What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
204 Comments
- cmschmidt, on 11/17/2008, -2/+136Thats sucks big time...got the hiv and the hep...and then your body rejects the kidney too...now she's right back where she started, but with hiv.
- BorsKaegel, on 11/17/2008, -4/+129How could Hepatitis C and HIV both be undetected? One, maybe.. but both? Sounds like someone dropped the ball there.
- XtheXlanternX, on 11/18/2008, -0/+62Males who have sex with other males have always been a "high risk" group, at least since 1977. Other high risk groups would be hemophiliacs, IV drug users, etc. This is what you will be told at any hospital or blood bank. There are a lot of reasons for why, but mainly it is because anal sex is a very efficient way to transmit a blood borne pathogen because of the microtearing of the skin involved. HIV also exploded in the homosexual male population in the 80s while people were still figuring out what was happening. I'll probably get dug down by idiots for thinking I'm anti-gay or something, but I am not and this is just the facts on it... I'm a microbiologist and I interned at a blood bank for awhile in college.
- doiveo, on 11/17/2008, -7/+53"The donor had not tested positive for the diseases, probably because the infections were too recent to register on the screening tests used." So hearing "the donor was gay but he tested negative for HIV and Hep C" would have changed her mind? I have my doubts.
- ricker2005, on 11/18/2008, -3/+42Yes, sue the surgeon. Apparently this is the one surgeon in the world who tests incoming organs for HIV and hep C himself instead of just putting them into transplant patients.
- ricker2005, on 11/18/2008, -3/+41And here I go getting dugg down by idiots how have no idea how a hospital or operating room works. Just for the record, a surgeon doesn't go running checks for antibody titers on incoming organs. His job is to take the organ and successfully implant it into a sick person. Suing him is a moronic move and that part of the suit should immediately be thrown out.
All the surgeon knows is what the technicians who screen the organs tell him. He has to take their word for it because he's not doing the tests himself. It's not his job. He is in no way responsible for the fact that the organ carried HIV and hep C. If there's any fault here, it's on the technician. - SeraphX, on 11/18/2008, -1/+33They've always been. Gay people can't give blood, for instance - I wasn't sure about the laws pertaining to organ donation though.
- Brassbud, on 11/18/2008, -0/+30Actually, its probably worse, since she is no longer a good candidate for a kidney given her AIDS and Hepatitis infection.
- XtheXlanternX, on 11/18/2008, -1/+31Yeah I doubt it too. As the article says, this is the first case of something like this in 20 years so the testing they do must be pretty thorough. Personally, it is hard to put myself in the same position (and I hope I never am) but I don't think I would turn down a perfectly good organ that passed all tests.
- cawpin, on 11/18/2008, -2/+31For STDs, yes. They always have been. I'm not bashing, it's just a known fact.
- XtheXlanternX, on 11/18/2008, -0/+28I'm not sure about Hep C because HIV was my passion when I was studying microbiology but I can tell you this about HIV: The current tests check for antibodies in the blood stream, which take time to show up. There is a time between HIV infection and when these antibodies show up (usually around 90 days) so it is possible for one to be HIV positive yet not show up on the test. The donor of the organ either is an outlier in that he either doesn't produce said antibodies that the test looks for, OR he had unprotected sex/shared needles/etc in the last 3-6 months.
- Rivetgeek, on 11/18/2008, -2/+27Uh where have you been? Homosexual are always in a high risk group for STD's. The gay "swinger" lifestyle especially. But even for less promiscuous gay men, anal sex is basically the best way of passing hiv.
- Dimbleby, on 11/18/2008, -0/+24Wow. That is so so terrible. Seriously. Makes my problems a piss in the wind..
- fluxion, on 11/18/2008, -2/+25apparently 2 people disagree and think that's totally awesome!
- XtheXlanternX, on 11/18/2008, -4/+26I have no problem with people in "high risk" groups donating organs, but there is a question to be raised here. If the donor comes in and says, "Hey I will donate my kidney," you can ask him/her a million questions that will help you assess his/her risk for a recent HIV infection. If the donor comes in dead from an auto accident (as this one did), you cannot ask the person if they have recently had unprotected sex with a new partner. You can't ask the person if they've recently shared needles. As the article says, this is the first documented case of HIV infection via an organ transplant in 20+ years, so obviously they must have a better way of doing it than what I just discussed, but it still raises some questions on the "high risk" organ donor who is in a car accident and killed or something. Even at the same time, there are tons of people who live secret lives that may be in the "high risk" group even though no one knows that they engaged in needle sharing/male+male sex/etc.
