16-year-old Alexander “AJ” Betts killed himself after being outed as gay, now has organs rejected du - Polidicks

[QUOTE][B]A TEENAGER who committed suicide after being outed as gay was unable to donate his eyes because of his sexuality, his mum says.[/B] Alexander “AJ” Betts Jr took his own life at his home in Pleasant Hill, California, at age 16, after enduring a year and a half of bullying for his homosexuality, cleft lip, and for being half African American. One year later, the boy’s mum found some solace in a letter saying her organ donor son’s kidneys, liver, heart and lungs had gone to needy people. But that quickly turned to rage when she discovered his eyes had been rejected because of his sexual orientation. “My initial feeling was just very angry because I couldn’t understand why my 16-year-old son’s eyes couldn’t be donated just because he was gay,” Sheryl Moore said told [URL="http://www.kcci.com/news/gay-teens-tissue-donation-denied/27434658#!bD3sWa"]KCCI[/URL]. Betts’ eyes were denied because of a US Food and Drug Administration regulation, brought in at the height of the AIDS crisis, prohibiting men who have had sex with men in the past five years from donating certain tissues. Concern about the same-sex “risk-factor” is also reflected in rules prohibiting gay men from donating blood — a ban that also exists in Australia. The FDA insists its hard line stance is necessary because “a history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for exposure to and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV.” But experts, including Glenn Cohen, a bioethics law professor at the Harvard Law School, have fought for years to repeal the rules — particularly for blood donation. “We think it’s time for the FDA to take a serious look at this policy, because it’s out of step with peer countries, it’s out of step with modern medicine, it’s out of step with public opinion, and we feel it may be legally problematic,” Dr Cohen told [URL="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/experts-urge-lifting-ban-on-blood-donations-by-gay-men/"]CBS[/URL]. He also noted the FDA rules were contradictory: Men who have sex with HIV-positive women or sex workers are banned for only a year, for example. “This is archaic, and it is just silly that people wouldn’t get the lifesaving assistance they need because of regulations that are 30 years old,” Moore said.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.news.com.au/world/yearold-alexander-aj-betts-killed-himself-after-being-outed-as-gay-now-has-organs-rejected-due-to-sexuality/story-fndir2ev-1227026320180"]http://www.news.com.au/world/yearold-alexander-aj-betts-killed-himself-after-being-outed-as-gay-now-has-organs-rejected-due-to-sexuality/story-fndir2ev-1227026320180[/URL]

how do you even know if someone has had homosexual sex in the past 5 years? what a fucking ridiculous law

It's disgusting that countries still restrict life-saving organs just because of the donor's sexuality. Frankly, there's no more risk of somebody being infected if they're gay, straight, or whatever else nowadays- there are people who use protection, and people who don't. If anything, they should base it on [I]that[/I] instead.

This is some uganda type shit

[QUOTE=Jamsponge;45702431]Frankly, there's no more risk of somebody being infected if they're gay, straight, or whatever else nowadays[/QUOTE] Yes, there really is: "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" ([url]http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html[/url]) 2% of the population accounting for 74% of new HIV infections in any age group is MASSIVE.

This decision should be made on a case by case basis, not a generalization.

a friend of mine got corneas from a dead guy and now he sucks cock all day long its true Seriously though, this is fucked up SO much. Being gay is worse for organ donors than AIDS? Are these people fucking high?

Gay organs! Now with 50% more rainbows!

Do people think that life-saving organs carry gay genes and they might catch the gay? If I needed a transplant I'd take any healthy organ I could get, the previous owner's sexuality has no bearing in the matter.

Sexuality should never be considered when donating organs. Sexuality also does not have much of a correlation with AIDS spread. It's just as easily transmitted from man to man as it is woman to man.

[QUOTE=Bread_Baron;45702717]Do people think that life-saving organs carry gay genes and they might catch the gay? If I needed a transplant I'd take any healthy organ I could get, the previous owner's sexuality has no bearing in the matter.[/QUOTE] Did you even read the article?

