Charles, have you walked a mile in the shoes of someone who needs a kidney, heart, lung or liver transplant? It's really easy to make a judgement if it's not your life hanging in the balance. Not everything is based on money, some people actually just want to live as long as they can in spite of the difficulties they encounter, not everyone gives up just because their life isn't easy!

Although Charles may seem rather callus, he does make a valid point. There are now more STDs that can only be detected with a blood test, then we ever heard if when I was a younger. Are all of them being screened for before an organ is donated? Could someone contract a Herpes or HPV infection from a donor organ, because of the infection being detectable in the blood, yet never cause symptoms? Could that infection then cause havoc in the recipients body?

Is there really enough known about donor organs, or should we not say that perhaps when our time is up, it is in fact up? I often wonder how long most folks live after a transplant, and if the time and expense is really worth it? I realize loved one's want to hang on to any shread of hope, put perhaps living off the death of another is a little too far to go?

Charles, I'm sorry that this is your attitude. If everyone in the medical community thought as you do, we would have none of the great strides that have been made.

As the wife of a liver transplant patient and a long time hospital worker, I have seen the continuous leaps that are made in the interest of improved quality of life and the preservation of the gift of life.

Open heart surgery isn't cheap. Stroke reversal / rehabilitation isn't cheap. Putting someone back together broken from an accident isn't cheap. Would you deny all of these people as well??? Hey - it's your time - why prolong it!!!

Should those in the medical community from researchers and doctors all the way down to the many different types of workers in the hospitals that keep things humming for the good of the patients not receive a decent wage for their work and efforts??? MATTHEW 10:10 "for the workman is worthy of his meat".

My husband opted to prolong his life and I am glad that he did. He's had his liver for 16 years now. When a person is faced with a life and death decision, most will choose life. I hope that you are never in the situation that you must make this choice for yourself or a loved one but I do hope that you will take the time to maybe volunteer at your local hospital just to see what really goes on and why.

And, as always, much thanks to those who choose to donate and their families, as well. Organ donation is a gift of life and provides a way to "live on" by giving someone else the chance to live on.

bsb, it is worth it.

Is anyone surprised that when you transplant an infected organ into a patient there's a chance that the patient may inherit the infection? Is this the state of our healthcare industry? What doctor in his right mind would even consider this procedure with faulty organs? How do these organs make it from the deceased to the patient without being checked first?

maddog - see comment 6.1.

There is risk in everything we do. There is risk in dialysis, there is risk in a transplant. The patient has to choose which risk they wish to take. The process and technology will continue to improve, especially with each failure, we learn more to make then next transplant better. The Doctors try to give the patient all the information they can to help them make that decision. But nothing is certain.

I do not say this lightly, my Father was on dialysis over 9 years and was ineligible for a transplant due to his medical history. He wanted a transplant. A good friend was on dialysis and was eligible for a transplant. The kidney was from a child. Later, she was exposed to a common childhood disease everyone gets. She became sick as the child had not had that disease yet. The resulting infection killed her as she couldn't fight it due to the anti-rejection drugs. If the child would have already had that illness, she wouldn't have gotten that sick. She wanted that kidney too, and enjoyed the quality of life she received from it until she got sick. I doubt that either of them would have made a different choice from the one they made.

P.S. 9 years is a long time on dialysis, everyone else who became patients when he did passed away years before he did. As caregivers, my Mom and I worked hard to make dialysis work for him. Following the plan is important.

Charles - would you say that to your child? That it is his/her time to 'go'? Please walk a mile before make such a comment. When it is YOUR baby lying in the bed with a CHANCE to LIVE, the situation is completely and utterly one of hope that a transplant will save your baby. Children do very well with organ transplants and until you have been in that pair of shoes - I don't think you really have the right to turn it into a dollars and cents argument.

Modern medicine and surgical techniques have made life possible for many, many people via organ transplants as you can read here. It is THEIR decision and that of their surgeons to make this decsision.