- DrDigg, on 11/18/2008, -0/+14There is a window if infection where the viruses can be undetectable. Hepatitis C screening test is an antibody test it can take 3 months before it turns positive. Since there is a fair number of people with both HIV and hep C the donor probably got them both at the same time from someone who was co-infected with both.
- XtheXlanternX, on 11/18/2008, -0/+11The risk is there any time you receive blood or an organ, even if the person is not "high risk." Who is to say that the heterosexual straight laced white man who looks great on paper gave you that kidney didn't go out and have sex with an AIDS infected prostitute a few nights before he got hit and killed by a drunk driver (and thus donated his organs)?
- filovirus, on 11/18/2008, -1/+12She could have been infected by the dialysis machine too. Dialysis nurses in our hospital review the patient's records for hepatitis or HIV. If they are positive, the machine cycled through with bleached after their dialysis. If they are not positive, it is only rinsed with water, vinegar. Otherwise, they only bleach the machine once a week. When I asked them about the rare patient that is infected but has not seroconverted to a positive or about the new virus we don't know about yet, they say that they are following their policy.
- jftitan, on 11/18/2008, -1/+12"trust me, I'm a doctor!"
- BuddingMonkey, on 11/18/2008, -0/+10but the digg button is right next to the story. you can't digg through gtalk. what are you trying to do? It makes no sense! WHYYYYYYY! *brain explosion*
- DrDigg, on 11/18/2008, -1/+11No by the end of the day she got HIV because she got an organ from someone who had recently acquired an infection that was undetectable. Why is it the hospital's fault? The other way to look at this is - what could the hospital done differently to prevent this? Nothing, the other tests that look for actual virus particles take several days to come back. By that time the organ is useless.
- CodenameGamma, on 11/18/2008, -0/+9"Everybody lies"
- xxpor, on 11/18/2008, -0/+8They are considered so for transplant purposes. For example, in the US, if you a male that as ever had sex with another man, even once, since 1978 (I think), you are ineligible to donate blood.
Now, I don't agree with this, but its the way it is. - tdwtomcat, on 11/18/2008, -2/+10The real problem here is that the HIV wasn't detected because it was too soon after it was contracted. That would mean that any organ donation carries this risk. Scary.
- Elranzer, on 11/18/2008, -6/+14"So hearing "the donor was gay but he tested negative for HIV and Hep C" would have changed her mind? I have my doubts."
Actually, yes...
"The patient, identified only as Jane Doe, alleges the hospital knew that the donor, who was homosexual, was in a high-risk group and withheld the information from her. Had she known of the "true nature of the donor's lifestyle and the risks associated with receiving his kidney" she would not have consented to the surgery, the lawsuit said."
So homosexuals are now a "high-risk" group? - techmint, on 11/18/2008, -0/+8It could be Lupus.
- inactive, on 11/18/2008, -0/+8Yeah but if people used logic they would never be able to sue.
- commentposted, on 11/18/2008, -2/+10No.
- LawMan227, on 11/18/2008, -0/+8I was thinking something similar... it said the organs came from a man in a car accident, so how long can they keep the organs alive before they need to be transplanted. I would expect a test to be done, but it seems possible that newly contracted diseases may not show up...
On that same note, how did the hospital know the donor was gay? Did he have the gay box checked next to the organ donor box on his license? Sounds like another person trying to beef up a lawsuit with mindless allegations when she could easily take the money the hospital no doubt offered her and walk away. - XtheXlanternX, on 11/18/2008, -0/+7There is a risk anytime you receive blood or an organ that you can receive HIV, even if it is from a married heterosexual good family man. They tell you that hundreds of times. They might not have told this woman that her donor was gay, but I'm not sure if they're allowed to or if they're required to. They told her the organs passed all tests (which they did). It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I can't see how the hospital will be at fault, but this is America so you never know.
For instance, I've never received blood, never used any IV drugs, never had male/male sex, so I'm like the perfect candidate to donate organs to someone. I am also an organ donor. Lets say tonight I go out and have unprotected sex with a man. Then Friday I get in a car wreck and die and someone gets my organs. On paper, I'm the perfect donor, hell no one but me probably even knows I had sex with a man a few days before my death. The tests will come back clean, but there is a good chance that the organs are indeed HIV positive. - XtheXlanternX, on 11/18/2008, -0/+7It isn't life threatening, but you can't really have a great quality of life when you have to be on dialysis for the majority of the day, every day.
