Aa
Aa
A
A
A
Close
Avatar universal

4 transplant patients infected with HIV

Here you go regjoey. You wanted proof.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21770889/?GT1=10547
21 Responses
Sort by: Helpful Oldest Newest
Avatar universal
A risk is a risk and the only way to KNOW your status is by testing. It doesn't matter what risk group anyone one is in, it will always fall back on testing.
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
Bi people certain do not have less risk, especially if they are bisexual men. They have more risk, as they are also having sex with men, which puts them at increased risk for HIV.  It is the same risk for a bisexual man as there is for a gay man.  That, is what I'm saying and I think its very clear.  
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
"the chance that a purely heterosexual person (not bisexual, no IV drug use) would have HIV AND still not be seroconverted is exceedingly rare, especially when compared to a homosexual or IVDU.'

So what's your point about Bi people,less risk?  
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
When I read this I thought, well here we go, everyone will jump to conclusions about the tests reliability. The article that I read does not give any information on the types of tests performed or what time frame. Also I believe it will show that $$ is the overriding factor in the types of screening test used.

I am a firm believer in PCR testing especially the DNA/PCR. If it is Neg. more than likely there is no HIV virus to be found.
They could use on know high risk people both types of PCR tests [rna and the dna]. You can bet in the long run after law suits the cost would be the same.
Helpful - 0
219662 tn?1223858560
It happens a lot in countries where there is not enough funding to properly screen blood products for HIV.  In rich countries, like the US, this is very rare - but as you can see, still possible.  
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
It happens in Malaysia as well, it was on newspaper today where a lady just claimed 450K malaysia currency from the hospital where she received blood transfusion at 7 years ago...

is it just me, or after i have this whole HIV fear, the word HIV and AIDS jz popping up in my life more n more often, on the news, on TV, hearing ppl mentioning it...

damn..i'm going nuts
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
Are you incapable of reading?  NAT testing takes too long and the organs would not have been viable.  I can't spell it out for you any clearer.  Organs don't last forever, its not like if you put them in a ziplock bag and suck the air out, you can just thaw them out and they will still work fine.  It's not like that, its real life.  Stop mentioning the NAT idiot, it is too time consuming for things like organ donation.  And no, they could not have tested the blood with NAT any faster than the organs.  Go away donorhighrisk
Helpful - 0
219662 tn?1223858560
Nobody knows when this person was infected, so quit with the window period stuff.  It's not 3 weeks, or 6 weeks, it's simply not known, or at least not reported yet.  The only thing that is known is that at the time of the donation he/she was negative on the ELISA and positive on the PCR.  This is nothing new, it happens.  The only extraordinary thing about this story is the inappropriate conduct by the US medical institutions which has led to 4 new HIV/HepC infections at least - we still don't know about the status of the sexual contacts those 4 people might have had in the last 11 months.
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
My apology---I read 6 instead of 3--Really frightened for a sec---Sorry for that--Guiltnworry and Regularjoey--
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
Wait.  Did this person test positive past the 6 week mark or not?  Is the 6 week test in jeapordy now?
Helpful - 0
219662 tn?1223858560
What post was that?  From what I've read, nobody knows exactly when he/she was infected.  They are only guessing that it was missed by ELISA - both HIV and HepC - because it was a recent infection.
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
RegularJoey- I was not aware that a friend informed the hospital that he was in a high risk group.  If so, then yes, I think his organs should have been rejected.  I also hadn't thought about potential transmission from the patients to their sexual partners.  This is very true that the recipients could have spread HIV to their sexual partners.  I was just thinking more in a shorter time frame, especially right after surgery, when organ recipients can be excessively weak and without an immune system because of the immunosuppressive drugs.  You are right though, earlier testing is ideal.  I was saying it didn't really make a difference as far as treatment, which isn't started immediately in all HIV patients.  In fact, the recommendations say that there is no benefit to starting HIV treatment when CD4 counts are above certain levels.  In other words, wait til they start dropping and then treat, and the outcome will be the same.  From a potential spreading hazard though, you are right.  

Donorhighrisk- You really are a moron.  You send me a private message and I answered it.  NAT TESTING TAKES TOO LONG AND IT WOULD DISRUPT THE EFFICACY OF THE ORGAN TRANSPLANT.  It's a time sensitive manner and takes too long to wait for the test results to come back.  Stop with the idiotic, repetitive posts.  Congrats on your negatives, take them and go the he*l away from here.  

Raj- Where did you see 6 weeks, the articles I read said he must have been in the THIRD WEEK post infection.  Stop worrying about your test, it is conclusive.  
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
I Just read from one of the posts that the Donor crossed his 6 wk test period. If its true--How reliable can be the test at 6 wks after Exposure???????
Helpful - 0
219662 tn?1223858560
OK, I'm just getting my info from the newspaper, so I don't know how accurate it is.

1.  Apparently, the donor's friend informed the Gift of Life organization that the donor was in a high-risk group.  Should he not be allowed to donate on that basis?  I don't know.  If somebody is already on the deathbed, because he/she needs a kidney or a liver, I guess it is ethical to go ahead and accept the donation.  But maybe if the patient doesn't urgently need that kidney, he can pass and wait for another donor.  It is a risk/benefit assessment that has to be performed by the parties involved.  But in order for that assessment to be done, everyone needs to know that the donor was at high risk for HIV (and HepC by the way).  The Gift of Life just decided to just rely on the testing - big mistake...