[QUOTE=Winner;45702502]can't they just test every donor's blood for hiv?[/QUOTE] They test every donor but the tests they use are not perfect and if the donor was infected recently it's almost undetectable. You also still have idiots who think instead of an HIV test they should just donate blood and that happens more then you think. [editline]16th August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=OtherDalfite;45702752]Sexuality should never be considered when donating organs. Sexuality also does not have much of a correlation with AIDS spread. It's just as easily transmitted from man to man as it is woman to man.[/QUOTE] This isn't true, read what sgman91 posted. Statistics don't lie.

[QUOTE=rider695;45702790] This isn't true, read what sgman91 posted. Statistics don't lie.[/QUOTE] Well shit, the facts don't lie. Thanks for directing me to his post.

[QUOTE]Concern about the same-sex “risk-factor” is also reflected in rules prohibiting gay men from donating blood — a ban that also exists in [B]Australia[/B].[/QUOTE] This isn't something I expected from a first world country

Guess the fear of Dire Aids is great these days.

[QUOTE=rider695;45702790]This isn't true, read what sgman91 posted. Statistics don't lie.[/QUOTE] Correlation does not imply causation. I would lay money on the fact that men who have homosexual sex are [b]not[/b] biologically more susceptible to getting HIV. Sure, men who have had homosexual sex may be the largest portion of men with AIDS and HIV, but no one ever speaks of any of the other factors that comprise contracting AIDS. What sort of protection was or wasn't used? How many partners simply opted to not tell the other that they had it, or tried to hide it, or whatever? As far as I'm aware, there's even less of a stigma around having protected sex within the gay community, especially considering there's no chance of pregnancy. It wouldn't surprise me if that 74% was simply because there was an HIV+ partner who didn't use protection. You can twist the statistics to make your viewpoint true, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're right.

[QUOTE=biodude94566;45702936]Correlation does not imply causation. I would lay money on the fact that men who have homosexual sex are [b]not[/b] biologically more susceptible to getting HIV. Sure, men who have had homosexual sex may be the largest portion of men with AIDS and HIV, but no one ever speaks of any of the other factors that comprise contracting AIDS. What sort of protection was or wasn't used? How many partners simply opted to not tell the other that they had it, or tried to hide it, or whatever? As far as I'm aware, there's even less of a stigma around having protected sex within the gay community, especially considering there's no chance of pregnancy. It wouldn't surprise me if that 74% was simply because there was an HIV+ partner who didn't use protection. You can twist the statistics to make your viewpoint true, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're right.[/QUOTE] I'm not twisting the viewpoint at all, the fact is simply that there is a higher percentage of HIV+ LGBT men then heterosexual. Doesn't matter how the 74% got so high, it simply is, and it wouldn't surprise me either that the reason it got so high is because the partners didn't know. Looking at the statistics on the site sgman91 linked only 66% of HIV+ men knew they were infected in 2011. I never said gay men are more susceptible to HIV. It's not biologically that matters, it's socially. [B]But[/B] it's also been proven that anal sex is alot more likely to transmit HIV, so theres that as well. [URL="http://www.aidsmap.com/HIV-transmission-risk-during-anal-sex-18-times-higher-than-during-vaginal-sex/page/1446187/"]http://www.aidsmap.com/HIV-transmission-risk-during-anal-sex-18-times-higher-than-during-vaginal-sex/page/1446187/[/URL]

[QUOTE=Winner;45702984]his point obviously wasn't that gay men are biologically more likely to get hiv, it's that there's no risk of pregnancy so there's a lot more unprotected sex in the gay community[/QUOTE] Anal sex is also the highest risk form of sex when it comes to STDs*. That also happens to be the kind of sex that gay men usually have. [editline]15th August 2014[/editline] Let's be honest here. The facts are that 18% of gay men have HIV/AIDS, that's almost 1 in 5.* That's an insanely huge percentage of the whole. It's also important to point out that a large portion of people don't know that they have HIV and that the tests aren't 100% accurate. It can take up to 6 months for the necessary antibodies to become prevalent enough for the test to give a positive result.** *[URL]http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html[/URL] **[URL]http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/prevention/hiv-testing/post-test-results/[/URL]