I will give you some credit, however, for knowing that the reality of BUYING organs for transplant for the very, very rich is something which does happen. MIckey Mantle, Steve Jobs, David Crosby are believed to have 'purchased' their life saving organs but of course, you and I will never know. What IS sad about that is that there are sadly, poor and unknown persons who might have been as poor a candidate as Mickey Mantle was (for his chronic liver dz 2ndary to ETOHism) who did not get a liver. Was it right to give Mickey a liver given the state of his dz? Was it right to give David Crosby a liver given his acknowledged lifetime of drug and ETOH abuse. Mantle and Crosby were baseball and musical icons, respectively. Joe Schmo the Ragman is just a street wino and nobody knows him. Who makes the decision?

None of that makes any difference when it is YOUR loved one in need of the organ.

I would want to prolong my life for the benefit of my wife and daughter. What we need is to make the science and technology of growing your own organs a national priority. No issue of rejection or infection here.

charles i have been ill most my life. i prolong it for life. To live have companionships,learn and enjoy friends and family. Each day has a hope of joy or laughter may be mixed with pain and suffering but it is worth everything to continue on. I must be an optimist the glass is half full.

GOOD FOR YOU NATIVE!!! I'm sorry to hear that you are not well but your attitude is inspirational. GOD Bless you.

Well, when Death is at your door and you try and cheat it, it will catch up with you eventually in another way. I think the man was too old to even receive the transplant in the first place. Thankfully it went to him and not some young kid that has a whole life ahead of him or her.

The same could be said for giving scouring children Kaopectate.

Charles: I'm with you on this. I am 64 years of age and I think of "death" everyday and I hope that when faced with it that I will just accept dying. But, I can understand other people wanting to live as long as they can. It's not that I don't want to live, I know that I will die and I don't want the extra measures taken. I know that some will say that that is easy to say now !

How many organs are stolen at the hospitals when someones loved one dies? Then how much big money is made by that hospital and doctors for the resale of those organs? Ever think of that? Of course it happens, who is watching, how would you know, the next time you see the person is at the funeral home!

"Although Charles may seem rather callus, he does make a valid point."

Yes Charles does make a valid point. Because there are so many 'ditzes' working in research making millions of dollars a year who could not forsee these problems of infection. Yet I, just because I have a basic knowledge of hygiene and I who only had a couple of biology classes, had wondered if this could be a problem back when transplant technology became common. ?!?!?!

"There is risk in everything we do. There is risk in dialysis, there is risk in a transplant."

This is an absolute fact. Obversely, it does not mean that we have to make the choices of a fool.

I'm waiting for a double lung tranplant. Without it I will be dead in 6-12 months. I am completely healthy and excercise every day, but to do that I need more than 50 liters of oxygen flowing through my mask because my lungs are so shrunken. If more people signed up to donate organs people wouldn't become desperate enough to accept risky organs. If 6500 people died in air crashes every year we would certainly fix it. In our case no one needs to write a new law, we don't need higher taxes, just people willing to share organs they can no longer use. The transplant recipients bless and appreciate their donors every day.

Kimothy - congratulations to you and your donor and God bless you both.

I too congratulate you. Here is to many more years of good health.

buche and zero~Thank you! :-)

That's wonderful! My teenage son needs a heart/lung transplant, and your story gives us hope! :)

[blushes] Thank you Kaylie! :-)

Several years ago a Mexican orphanage was busted for adopting out parts of children, the US doctors who flew down and personally harvested the body parts were never even made a part of the investigation--too much money and charitable benefit involved to shut the entire project down. Kinda like a local probate attorney who became one of the biggest charity donators in the country, by creating and fabricating wills for his clients, and the courts never required the estates be paid back, because the money went to charities.

One may want to take the risk of having an infected organ transplant. But how can one stand the thought of having something in them that was taken from some innocent through abuse and assault, and may have resulted in their death?

PetSmart has the $$. They can't get it from the donor, so they go after the target with the best pickings.

Because PetSmart sold a diseased Hamster. They should be responsible for testing the animals they sell, or simply stop selling them all together.

Although you two might not thing PetSmart had any responsibility, I do. Perhaps now they will be a little more careful about where they get their animals from, and help to develop screening tests so that animals with diseases that could be passed on to humans are not sold in their stores!

