Mother of gay teen who committed suicide outraged at FDA ban on gay organ donation

[Playinghardball]

A mother who tried to bring meaning to her gay son’s tragic suicide by having his organs donated was shocked to learn that Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations prevent gay men from donating non-lifesaving organs, The Des Moines Register reports.

Sheryl Moore’s 16-year-old son, A.J. Betts, took his own life after facing years of being bullied for being openly gay. She kept his body alive for four days after he was declared brain dead specifically so his oxygen-deprived organs could recuperate enough to be viable for transplants. His heart, lungs, and kidneys were all eventually harvested for transplantation, but his bone, tendons, heart valves, and eyes were not.

When she asked the Iowa Donor Network why those organs had not been harvested, she was told it was because of an FDA policy barring sexually active gay men from donating non-lifesaving organs.


“I’ve heard that people can donate their eyes,” Moore recalled telling the Iowa Donor Network, “and I was just wondering whether there was a reason A.J.’s eyes weren’t donated to somebody. The folks immediately responded to me, ‘Yeah, that’s because he’s gay.’”

“I would have loved to look into his eyes again,” she added, “even if they were inside someone else’s head.”

More here and see the video at:http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/18/mother-of-gay-teen-who-committed-suicide-outraged-at-fda-ban-on-gay-organ-donation/

[FarPoint]

1. I didn't know there was such a ban?????

Crap...this is archaic! I support change immediately.

[REP]

2. Eyes are not life-critical organs; the test they use is only 97% accurate

97% is good enough if death is certain without lungs, liver, heart, kidney, etc. It's not good enough for eyes, which are not a life-or-death situation. His other organs were received with gratitude; his eyes, however, could not be used in good conscience since she did not know his sexual history and the tests used are not 100% accurate. This is not a case of discrimination; it is a case of caution and it holds true for all donors with similar circumstances (unknown sexual histories, etc).

[MNBrewer]

4. This is absolutely discriminatory

Everyone has an unknown sexual history, why only exclude gay men on the basis of their assumed sexual history?

[YarnAddict]

5. I am a 27-year cancer survivor

and I will never be able to donate blood or organs. Is that discriminatory, too?

[Bluenorthwest]

6. Are you equating being gay to having cancer? It sure sounds as if you are.

That's nice.

[YarnAddict]

7. Of course not.

The point is that perfectly healthy people cannot donate blood/organs for reasons other than sexuality. If there is any risk to the recipient, they will not accept blood/organs.

[MNBrewer]

8. can you clarify what risk is run by transplanting tissues from gay men?

please?

[Ms. Toad]

9. It is a bit dated, but here:

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)a represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, young gay and bisexual men (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all gay and bisexual men. At the end of 2010, an estimated 489,121 (56%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were gay and bisexual men, or gay and bisexual men who also inject drugs.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/

This is the age range this young man was in. And the infection rate within the gay male population is still significant - and has started growing again as HIV/AIDS comes to be viewed as a chronic illness - particularly by young gay men who - like most kids that age - view themselves as immortal.

As explained above, there is a risk/benefit analysis done with organs used. Gay men who do not test positive on the most accurate tests we have are allowed to donate many life sustaining organs - as this young man was. But when an organ is not life sustaining, the risk/benefit analysis is different. Sexually active gay men do - statistically - run a greater risk of being HIV+ without having sero converted yet. As for others with unknown histories - I don't know enough about the screening process for eyes. For livers - sexual orientation is not a factor in the screening. When they have to rely on social history, rather than tests, unknown sexual history of any type is an issue.

I do think they should cut the timeline down considerably (5 years is far longer than needed to be safe), but I do favor using statistically based models to make appropriate risk/benefit balancing decisions. Unfortunately, that will mean that some organs which the families of gay men would like to be used cannot be.

[MNBrewer]

10. 16 years old, gay and statistically tainted with HIV.

[Ms. Toad]

11. The population is statistically most likely to have a new infection.

In 2010, young gay and bisexual men (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24 and 30% of new infections among all gay and bisexual men.

So if his family doesn't know (and she likely doesn't), it isn't work the risk.

Despite that - many of his major organs WERE used - it is not blind prejudice acting here. It is a reasoned decision about when the factually unknown - but statistically real risk outweighs the non-life saving use of the organs.

[REP]

12. Really?

My husband could state my sexual history with 100% accuracy for the last 22 years.

My mother, were she alive, would be less reliable.

It is not discriminatory. It is risk management. Anyone who is any risk category would not have their tissues used for non-life-sustaining transplants.

[doxydad]

3. I posted about this travesty earlier...

...and I find this to be an asinine rule.

[REP]

13. The article you posted had a lot of inaccuracies

There is no "instant" test and the current tests are not 100% reliable. They're good enough when the other option is death, but not nearly good enough for non-life-sustaining transplants.

[Rex]

14. That poor woman, I do weep for her.

“I would have loved to look into his eyes again,” she added, “even if they were inside someone else’s head.”