General Discussion

REP

(21,691 posts)

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

Reply to Playinghardball (Original post)

Mon Aug 18, 2014, 11:16 AM

Aug 2014

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).

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

14 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Mother of gay teen who committed suicide outraged at FDA ban on gay organ donation [View all] Playinghardball Aug 2014 OP

I didn't know there was such a ban????? FarPoint Aug 2014 #1

Eyes are not life-critical organs; the test they use is only 97% accurate REP Aug 2014 #2

This is absolutely discriminatory MNBrewer Aug 2014 #4

I am a 27-year cancer survivor YarnAddict Aug 2014 #5

Are you equating being gay to having cancer? It sure sounds as if you are. Bluenorthwest Aug 2014 #6

Of course not. YarnAddict Aug 2014 #7

can you clarify what risk is run by transplanting tissues from gay men? MNBrewer Aug 2014 #8

It is a bit dated, but here: Ms. Toad Aug 2014 #9

16 years old, gay and statistically tainted with HIV. MNBrewer Aug 2014 #10

The population is statistically most likely to have a new infection. Ms. Toad Aug 2014 #11

Really? REP Aug 2014 #12

I posted about this travesty earlier... doxydad Aug 2014 #3

The article you posted had a lot of inaccuracies REP Aug 2014 #13

That poor woman, I do weep for her. Rex Aug 2014 #14