Here is just one link that I have found but PetSmart has been known for buying animals from "mills" that are diseased and not properly cared for.

http://www.petsmartcruelty.com/investigation_manchester.asp

It was a rodent! Rodents spread disease, they have been for thousands of years (ever hear of the black plague) and will continue to do so until we wipe out this planet.

This particular disease is spread by mice, and many people get the virus with no ill effects. Though I'm sure they somehow 'proved' that the hamster got it from where it was bred, it seems to me that anybody could have this disease (as wild mice are everywhere) and it should be the responsibility of the medical team to test the donor for it. Did the medical team even ask if the donor owned a rodent? I doubt it, or they probably would have done a test to look for it.

If the donor died because of the virus then I can see PetSmart being responsible for that death - but not for the donor recipients. That falls squarely on the shoulders of the medical team for not testing for a virus that anybody can have (especially somebody that owns a rodent).

light bulb moment. when i was young i had a hamster. Mom and i handled it we both got ill with 105 fever maybe same virus? doctor called it scarlitina he did not blood work. we both were better within 14 days.

You can contract scarlitina without touching a hamster. It used to be a somewhat common childhood disease. I had it as a toddler, and we didn't have any rodents.

willow - you can contract scarlatina without touching a hamster because Scarlet Fever is an illness which is caused by Group A streptococcus (bacterial infection airborne and droplet modes of transmission) and IS often diagnosed by the attendant childhood exanthem, the scarlatinaform rash. The pathognomonic feature is the presence of 'Pastia's Lines', which are cutaneous streaks of linear, sandpapery lesions on the child's upper body also in the presence of the global rash. The illness is common and quite contagious in children. What Native's pediatrician diagnosed may or may not have been 'scarlet fever' but likely the hamster was not involved. Moreover, Native sounds like he/she was entirely immunocompetent at the time and therefore unlikely to have contracted this rare form of vector borne dz.

I had scarlet fever when I was very young. VERY sick with a VERY high fever, but the doctor never even tried to guess where I contacted it from. It just happened. Luckily I survived unscathed. Apparently it was very scary for my parents, as I can only imagine.

The insipid way these programs impliedly encourgae hamster sex.

Some of them just do not 'get it', DeathMagnet.

"How the heck is PetSmart responsible?" That was exactly my question! The organ recipients were probably FAR more susceptible than normal to the disease because of the immunosuppressants they were taking. That's not really something PetSmart could have foreseen.

These people's deaths are a tragedy, of course. But sometimes it just isn't anyone's fault.

You are entirely correct inasmuch as the past eight years of the previous white house was an enemy of science and advancement in this area in particular. Now, the bolts have been remove from the labs and we are catching up but can't make up for all the people who died waiting for what COULD have been done to help them. Even NANCY Reagan has begged for this research to be funded. So many sick folks who can benefit from this and WILL benefit as long as we stop mixing religion and science. Most Americans have NO IDEA how far this research has gone. Skin cells are proving to be capable of cloning entire living creatures and while the results ARE published; they're often small sidebar items in journals dealing with issues OTHER than the actual research. Entire generations of mice have been cloned and scientists KNOW this - but no one says Boo, because it is not MSM worthy. In a way - it's a relief that more info is NOT disseminated in that regard.

How would you feel having to explain to your business associates that the ear growing from the top of your head, would be cut off and reattached properly, after sufficient growith?

lilian101 i would not have it growing on the head. how about on the abdomen under a shirt?

Lawsuits have an important function beyond compensating the plaintiff. They encourage the party that wronged the other not to continue doing it to others. If a beef company allows mad cow disease into their product(for example), paying one or two dead peoples families may cost less than to test for mad cow. The smart business decision in this case is to keep allowing mad cow disease in the meat. If the court slaps them with punitive(punishment) damages (which are relative to the company's size) it makes it a bad business decision to allow mad cow(example).

The down side is it encourages frivolous lawsuits. A good compromise might be to put punitive damages money into a fund, rather than award it to the already compensated party.

