So stupid.
So stupid. Because of the prevalence of Lasik and like procedures, it is getting harder to find donor corneas, and ones from a young donor would be invaluable, as they are likely of a much higher quality. That, and I am unaware of any report of HIV being transmitted by a donor cornea. Ever. Hepatitis B, specifically, yes; some herpes and related viruses, yes; fungi, bacteria, prions, all yes. If organs, which have been documented to transmit a lot of things, were deemed safe for transplant, why on earth would you reject his eyes?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/15/gay-teens-organ-donation-rejected/?tid=pm_national_pop
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/15/gay-teens-organ-donation-rejected/?tid=pm_national_pop
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/15/gay-teens-organ-donation-rejected/?tid=pm_national_pop
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/15/gay-teens-organ-donation-rejected/?tid=pm_national_pop
That really doesn't make sense to me especially as the heart and liver were accepted for donation.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. I know that the groups that harvest eyes are generally different from the ones that harvest everything else, but it is beyond stupid that something that is presumably stringently reviewed is ok, and something that should be less risky is tossed.
ReplyDeleteI suppose one related reason is that (at least until recently) there really wasn't a dearth of donor corneas (like there is with major organs), and also the lack of a transplant is pretty much never life threatening (let's not talk about quality of life there. Both of those are factors that affect the risk/reward ratio.
ReplyDeleteMy dad will be needing a cornea soon — I'm not sure that he'd be willing to sign informed consent that while the risk is very low, you might get aids, or you can wait an extra three days or so for the next one that didn't have HIV. Of course, what I'm thinking of here is donation from a confirmed HIV pos donor, and I don't think that's the case here, right? With someone who may or may not have had the gay sex once the risk is still vanishingly small for them to even have it...
Once Lasik really took off in the 90's and early 00's, there were suddenly a lot fewer usable corneas. There are lots of new techniques and applications, now, as well, so a combination of things affecting supply.
ReplyDeleteIf they transplanted his organs, he must have tested negative for everything (or there was terrible negligence, which I highly doubt). The exclusion didn't even seem to have to do with that, though. It's a you are a man who has sex with men so you can't donate anything to anybody ever. I think it was implemented back when lots of people were getting hepatitis and then HIV from transplants and transfusions because we were refusing to acknowledge that those things existed, and we couldn't, then weren't, testing the blood supply and so forth. We can test now, and we do, or should, so new protocols probably ought to be implemented.
Also, there are reported cases of HIV+ donor corneas from which no one has ever turned seropositive. No documented hepatitis C, either, that I'm aware of. Hepatitis B, yes, that has happened. Creutzfeld-Jacob, Rabies, fungi, some bacteria, and several varieties of herpes virus. CMV is the bane of every form of transplant because an awfully large number of adult humans are CMV positive. People still get transplants and do fine, though.
Best to your dad when he needs to go ahead with that. People are really good at these things these days. I'm sure there are good protocols where you live.