- wilf_brim, on 11/18/2008, -0/+7Maybe, but given that 3 other patients who also received organs from this donor contracted HIV and HCV, that is very unlikely. Also, in cases like this, as part of the investigation the doctors do nucleic acid analysis (aka DNA fingerprinting, except these are RNA viruses) on the viruses. If they are basically identical (which they probably are) the chances that they all acquired the infection from elsewhere change from highly unlikely to basically impossible.
- Knowltey, on 11/18/2008, -0/+7So there's a law against giving out organs or blood if you're gay? I guess I'll just remain in the the hospital's closet while I'm there then.
I don't do the buttsex thing either. - XtheXlanternX, on 11/18/2008, -1/+8This question struck me in an odd way. I was just talking to a nurse who served during World War II. She said that during the war, there was blood that was marked like "O- B," with the B standing for black. It used to be policy that white people could not use blood donated by black donors.
The reason I mention this is because that question is almost as crazy. If you need an organ and it passes all the tests, you're going to turn it down because of something about the person who gave it (his favorite food is cotton candy, he has brown hair, he is asian, anything is equally ludicrous). The chance of the latent HIV infection (I mean that the infection is present but in the lapse period where undetectable for 90 days or so) is very low. The chance of you contracting HIV from a heterosexual organ donor in the same situation is very low. You're essentially saying, I'm okay with 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 odds, but I'm not okay with 1 in 10,000,000,000 odds. - XtheXlanternX, on 11/18/2008, -1/+8The organs were tested and passed all tests.
- inactive, on 11/18/2008, -0/+7Your dialysis unit must suck hard. Our machines are heat treated after each treatment and ran through a bleach cycle several times a month.
- filovirus, on 11/18/2008, -0/+7It isn't directly related to playing in *****. HIV and Hepatitis C are a blood borne pathogens. When the top pounds the sloppy party bottom so hard that he injures the rectal mucosa, blood comes into contact with the top's hog. When the top ejaculates, the virus can spread from semen to the injured rectal tissue.
- XtheXlanternX, on 11/18/2008, -1/+8Current HIV tests are very accurate. The thing is, the check for antibodies in the bloodstream that take time to develop. Thus, there is a time between infection and when these antibodies begin to appear, usually around 90 days, but there have been reported cases of people carrying the virus for very long periods of time and not having the antibodies the test looks for. The current test is very accurate. It returns 0% false negatives and a very small amount of false positives (at the end of the day, a false positive is acceptable... one can retest. the fact that the current test does not give false negatives is outstanding).
- Cglass, on 11/18/2008, -0/+6No, this video sounds like it was straight from The Onion .. kind of scary actually..
"The lawsuit says that the hospital never disclosed to her that the donor was gay and he lived a high risk lifestyle, she said she would not have accepted the kidney has she known that."
The Onion should sue for intellectual property theft. - knowitman, on 11/18/2008, -0/+6@XtheXlanternX
You are talking about a different type of situation then ramzavala. It is just a fact of life that a homosexual has a much higher chance of contracting HIV. That is just the nature of the beast. I know that on the screening tests you have to take before giving blood it asks if you have ever had "Sex with a male since 1977, even once" aka homosexual sex, because of the higher chance of being HIV positive. - inactive, on 11/18/2008, -0/+6WTF is this horrific hospital cleaning routine?
Replace the ***** thing! - DrDigg, on 11/18/2008, -0/+6BTW the tests which actually look for virus particles take several days to come back. Unfortunately the organs are worthless by that time.
- Markers, on 11/18/2008, -0/+6You must be new here... GTFO.
- monkeyrun, on 11/18/2008, -3/+9What's up with all the surgery horror stories today ...
- MeatyMcBeef, on 11/18/2008, -0/+5I am going to imagine that because the tests search for antibody's that the donor contracted the illness within 3 months of the time their organs were donated. It is very unlucky but probably more common than we'd like to think.
- theutopian, on 11/18/2008, -0/+5So I wonder what the side affects of HIV anti-retrovirals and anti-rejection drugs together are.
- nyx210, on 11/18/2008, -0/+5Well, of course the patient would sue. Would you really expect them to say, "Ok." and go home?
- gnotDigger, on 11/18/2008, -0/+5that's what she gets for not going to a good christian hospital!
- inactive, on 11/18/2008, -0/+5It's never lupus.
- inactive, on 11/18/2008, -0/+5Why didn't she get her kidney from a nice healthy Chinese prisoner, like a normal person.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 212 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is