[drellberg]

Yes, irrelevant.

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.

[fwdude]

You need an education: homosexual donors aren't "jerks," they're CRIMINALS. It is criminal to willfully, voluntarily, recklessly put another at risk of a deadly illness - period.

It looks like the PC koolaid has really pickled your brain.

[Wicket]

Homosexual behavior, no matter how circumspect, increases the likelihood of various STD’s, not just AIDS, by the nature of the act itself.

Blood transfusions and organ transplants should not be made from homosexual donors, period, in my humble opinion. Yes, this guy was a jerk, but you don’t have to be to endanger the one receiving the donation.