Organ donor ?

40040D

Just wondering, can you be a organ donor if you're gay ?
I know that you can't be a blood donor (which sickens me so much because I know so much more straight people with STI's etc.) Yet straight people can still give blood and gay people can't...

How and ever I don't want to start a topic about that!

Anyone help me out on this one ?

L1011

From previous discussion of this, yes but the organs are classed as a higher risk. However if someone is going to die imminently if they don't get an organ and there's a "risk" match available, they're unlikely to say no.

Sir Ophiuchus

Yes you can. I'm one.

wonderfulname

I'm sure this has been done to death but why can't you donate blood if

You are a male who has ever had anal or oral sex with another male, even if a condom or other form of protection was used

In this day and age surely its ridiculous when we actually understand how HIV/AIDS works and the blood is screened for it anyway? Phew, mini rant over..

I have seen reference to the same restriction being imposed on organ donation but I can't honestly say its fact because I haven't seen it for myself.

LegacyUser

How are they going to know your gay if you go to donate blood ???

Dwn Wth Vwls

wonderfulname wrote: »

surely its ridiculous when we actually understand how HIV/AIDS works and the blood is screened for it anyway?

The main reason given is that in the future there may be new viruses that are undetectable. They don't want a repeat of what happened with HIV. It's pretty weak reasoning though, and some countries have started making a move to lift the ban, e.g. Sweden. It's probably just a matter of time.

Psychedelia

wonderfulname wrote: »

I'm sure this has been done to death but why can't you donate blood if In this day and age surely its ridiculous when we actually understand how HIV/AIDS works and the blood is screened for it anyway? Phew, mini rant over..

I have seen reference to the same restriction being imposed on organ donation but I can't honestly say its fact because I haven't seen it for myself.

I think this 'precaution' is based on probability, and it's apparently more probable that sexually active gay men would contract HIV. Although the blood is screened it's merely to reduce the risk of HIV transmission incase their screening does not work. However this does not sit well with me. Especially if one has a clean and up to date bill of health.

Psychedelia

Dwn Wth Vwls wrote: »

The main reason given is that in the future there may be new viruses that are undetectable. They don't want a repeat of what happened with HIV. It's pretty weak reasoning though, and some countries have started making a move to lift the ban, e.g. Sweden. It's probably just a matter of time.

ya gotta love sweden!

Annasopra

blooddonor wrote: »

How are they going to know your gay if you go to donate blood ???

You self declare

Annasopra

If you want to discuss blood donation go to this thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055275244

L1011

blooddonor wrote: »

How are they going to know your gay if you go to donate blood ???

They ask, along with a rake of other stuff, on a bit of paper given to you.

I had a (now former) IBTS worker tell me it was OK to lie as I had a rare blood type (O-) :rolleyes:

wonderfulname

Dwn Wth Vwls wrote:

The main reason given is that in the future there may be new viruses that are undetectable.

Source please? I haven't heard that one before.

Psychedelia wrote:

I think this 'precaution' is based on probability

Indeed but the factors upon which this is based are void and no longer medically sound, in fact I think the ban was even put in place subsequent to the medical community understanding that AIDS is not solely a disease of gay men.

Anyway must listen to Johnnymcg and stop running off topic, can anyone tell me if the same line as above is spun with regards to organ donation just not practised?

Psychedelia

wonderfulname wrote: »

, can anyone tell me if the same line as above is spun with regards to organ donation just not practised?

Well when you have an organ donor card and brainstem death is declared your organs/tissues are harvested and tested. I doubt it matters what you were. so few people are actually eligible to donate organs because there is a very short period of time when they are viable. i doubt the prejudices of holy ireland could extend so far?

however in cases of donation where one remains alive (ie kidney) i don't know. I doubt it matters. They say the blood thing is because of the possibility of infected blood going unnoticed. but organs wouldn't go unnoticed i should think.

but then again, if their policies haven't been updated in fifty years (which is possible) then homosexuality may be regarded as a sexual pervesion in medical texts as it was in the medical reference book i read recently!

*sorry the end is irrelevant that just angered me that the medical community (which i will be apart of some day) refered to homosexuality in the same sentence as paedophilia.

L1011

Psychedelia wrote: »

but then again, if their policies haven't been updated in fifty years (which is possible) then homosexuality may be regarded as a sexual pervesion in medical texts as it was in the medical reference book i read recently!

*sorry the end is irrelevant that just angered me that the medical community (which i will be apart of some day) refered to homosexuality in the same sentence as paedophilia.

How bloody old was that? Homosexuality was removed from the DSM in 1973 and was omitted when ICD-10 was done in 1990 but it had been planned to remove it for some time (ICD-9 was a long time before that).

Heebie

They ask, silly! There's a questionnaire.. and it is a good idea to answer them.

One thing with the blood supply in relation to HIV that seems to be forgotten is that it can take 6-8 weeks, in some cases even longer, before HIV would be detectable in the blood. (The test is for antibodies, not for the virus itself.. and it takes a while for the body to start making the antibodies.) In people who are already immuno-compromised, their bodies might never start making antibodies, and sometimes it may take longer than the "standard" of six-weeks. and.. since it can take a decade for symptoms to start showing.. a lot of people who say.. experimented as teens, could be infected & not even know it.

So.. instead of asking if guys have had sex with a guy in the last 6 months or something like they.. they go with "ever" in order to "err on the side of caution" 6 months is probably long enough.

As for wearing condom mitigating the issue.. that's not necessarily so. There are plenty of people out there who "use" them, but don't actually know how to put them on properly.. and probably just as many who use them with oil-based lubricants etc.. (with oil-based lubricants.. the latex breaks down.. it doesn't necessarily BREAK the condom.. but it begins to dissolve it. Latex is a porous material.. it has holes in it.. and when exposed to oils those holes increase in size.. so without a condom breaking.. the pores in it can easily expand to be large enough for the HIV virus particles to breach it. Non-latex condoms don't have the same problem with oil.. but the pores in them are often already large enough for the HIV virus to get through.. so they're not very useful to begin with for anything other than pregnancy prevention. Lambskin condoms [which are generally intestines, not skin] are also pretty much entirely useless for HIV prevention.) Generally condoms will not tell you what they are NOT good for.. but will specifically ONLY mention prevention of pregnancy on the package if they're not useful for HIV/STI prevention.

Sorry I addressed several different issues in the reply to just one message. =O

blooddonor wrote: »

How are they going to know your gay if you go to donate blood ???

L1011

I wasn't aware lambskin condoms were still sold... latex and polypropelene are all you'll ever see normally. Polypropelene is like riding a crisp bag >.<