Because of the lawsuit in this story, Petsmart will either screen their hamsters for this disease if it's cost effective, or simply warn people that by buying a hamster(or any other pet), something like this could happen to you.

Hamsters are rodents. So are mice, squirrels, gerbils, guinea pigs and the like. While it is popular to keep these as 'pets' in certain homes it remains ill advised since their ability to house and transmit infectious dz has long been known. Not long ago, Hantavirus killed several unsuspecting folks in the Southwest. Source? Prairie mice. Microbes are unseen - but their ability to wreak havoc with human biology is no secret. The Take home? Rodents as pets are a bad risk. Remember the small turtles formerly sold by pet shops in those small plastic ponds with the little palm trees? (I'm dating myself, but these were popular in the 60s). They (miniature turtles) were discovered to be reservoirs for salmonella after so many owners became ill with the same infectious organism. Caveat emptor when it comes to choice of 'pets'.

buche, you can still buy baby turtles in some places, and adult turtles in a lot of pet stores. They still carry salmonella, but we know about it now and know that we need to wash up after touching them (but we should wash up after touching ANY pet, right?) But when someone dies and is an organ donor, do the doctors have the responsibility of finding out every pet that person had and testing for rare diseases? I would say no. If a person is getting a transplant, they are dying anyway. They are trying the transplant as a last ditch effort. If it doesn't succeed, that is sad, but at least they tried. All transplant patients are told there is a risk of infection being transmitted and that even if the organ is as perfect as can be, the whole procedure can still fail and death is a very real possible outcome. Suing the pet store, in my opinion, was unnecessary.

Shand - While I agree that legal action against the store is useless, I doubt that pet owners wash their hands after handling their pet. Pet owners out there: am I wrong? Who among us routinely washes our hands after touching out domestic animals? This includes any/all rodent owners out there?

It would be nice, but right now, we can't do this. As soon as a donor dies, there is a mad rush to get permission, remove the organs, and transport them, often far away, to the recipient. The recipient is being prepped for surgery while all this is going on. Tests for every possible disease that could be transmitted take way too much time. The organ would die/become useless.

Agree with disconnect. Do you know how many tests it would take to test for EVERY possible infection/disease? It is just not feasible.

Hamsters are rodents.

Denise -WOW! I am pleased to hear that you feel better than you ever have in your life. With four solid organ transplants under your belt - you must be an old hand by now. I am going to assume the renal problems were a function of ESRD? Was your pancreatic transplant done for beta cell/islet of Langerhans reasons? I am thrilled you are doing well and obviously you are compliant with your anti-rejection regime. Again - congrats to you and your surgical team! I wish more recipients like you would weigh in on the positive aspect of organ transplant. How high risk WAS your donor?

PS - while 'practicing' medicine is a popular catch phrase, it suggests a lack of expertise which is not the case as your success proves. That there are NO GUARANTEES in medicine and ESPECIALLY this type is a more appropriate description. In particular, when a patient has multiple co-morbidities going IN to the surgery - the risk of complication/failure/rejection rises exponentially. But again - you have done well and are proof of the life saving outcomes.

paco - your is a great success story. Congratulations! Corneal transfers have been successfully done for many years and the technique is now perfected! We need to work on the aspect of solid organ transplant reaching the same degree of perfection that your surgery has obtained.

You make a good point - I have been a fan of Stem cell research, but there seems to be much resistance to this.

Much of the research is being done overseas and of course, a lot of it is being done 'underground' which is very, very sad. However at least this administration is not locking the door on science and letting the researches do their work. When research goes underground we all lose and then the results go up to the highest bidder.

The bone marrow donation/transplant sounds like a great idea. The immunity from the donor would become the recipients immunity. So no antirejection medication would be needed. Is this procedure new to the world? Is this available yet in the united states?

Tyler, THANKS for doing that!

Agent, my husband also said that he would never accept an organ when he became faced with this life and death decision, although his reasoning was nothing like the picture that you are painting. As time passed on and his health continued on it's downward spiral, his decision changed.

