In January, Health Canada unveiled its new policy on organ donation, banning the use of organs from what it deems to be high-risk groups without the explicit consent of organ recipients.
High-risk groups include people who have recently shared a needle for a tattoo or body piercing, people who have used intravenous drugs in the past five years, people who have solicited a sex worker in the past five years, ex-prisoners and sexually active gay men.
Health Canada argues the risk of HIV in gay men is too high to warrant using their organs.
Last November, one donor’s organs resulted in four infections. This was the only case in the past 20 years.
Although public knowledge of the HIV/AIDS scare in North America began in the 1980s surrounding cases of infected gay men, the pandemic is no longer limited to a specific identity group.
In 2004, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published a study that showed women were increasingly contracting HIV from heterosexual relationships. But it’s unlikely straight women’s organs will be banned, even with the evidence of the study.
It’s ridiculous that the government would play on outdated fears to create a policy based on such blatant discrimination against gay men.
Health Canada appears to be shamelessly searching for a scapegoat to acquit itself of the responsibility of properly checking donated organs for health risks.
There should be a screening process for all donated organs, regardless of whether they come from homosexual donors.
Anything less than a thorough check is evidence of Health Canada’s failure to recognize the reality that many donors, of varied sexual orientations, can be HIV carriers.
Although it may be costly to screen every donated organ, it should be an expense necessarily factored into the organ donation process.
Organ recipients should be informed about all of the risks associated with the organs they receive before they agree to take them.
Canada already struggles with one of the lowest organ donor rates among industrialized countries; the government shouldn’t be trying to drag it lower.
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].