2.  It is important to test the recepients as early as possible, at least at three months.  No, a test will not make HIV go away, but it is an infectious disease and early diagnosis can prevent further transmission.  What if the recepients passed on the HIV to their sexual partners for example?  That potentially could have been avoided with a test at a proper time.
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
First of all, how do you know that the doctors knew the patient was high risk?  From everything I have read, there was no indication of this.  If there were, the doctors would not have approved the body for donation.  So without knowing the donors risk (i.e. he was in critical condition, they could not ask him), how would they have possibly informed the recipients?  Also, what would testing at 3 months have done for the recipients?  Nothing, they would have already seroconverted and had HIV.  Testing at 3 months is not some way to magically make it go away.  If someone is at high risk for HIV, they do not allow him/her to donate, period.  Look at blood donation, even if the patient tests negative and can prove this, they are STILL not allowed to donate.  From a legal standpoint, the hospital tested the donor for HIV, the test came back negative, they transplanted the patients.  Period.  When you get a blood donation, or before you get a blood donation, you have to sign many forms acknowledging that there is a risk, no matter how miniscule, that you could contract different diseases from the transfusion.  The same is done for organ donation.  You don't just say ok I'm ready for the organ, transplant away.  There is paperwork, lots of it, to be done, just like in every other aspect of life.  I am not saying it it not unfortunate about people getting infected, but the risks are listed in the preoperative paperwork, AND all preop testing was followed.
Helpful - 0
219662 tn?1223858560
I think there will be some big lawsuits.  From what I have read in the Times, there were some serious mistakes made.  First of all, clearly if somebody is in critical condition already it is reasonable from the risk/benefit perspective to accept any donor there is.  However, the guidelines are to inform the recepient that the donor is at high risk for HIV and have him/her sign the consent form.  This was not done, apparently.  Furthermore, the transplants were made in January, yet the blood tests performed only in November - 11 months later!  The guidelines are for all recepients to get tested at 3 months - this was not done!  I just can't believe how sloppy these guys are, I mean this is not Uganda we are talking about, this is Chicago, top hospitals in the US!  Unbelievable...
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
I have to agree with regularjoey.  While not only homosexuals and IVDU get HIV, they certainly make up the vast, vast majority of cases in the United States.  Heterosexuals (in the UNITED STATES) rarely acquire HIV unless they are regular partners of an HIV positive person or an IV drug user themselves.  Many people will argue with the fact that gays and IVDUs are not allowed to donate blood based on the donor guidelines.  However, the risk is too high that someone in this group could have HIV to allow them to donate.  When 1/12 gay white males, and 1/3 gay black males are infected with HIV, it is a risk that is too high to put the general population at risk.  Yes, so they screen every single donated unit of blood for HIV and several other diseases, but what if one of these gay men or IVDU was infected and had not yet seroconverted, as happened in this case? It is not a risk I am willing to take.  Given the fact that it is very much more rare in heterosexuals, the chance that a purely heterosexual person (not bisexual, no IV drug use) would have HIV AND still not be seroconverted is exceedingly rare, especially when compared to a homosexual or IVDU.  It is to protect the general population.  The hospital will probably get sued, however, they cannot legally be held responsible as they did do all of the appropriate testing with the newest available technology.  You cannot hold hospitals responsible in a legal sense when they fulfilled all of the established guidelines and procedures for organ donation.  The fact that he had not seroconverted is no fault of the hospitals.  Now, if the used the NAT test and didn't wait for the results, then certainly they could be held responsible.  I am not saying the victims could not sue in civil court, but if the hospital followed established guidelines and did not act with mal-intent, then they cannot be held legally responsible, although they will probably settle on some financial sum with the victims.  

I know I said I was leaving, but this was an interesting article and one that we have debated many times in medical school bioethics.  There is so much controversy surrounding gay/IVDU donations.  
Helpful - 0
219662 tn?1223858560
The press release mentioned that the donor was in a high-risk group, which means MSM or IVDU
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
how do you know the guy was gay or a drug user, hetrosexuals get hiv
Helpful - 0
219662 tn?1223858560
Proof of what exactly?  Do explain.
I always say that MSM and IVDU should be deferred from donations.
The tests are not perfect, the risk of transmission is too high.
This donation should not have been accepted, the hospital will now probably get sued out of their pants.
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
Ya..its kind real sad...but if u look at the positive sign of it..maybe these people without the organs would probably die...now they have the organs..and even zo they are hiv positive they are still alive...and if proper follow up is done..they can live a long life...i guess their close relatives would better have them next to them than dead...but its true...info about donors sud be given fully b4 any transplant...
Helpful - 0
Have an Answer?

You are reading content posted in the HIV Prevention Community

Top HIV Answerers
366749 tn?1544695265
Karachi, Pakistan
370181 tn?1595629445
Arlington, WA
Learn About Top Answerers
Didn't find the answer you were looking for?
Ask a question
Popular Resources
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
Can I get HIV from surfaces, like toilet seats?
Can you get HIV from casual contact, like hugging?
Frequency of HIV testing depends on your risk.
Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) may help prevent HIV infection.