I can assure you that he has never experienced anything vividly disturbing or any kind of thought sharing. He is the same guy that he has always been. The only thing that has changed is his attitude towards organ donation. He is definitely for it!!!

I certainly hope that you are never faced with making the decision to receive but do reconsider your feelings about donating. You may wish to discuss this with your physician.

agent - something tells me you might have a change of heart someday!

That's your choice agent, which is your right, I hope you don't stand in the way of those who don't share your opinion.

I don't have an issue with someone who gets a transplant. Its just spooky to me.

Will - if you were more specific it would be helpful. Otherwise, the boldface type only draws attention to the cryptic nature of your post. Bachelor Party indeed. What of your betrothed? Does he or she require the unnamed medication? What about your fellow revelers? Monthly Rx to keep in remission? Doesn't sound like any dz process other than HIV. Is this what you are implying? While organs ARE tested for HIV, I am not sure you make any point vis a vis this thread? The blood supply is easier to protect in many ways than the solid organ given the lag time for certain illnesses and, as the author suggested, the required immunosuppression of the recipient.

Medication you take?

Infection you acquired?

Thank you.

To: Buche de noel

from: Will

re: Your response to my comment

Pursuant to your dull response to my "classically funny" comment, it appears you have:

1. ZERO sense of humor

2. Never been to a Comedy Club.

3. Proven to be a horrible first date.

4. Never been the 'life of the party'

Please purchase one (1) ticket to Las Vegas, rent a car, check in at Jimmy-Dees Motel,ask the front desk parolee to 'hook you up' with "Chelsey Sweetheart, Nikki Dives, Maria Jalapena, or Ingrid Swallows. Upon your pleasurable 3 hour stint, I'm confident your sence of humor, world views, and sexual knowledge will all receive a well needed boost.

Will - you are unfunny.

Aside from the fact that this thread is about solid organ transplant and you clearly don't belong here, it's clear you don't comprehend humor at ALL. Humor is sujective and this thread is not the venue for your silly, make-believe fantasy about Asian strippers giving you some imagined infection as a pathetic attempt at levity. Your bold faced fantasy was in no way 'classically funny' but was more an insight into your own emotional vacancies.

If you are very young it could explain your disjointed comments. Inasmuch as my 'sence' (sic) of humor is concerned, you need not worry since I'm a BIG fan of true comedic talent. YOU do not have any.

As to your 'advice' which has no basis in reality (how could it, given that we are complete strangers?) I'm a happily married WOMAN and had my last first date with my husband over twenty years ago. We are blessed with great kids and have been to Vegas MANY times. Moreover, I have been rewarded very nicely as a surgeon and my interest and knowledge in the solid organ transplant field explains my presence here. You, on the other hand, seem to be here only to 'tell jokes' and lame ones at that.

That you lack the ability to discern appropriate venues for your less than rapier 'wit' is proof that YOU SUFFER from myriad deficiencies in life skills and may explain why you name drop and imply intimacy with bottom feeders. It's not working for you and again - UNFUNNY in the extreme.

Three decades of medical practice have taught me, among other things, to recognize a disordered personality. Your desperate need for someone, anyone (even total strangers) to notice you SCREAMS 'I'm desperate to be noticed, DESPERATE! Someone, please tell me that I'm funny?!"

No. I won't engage you further. I will reorient to the fact that this thread is about solid organ transplant. You were unable to answer the question of disease/medication because you made this preposterous encounter up in your mind. You are out of place and out of your league. IF you have valid comment about this subject I'm sure everyone would read it with interest. As it stands now - you've wandered into the wrong neighborhood, you're without material and devoid of gravitas. This thread is not about me, and even less about you.

Time to return to the subject at hand: solid organ transplant and the risk of infection.

buche de noel, why do you think that Will-422749 is joking? He could be telling the truth.

FGH - did you read his post? Medically, the comment was non-sequitur in terms of infectious dz. Next, in his/her attempt to be witty, the post had no relevance to the discussion. It was too general and contradicted itself in that, 'lasting memory, monthly medication, in remission' describe NO STD or blood borne pathogen that is currently transmitted. If you have a basic understanding of any infectious dz which 'the strippers' could have shared with him/her, you'll know that there is NO MONTHLY medication given for any of them. You COULD make the case for peg-intron for Hep. C. in older IV drug users, or someone with a huge viral load of hep C prior to 1983, but that is NOT where 'Will' is coming from. Rather,he/she simply thought he/she was 'funny'.

