It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Too promiscuous to donate an organ? Maybe, CDC says

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 04:33 AM
link   

If you've had sex with two or more partners in the past year, you may be considered a risky organ donor, at least according to proposed new federal health guidelines that have drawn sharp protests from transplant experts who say they're far too broad.
Source: Vitals on MSNBC,com

I am not sure how I feel about this. In todays day and age, where relationships fall apart everyday, and the idea of playing the field in order to "Be Sure they are the ONE". I find this a difficult concept to comprehend as a possibility. I also understand that some diseases such as HIV can take time to register in the blood tests and as no one has an idea of their final moment, the risk of passing on something through transplant is a real possibility.

This is the reason, I feel, that religion embraces fidelity as it is a proven way to not pass on such diseases, but at the same time an open cut and saliva would accomplish the same thing in such cases as HIV and other diseases transferred through bodily fluids, not to mention the fall of public opinion of organized religion and its practices today. This puts every organ transplant at risk does it not?

I think my main concern is that there are already many people on waiting lists for organ transplants as the system goes now. They are all, for the most part, waiting for another to die(which is sad in itself) within the guidelines of blood type, organ health, etc. that by further limiting the use of donor organs or even the donors themselves, that more of these people, on lists, will die due to the risk of sexual partners.

Life itself is a risk. I understand the need to be careful, as it could cause the recipient to die, but are they not in the same position sitting on a waiting list that has just multiplied in length10 fold due to the limitation factor of available donors?




edit on 6-12-2011 by Agarta because: ,




posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 04:45 AM
link   
You have raised a lot of issues but the first one that comes to mind is 'where did they get Mr Bobbit's Pee Pee from? or where do they get the bits needed for a sex change from?

Organ giving is not accepted in some religous beliefs... Jehovah Witnesses are one I can think of.

I don't think abstinence and organ donation go together as you suggest.

2000 years ago..organ transplants were sort of not done...




posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Agarta
 


my simplistic view :

reject transplant from "risky " patient , worst case senario - patient is dead within 6 months

accept " risky " transplant - worst case senario - patient dies of aids induced complications in 10 years time

PS how will risk be assessed ? most transplant doners are dead when the issue arrises so you cannot ask them

are you going to ask thier spouse ????????

i can see it now :

doctor - hey can we harvest your spouses corpse for organts to transplant - it will improve the lives of several people

spouse - yeah ok

doctor - thanks - oh by the way was you or your spouse having an affiar ??

................................



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Agarta
 


I agree with the CDC. With the growing awareness and huge increase in STDs and HPVs that are becoming increasingly resistant to anti-biotics, these donors are placing the recipients in even more danger.

As it is, I'm not aware of any recipient from low soci-economic backgrounds receiving organ donations. It's all about the almighty big $$$ for these specialists....more than the life of the recipient, even if it means they will get a tainted organ. Recipients are not signing up for tainted organs.

Any single person having unprotected sex or have multiple partners should be tested every 6-12 months anyhow for HPV and STDs (including HIV). Multiple partners = 2 or more a year. Whether you like to hear it or not but that puts you in a class of somebody being promiscuous.

If I needed an organ, I want to have the choice of knowing who the recipient is and what my risk is of accepting the organ. Organs tested for HipB & C, HIV and other deadly diseases is not enough. If you want to be promiscuous, thats fine.....but if you are not tested for HPVs and STDs regularly, who are you to donate your possibly tainted organ where the recipient becomes ill placing them at high risk because of your loose and irresponsible lifestyle? If it means it would only give me 2 years or 10 years extra to live, that's my choice to make and it would be difficult to make not knowing where the organ is coming from.

So if you want to be an organ donor while living a promiscuous lifestyle? Putting yourself and your partner at risk is one thing but you are also putting at risk up to a dozen other people who could be recipients of your organs.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agarta
This is the reason, I feel, that religion embraces fidelity as it is a proven way to not pass on such diseases, but at the same time an open cut and saliva would accomplish the same thing in such cases as HIV and other diseases transferred through bodily fluids, not to mention the fall of public opinion of organized religion and its practices today. This puts every organ transplant at risk does it not?

I think my main concern is that there are already many people on waiting lists for organ transplants as the system goes now. They are all, for the most part, waiting for another to die(which is sad in itself) within the guidelines of blood type, organ health, etc. that by further limiting the use of donor organs or even the donors themselves, that more of these people, on lists, will die due to the risk of sexual partners.

Life itself is a risk. I understand the need to be careful, as it could cause the recipient to die, but are they not in the same position sitting on a waiting list that has just multiplied in length10 fold due to the limitation factor of available donors?


My reading of the article (and glancing over the regulations) is that these guidelines DO NOT exclude 'high risk' individuals from donating organs, but simply require the potential recipients of 'high risk' organs be better informed of the risks as part of the consent process.

This has NOTHING to do with religion and EVERYTHING to do with scientific evidence. The evidence is there that having two or more sexual partners in the past 12 months raises the risk of developing various blood-borne viral infections.

These new guidelines also reduce the period that people would be considered high-risk for engaging in many other behaviors (men having sex with men, sex for money, injection drug use, incarceration, etc) from five years to one year, better reflecting the incubation periods of these diseases. Yes, the additional people being high risk for multiple partners is likely to outweigh the people no longer high risk for these other reasons, but the guidelines are a lot less discriminatory and better rooted in scientific evidence.

That said, I'd totally take a high-risk organ over no organ if I were if desperate need of a transplant - as I'd imagine most people would when given the options.


Originally posted by Thurisaz
You have raised a lot of issues but the first one that comes to mind is 'where did they get Mr Bobbit's Pee Pee from? or where do they get the bits needed for a sex change from?


I believe that Mr. Bobbit had his original organ re-attached.

The bits and pieces for sex changes are actually made 'from scratch' by taking bits of tissue, fat, skin, and the like from other areas in the patient's body. Google it if you're interested, but it's quite interesting what modern medicine can do.



Originally posted by bluemirage5
So if you want to be an organ donor while living a promiscuous lifestyle? Putting yourself and your partner at risk is one thing but you are also putting at risk up to a dozen other people who could be recipients of your organs.


Fair enough, but with the way organs are so hard to come by, I'd be willing to bet decent money that a vast majority of people facing the choice between a 'promiscuous' organ and continued suffering with a high likelihood of death before another match is available, they'd choose the 'promiscuous' organ.

Though I do totally agree that people should be as fully informed about their donors as possible.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 04:03 AM
link   
well it sorta makes sense, i am not a doctor or anything but it stands to reason that anti rejection drugs suppress the bodies immune system.

and iirc a large percentage of organ donors come from motorcycle accident victims, usually in states that dont require helmets. anyway risk takers on the highway are probably also risk takers in the bedroom etc, possibly drug users as well, who knows.

anyway, this is pretty unpleasant to consider, but food for thought.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Microbiologist
 


Here is where I am coming from. I donated plasma twice a week for 18 years without any issues with health or blood related problems(disease or other)and thought I was making a difference and helping out my fellow man. Then one day they changed their policy and added a new question due to the swine flue epidemic. The question was " Have you visited or lived in (sorry I forget the country in EU they added) sense 1977? My answer was No but I lived in different EU countries. They then banned me for life from donating classifying me as at risk even though the countries I lived in have never been at risk. I could have been donating clean plasma for the last 6 years and continued to make a difference but through fear these donations were lost to those that could have used them.

I have had many blood tests sense then and still clean. How could I have been "at risk" simply because I was on the continent.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join