[QUOTE=Liem;45702873]This isn't something I expected from a first world country[/QUOTE] It should be, most first world country's are medically developed.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;45703111]It should be, most first world country's are medically developed.[/QUOTE] I'd expect them to test the blood for an HIV infection not just outright ban them from donating blood. I suppose that would be expensive though

[QUOTE=sgman91;45702542]"Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)a [B]represent approximately 2%[/B] of the United States population In 2010, [B]young gay and bisexual men[/B] (aged 13-24 years) [B]accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24[/B]" ([url]http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html[/url]) [B]2% of the population accounting for 74% of new HIV infections in any age group[/B] is MASSIVE.[/QUOTE] Hang on. I think you are combining the two separate statistics incorrectly. I think the rates are high among homosexual men none-the-less. But still I think you're wrong with you're last point. 2% of Americans, are males who do have sex with other males. Within that 2% - there is a sub-group of people aged 13-24. They may only represent like 0.5% of general population. That sub-group, accounts for 72% of new HIV infections among [B]only[/B] young people. Not general pop. So, using these particular statistics in combination, and concluding that 2% of the population accounts for 72% of all infections... is bogus.

[QUOTE=Kardia;45703261]Hang on. I think you are combining the two separate statistics incorrectly. I think the rates are high among homosexual men none-the-less. But still I think you're wrong with you're last point. 2% of Americans, are males who do have sex with other males. Within that 2% - there is a sub-group of people aged 13-24. They may only represent like 0.5% of general population. That sub-group, accounts for 72% of new HIV infections among [B]only[/B] young people. Not general pop. So, using these particular statistics in combination, and concluding that 2% of the population accounts for 72% of all infections... is bogus.[/QUOTE] You're right, but it's fairly irrelevant. The percent of people in that age group that are gay isn't going to stray much from the percent of the overall pop.

This law wont last long, with gay acceptance becoming more widely popular it wont take more than a couple years.

Lmao what's the point in stopping someone from donating organs because they might have HIV if you're going to screen every donor's blood for HIV anyway?

Gay men have a significantly higher chance of having aids. It costs a significant amount of money to test everything. It's just to save money why is everyone getting so butthurt. It's nothing personal.

[QUOTE=sgman91;45703024]Let's be honest here. The facts are that 18% of gay men have HIV/AIDS, that's almost 1 in 5.[/QUOTE] That isn't a fact though. The source says: [URL="http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html"]"18% of gay and bisexual men [B]tested[/B] in 2011 had HIV."[/URL] What this means... is that the sample group weren't tested randomly. They came to clinics to get themselves tested. People usually get themselves tested for a reason, they are afraid that they have an STD, because they were [B]probably behaving irresponsibly[/B]. So saying that this statistic can be used to conclude that 18% of gay men have HIV/AIDS is a bit crazy.

[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;45703318]Lmao what's the point in stopping someone from donating organs because they might have HIV if you're going to screen every donor's blood for HIV anyway?[/QUOTE] It's already been said at least once, but I'll say it again: The test is not 100% accurate and can take up to 6 months after transference to show as positive. There's simply no way to guarantee that someone is HIV free and when 1 in 5 gay men have HIV that's a pretty large risk to take.

[QUOTE=Winner;45702502]can't they just test every donor's blood for hiv? what the fuck what the fuck they should be banned for life if they're not going to test donors imagine getting an organ transplant and then finding out you're hiv positive because your donor's year was up[/QUOTE] Why do you think they don't test donors? It's not "oh your year is up you must be clean!" They test blood and organs all the time against stds/diseases..

[QUOTE=sgman91;45703298]You're right, but it's fairly irrelevant. The percent of people in that age group that are gay isn't going to stray much from the percent of the overall pop.[/QUOTE] It could be very relevant. I'll try to get the actual statistic. It would be interesting to see, rather than formulating one incorrectly.

[QUOTE=Winner;45702731]try reading the article sometime[/QUOTE] I did. I assumed they do all sorts of tests on deceased donors before transplanting their organs and that they didn't even go that far purely on the risk factor linked with homosexuality, but I guess my remark was silly. I apologise.