I am always puzzled when thread derailers show up where things start out with legitimate and interested posts, but then attract nincompoops and goonie birds with zero knowledge of the field, no real interest or experience in the science and worst of all, intentional stupidity masquerading as 'humor'.

There were only one or two here when the thread opened up - but it's corrupted now.

bird - it does not have to be that way, and it won't!

You do realize that the donor in question probably didn't know she had caught the infection from her hamster. And even if she did, the first thing to cross her mind when the doctor said "you need some antibiotics" was probably NOT "quick, change my donor status in case I get hit by a bus before the course of antibiotics is finished!"

I just finished treatment for a common infection. That sort of infection may, in fact, be dangerous to someone whose immune system is compromised by anti-rejection drugs. To be honest, it never once occurred to me to think about my donor status.

Would it honestly have occurred to you?

wopper - you have definitely flopped with this one. I don't know where you work but I'm glad I never worked there. My husband is 16 years out with his liver and no sign of giving up yet. I have known many recipients that have gone way longer than 10 years.

I will agree that patients must become advocates for themselves.

wopper - i don't know what your 'job' was but you evidently were NOT at the higher end of the food chain regarding the surgical team. Your comment is patently false, along with your knowledge of transplant outcomes. Perhaps you emptied the biohazards from in the OR? That does not qualify you as 'working' in transplant surgery.

wopper~I have to respectfully disagree. Each transplant recipient is so much more than a "statistic." I'm walking, living, breathing proof. I'm nearly 14 years post heart/double lung transplant.

Or wopper has access to the statistics that tell the broader truth instead of a few anecdotal stories from the people who are exceptions to the average?

The 'statistics' you reference are not classified information. The outcomes in transplant surgery (as in Cancer surgery) have that magical five year out cutoff point. Does NOT mean that after five year there can be no recurrence or organ rejection leading to death. Furthermore the TYPE of transplant is ultimately the critical identifier. Corneal transplants are extremely successful and typically not associated with rejection. Solid organs are entirely different and naturally, the rejection level is more significant, yet many five years out and still boast functioning organs. There are many confounding variables which affect the data which makes extrapolation from the pure data not entirely difficult.

A former schoolmate from Clarksdale, MS died recently from heart failure at the age of 65. He was a kidney recipient thirty-five years ago. One of the longest in the U. S., but not THE longest.

what about one test? The d-dimmer test. If the donor has critical d-dimmer means blood is clotting. I believe blood clotting indication of disease process? However if done after death the blood clots from the death so test not valid after death. Would be valid prior to death and for donors still on equipment to maintain circulation. D-dimmer normal take organs. d-dimmer above normal do not take organs. just my opinion.

If that criteria was used, there would be several less organs available. You have your information completely incorrect. ie. If the patient died from a PE, Stroke, MI (blood clot in their lung, brain, heart) they will have an elevated d-dimer. Further, there are a number of things that can cause a false positive d-dimer. These are just a few examples of why the d-dimer is not the end all test you're suggesting. It is not indicative of all disease processes. Please do not post opinions about topics of which you know to little.

Native: Then it's an issue of "what normal is". Baseline from user, baseline from population?

Most people go through life with a minimum of medical information and testing done on them.

TMNP what causes PE,STROKE,MI? Be specific do not say a blood clot. what caused the blood to clot in the first place?

winsettz at admit d-dimer done immediately rechecked every 30 minutes in critical cases.

rechecked every 60 minutes in dead on arrival on life support possible donors.

