I never thought I'd say this...

[anniecat]

I guess you're just keeping us on our toes Bob76.

[mechanic_virus]

As an individual who is dedicated to both stopping the spread of HIV and promoting equality for our GLBT neighbours, I personally disagree with the ban.

First of all, I believe it perpetuates the myth that all gay men are at risk for HIV infection, while sending the message to the general public that it is okay to have unprotected sex - as long as you are not gay.

It is not who you are (such as a gay man) that puts you at risk for HIV infection, it is the risky behaviours in which you partake (such as unprotected sex).

Health Canada knows nothing about my sex life - how many partners I have had, whether I use condoms, whether I engage in anal sex, they know nothing. Nor do they know anything about the sexual activities of the men who have sex with men who have signed up for organ donation. The only difference? As a female who is a registered organ donor, they would be more than happy to take my liver, kidneys, whatever - whereas it is considered a public health risk to take organs from gay men. And that, in my opinion, is discrimination.

To put this into perspective a little, in British Columbia, Aboriginal people make up only about 4% of the population - yet in 2006, Aboriginal women accounted for almost 34% of the new HIV infections among women in BC. Would Health Canada dare ban Aboriginals from donating organs?
In the United States, African Americans make up roughly 13% of the population - yet account for 49% of new HIV transmissions. Would it be acceptable then to ban black people from donating organs? Where would it stop?

The risk of contracting HIV through an organ transplant, in comparison to the risk of dying because of a lack of organs, is miniscule. There is a relatively new test being used to detect HIV in donated organs called the P24 antigen test. This test can detect HIV as soon as three weeks after infection, which means that unless the donor contracted the virus within three weeks before death, the test should detect the presence of the virus. Conversely, about 30% of people waiting for liver transplants will die before a liver becomes available. This sort of blanket exclusion will make the lists even longer, and many people will die as the result of the lack of life-saving organs.

If I were ever to find myself in a situation where I needed an organ transplant, and was told that none were available because the only ones that could have been used came from gay men, I would be RIGHT *bleep* off. Seriously. Why can't they just get the organ recipients to make up their own minds? Add one more form to the list, and give them the option of ticking a box that indicates that they consent to receiving organs from people in so-called "high risk" populations? I'd do it!

[crash 99]

Mechanic_Virus....THAT would just make too much sense!

Great post by the way.

[anniecat]

Mechanic_Virus....thank you for posting that. It was very eye-opening and has very much made me rethink my stance of being for the ban. To allow the organ receipient's choice in receiving a higher-risk organ makes sense, although I don't know of the legalities SHOULD there be a transfer of disease after transplant.

I took my stance based on seeing my family member with HIV/AIDS go through all that he has. My thoughts were that if I was a parent having an older child who needed an organ transplant, I would not want a high-risk organ being donated to my child. I could only imagine how difficult that would be for parents to think their child has thankfully received an organ only to see that child contract a disease from that same organ.

Because of your post I now see a different side and will give this some more thought....it's definately a tough issue with many different points and feelings to consider. Perhaps the government should have taken some more time to consider some of these thoughts before making a decision.