Posted on 11/26/2024 1:01:03 PM PST by DFG
People with HIV who need a kidney or liver transplant will be able to receive an organ from a donor with HIV under a new rule announced Tuesday by U.S. health officials.
Previously, such transplants could be done only as part of research studies.
The new rule, which takes effect Wednesday, is expected to shorten the wait for organs for all, regardless of HIV status, by increasing the pool of available organs.
'This rule removes unnecessary barriers to kidney and liver transplants, expanding the organ donor pool and improving outcomes for transplant recipients with HIV,' said U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra in a statement.
The safety of the practice is supported by research, including a study published last month in the New England Journal of Medicine.
That study followed 198 organ recipients for up to four years, comparing those who received kidneys from HIV-positive donors to those whose kidneys came from donors without HIV.
Both groups had similar high rates of overall survival and low rates of organ rejection.
In 2010, surgeons in South Africa provided the first evidence that using HIV-positive donor organs was safe in people with HIV.
But the practice wasn't allowed in the United States until 2013 when the government lifted a ban and allowed research studies.
At first, the studies were with deceased donors. Then in 2019, a team at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore performed the world's first kidney transplant from a living donor with HIV to an HIV-positive recipient.
All told, 500 transplants of kidneys and livers from HIV-positive donors have been done in the U.S.
HIV-positive organs won't be transplanted into patients who do not have the infection.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Glad my brother got his transplant 8 years ago. Our Lady of Lourdes cross checked it thoroughly prior to putting it in him.
Insanity.
Fact check: HIV infection causes its infected to prematurely age 14 years, which leads to older age diseases, like cancers, kidney disease, etc. HIV’s advanced aging happens even when treated with anntiretrovirals. I presume it causes premature death of 14 years. If physicians are only transplanting HIV infected organs into HIV infected people, it could work. To read more info, check FR keyword hivacceleratedaging.
The gist of this - although I trust next to nothing from the Medical community nowadays - is that I suspect that this (using transplant organs which show as positive for HIV) is OK. Although it would be good to make sure the donor was not living a perverted lifestyle - but beggars can't be choosers, I suppose.
And still is, given the demographics being tracked.
"In 2022, gay, bisexual, and other men who reported male-to-male sexual contact accounted for 67% (21,400) of the 31,800 estimated new HIV infections and 83% of estimated infections among all men."
“This will turn out well...”
If you believe RFK jr Fauci is a liar and hiv has nothing to do with aids.
All it takes is one mislabeling for someone to receive a tainted organ.
DEI
If its disclosed, some people, this be their only chance to live. If people were allowed to profit from the sale of their organs, that would have been my first choice. Doctor, hospitals etc. are profiting, why not donors?
how long before there’s a “mixup”?
That.
Those with HIV today, that want to donate an organ, cannot. Their organ is not part of the pool of available organs for people in need.
Under these new rules, those with HIV, can donate organs, and those in need with HIV, can receive those organs.
Whereas in the past, those organs from people with HIV were not usable, and those with HIV would get organs ONLY from people without HIV.
Since in the US about .4% of the adult population has HIV, you’re looking at roughly .4% more organs being available.
Those without HIV are also positively impacted since this means more organs are available for their non-HIV popuation (those with HIV can now get organs from people with HIV).
This is a win-win.
I do not think it’s entirely the same and some organs pose a greater rejection risk than others.
Kidney’s are generally well accepted with a rejection rate of ~10%.
Of course accidents happen. Risk has to be managed.
Risk = probability x magnitude.
In this case, the probability of a mistake can be mitigated to near zero and the magnitude is isolated to a single individual.
Will it happen? Maybe, somewhere, eventually. However, in that case, the argument becomes 10,000 lives saved, 1 lost.
Even airbags pose a risk and kill people, but the benefit of these by far outweighs the cost.
I hesitate to say that you didn’t answer my original question but that’s ok...A lot of words don’t win the day if they don’t make sense.
They should do the same for blood donations from homos.
Let them donate to other homos, high-risk or HIV-carriers. Reserve the pure blood from healthy lifestyle people for normal society.
Win-win.
But I get it. We think in labels. This is a gay label issue, so we need to be against it, even if it makes sense.
Our assembly line medical industry has found another profit center!
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.