Baseline first test. as for medical historys lets go there. The medical clerks need to learn to read and write. They error often and loose records often. Much improvement needs done in the field of medical record keeping. I do not solely put all the blame on the clerks the managers bear most of the responsibility. In Dec i had yet another incident called the ambulance went to the hospital and was informed at the er i had no records on file. How is it they lost my 2003 heart cathe, many years of several heart echo studys, several x-rays,ct's,mri's and many blood tests? Being a patient and studying the merck manual, physician desk reference, and the tabers has educated me from personal experience. FYI most people did not have pediatrician when young in my generation or my parents. the specialty did not exist.

But the H.M.O.s do not care-as long as they get the insurance payments.

laos - I read your blatant homophobia and it is frankly misplaced in this thread, since every 'gay' person is not 'at risk' for blood donation and excluding their donation seriously impacts the availability of emergency blood supply in hospital blood banks. Most important for you to know is that ALL donated blood is screened for blood borne pathogens (Hepatitis B, HIV) and HAS BEEN for many years. When you are in a car accident (God forbid) and require emergency surgery to save your life, you might need MULTIPLE units of blood before it's all over. Every unit is typed, screened and cross-matched before being logged into the system. It is one of the many instances where two licensed persons must verbally repeat the indentifiers on EACH unit. IF they are not identical, the blood IS NOT RELEASED. All of this is routine in the hospital where attempts are being made to save your life after the car crash you were in. If you are brought to the hospital emergently while exanguinating (bleeding out), you'll likely be given fresh frozen plasma, type O negative, and not whole blood at first, but the net effect will be the same, your life may be saved due to the donor(s) who donated their blood (gay or straight). So please get educated about donor eligibility before you stand here outraged. This thread is about solid organ infection (a rarity) and has no relationship to blood donation. However, you made your point. Why not make it a FINAL condition, to say on your medical record that if the blood you require to save your life came from a 'gay' person, then you'll opt for death? That should satisfy your need for vilification of gay people for what would likely be your final decision in such a scenario. THINK!

Laos,

Yep!

Buche,

It has been proven in the past that HIV has been transmitted to patients via screened blood transfusion...............so keep your self rightous BS to yourself!

HIV has been transmitted by pooled blood products where hundred of donors were used (Anti D as Win Rho in thrombocytopenia, Factor 8, etc) and those at risk are those who need those products (TTP, ITP, etc.) know the risk yet require these products to avoid death or other comorbidity. Moreover, other transmission you refer to was prior to 1983 when the blood supply was not yet screening for blood borne pathogens.

While you deride my commentary, calling it self righteous BS - I consider your YOURS and laos' fearmongering to no therapeutic end. Having done medicine for nearly 3 decades and in VERY vascular surgical environments, your endorsement of the ban is obviously NOT rooted in science, but in hate and anger.

I will continue to post my beliefs and best medical opinion whenever the spirit moves me within the confines of the COH. I have NO intention of keeping ANY of my opinions in this thread to myself. However it must be acknowledged that NV is NOT a medical blog and nothing stated here can substitute for a visit with your own physician.

How could the doctors/hospital know? This was a rare disease, not something that anyone expects to be screened for. Otherwise I would agree with you.

If the pet store had any indication that it was selling sick animals then it may be a valid case.

"In fact, in my lab, we assume any and all pet store or wild rodents have LCMV and therefore no one in our lab is allowed to own rodents because we might pass it on to the uninfected animals we work with . . ."

Then this disease is not so rare.

fgh: It's rare in humans; it's common it rodents.

Summer-1597193, right, but it's occurence is common.

fgh: It's occurrence is only common in rodents. In humans, it's occurrence is very rare. In fact, there is no approved test for LCMV in humans. Blood tests for humans that test for current or previous infections are inaccurate. There is a test developed for testing congenital cases - however, the virus isn't always present in the blood or CSF. Diagnosis of LCMV in humans typically comes from history and physical - as that is just as accurate as laboratory tests. Not everyone that gets infected has any symptoms. Those that do get infected typically develop symptoms 8 -13 days after infection. They experience biphasic fever. The first phase of symptoms really appear to be very viral like - sore throat, fever, malaise, aches, etc. The second phase is more serious since it can include meningitis, encephalitis, and or acute hydrocephalus. It has also been associated (though very rarely) with myelitis and myocarditis. The mortality rate with LCMV in humans is less than 1%. Also, the virus is cleared by humans - it doesn't linger in the system. So, once the symptoms are gone, plus a few days, the virus is gone. Now, someone with a suppressed immune system, like organ recipients, are going to be at a higher risk of infection, complications and even death than someone with a relatively normal immune system.

