, that was kind of my point, because I'm always hearing about how short the supply for new organs is, and how people who need transplants have to wait for years and years while they're dying.
BTW, did you check out the singles thread the other night? I remember you asked me about it.
That may be true for some, but there are people born with genetic diseases/congenital malforamtion that have nothing to do with the need for a transplant.
And even diabetics that take good care of themselves may need kidney transplants eventually. I feel for people on the transpant waiting list, it is a long agonizing wait and some die while they are on the list.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.