Ethics in transplant

http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/health/2007/11/13/AIDS.Transplants/

Recently, a woman contracted HIV and Hepatitis C because she received a kidney transplant from an HIV/Hepatitic C positive donor.

I don't know the I understand the process of organ donation enough to assume that the donor (who is dead, obviously) was screened for some devastating diseases before approving him or her as a donor. However, both the donor network organization adn the hospital where she received her organ knew that this donor was at a high-risk for these diseases and did not inform the organ recipient. Three other recipeints of this particular donor's organs also contracted both diseases through their new organs. There are several unethical issues in this case.

I beleive from what I understand is the reasoning for believing this man was high risk (he was a sexually active homosexual) is unethical. Though I do not have the specific research available, I believe that HIV is transmitted through heterosexual sex than through homosexual sex today. In addition, HIV can be transmitted through many other various ways. When I had my first open heart surgery in 1986, they were just beginning to screen blood donations for HIV. I was lucky enough to have 11 family members partake in direct donation, where their blood was set aside for me only. Therefore, I know that I did not receive containimated blood. However, anyone who received a blood transfusion around that time could have easily contracted HIV no matter their homosexuality or gender. As a nurse, my mother walked out of work through the ER one day and stepped directly on a used needle. It went through her shoe and into her foot. Thankfully, her repeated blood tests have shown she did not contract anything through this unfortunate accident, but it could have easily happened. Legally, we should not be judging anyone based on their sexuality, but contracting HIV has not been a "gay men" disease for some time (although in this case it was correct).

Second, if a donor is suspected to have infectious diseases, why in the world are they even considered to be a donor? WHY? How is that ethical? The recipient needs a new organ because they are fighting for his or her life. How is giving that person, especially an individual can be maintained on other life saving measures as is in this case, a diseased organ fixing the problem? In fact, it just creates other problems.

Transplant patients have to say of immunosuppresants for a great of time, if not their entire lives, in order to minimize the risk of organ rejection. Therefore, the person has a weakened, compromised immune system. Therefore, she is less capable of fighting and living with the viruses she contracted through her new, "healthy" organ.

What is perhaps the worst breech of ethics in this case is that the organ donation organization and the transplanting hospital knew of the risk and no one told the patient. They made a life changing decision for this patient that was not theirs to make. In fact, her history suggests that had she have known about the risk of these diseases, she would have declined the organ. Those who took this decision out of the recipients hands essentially killed her. Their decision led to her being infected with HIV, and although we have come a long way in helping HIV patients to lead much longer, healtheir lives than in the 1980s, it is still a death sentence.