When you come down to it - given the rarity of LCMV in humans, the need for a human LCMV test is really not very great. Basically, in order for a organ recipient to get LCMV from an infected organ - they would have to receive an organ from a donor that got the virus and donated (either postmortem or live donation) that wasn't showing any symptoms at the time of the donation.

It's also not practical to test all rodents in a pet store for LCMV - many rodents have them. The most a pet store can do is advise purchasers of rodents that rodents do carry this disease that can rarely be passed onto humans. They could also describe what the symptoms of the illness are.

Have you read the history on typhoid mary?

native american: Are you asking me that question? Yes, I've read the history on Typhoid Mary. It's an interesting piece of history - sad, but interesting.

yes summer i was asking you. Mary was never ill herself she was a carrier of typhoid and spread the disease where she went. I wonder how they found her? maybe the scientist,physicians and teachers were all smarter and the medical facility's were better than what we have today?

They figured out the same way the often times figure things out today - they find out how the disease is spread, they see who/what is the common factor. In her case specifically, she was a cook - 53 people that she had contact with got sick (three of whom died). It's really a matter of connect the dots on things like tracing it back to "patient 0" so to speak. On autopsy - it was confirmed via testing that she was indeed a carrier. In her case, it is thought that she might have been a congenital carrier of Typhoid - her mother had Typhoid fever when she was pregnant w/ her.

If you're wondering why it's harder to find LCMV than the bacteria that causes typhoid, well, you'd have to think about a few things about these pathogens. LCMV is a virus - it is much smaller than a bacteria. Viruses typically require an electron microscope to be visualized - so serology, immunoblots, PCR assays, etc. can be used instead of visualizing the virus. Bacteria are pretty easy to see with a compound microscope and proper staining - I've done it many many many times myself. The serology, immunoblots, PCR assays, etc. aren't terribly difficult to perform (I've done a lot of these also) - however, with time to pay the technicians and material required to carry out the test, it becomes a cost issue. However, when the virus is not one that typically infects humans (such as LCMV) - then there is little to no incentive to create good lab tests to detect that virus. When there is limited financial resources and little demand - then the tests don't get developed. For LCMV, there is virtually no demand for accurate human tests since it isn't a typical human pathogen.

It's not that scientists, physicians, teachers were all smarter and medical facilities were better than what we have today. In fact, one could seriously argue that facilities are much better today. There is a lot more knowledge today than there was even 10 years ago. I wouldn't say that scientists, physicians, teachers were smarter years ago either - they had a different knowledge set that was used. Some things from "way back when" still work; some things not so much.

No, this was not a bad risk. These cases were based on the decisions of a foolish medical staff.

GOD Bless you Scottc. Dialysis is not easy. I hope that your doctors will try a transplant and that all goes well for you soon. You're in my Prayers.

Scottc - your misery in dialysis is well know to those who suffer it's travail. You will find a kidney to match. Many are considered less than ideal candidates and you are relatively young so do not despair. Loving family and supportive friends can make all the difference, as can outreach often available via social services. Your message of how those with excellent renal health take ADLs for granted is poignant indeed. If we can stay in the moment and appreciate simple gifts like walking to the mailbox and enjoying a large glass of ice water on a hot day without fluid restrictions we will have made your suffering and that of so many others meaningful and placed our own blessings in their proper perspective.

What you seek and need will come to you. Take the best care of yourself and I admire your resolve.

I hope you will recover soon. Consider going to a thyroid specialist and allergy specialist.

If they work together as in my case your immune system may be improved.

Stay with the kidney specialist also transfer records among the three of them.

I had damage to my thyroid my doctor said was from my allergy's. He did a blood test. then sent me to a specialist helping me to control my allergys and asthma.

I turned my hot water tank to 130 degrees bought several air cleaners as per doctor hand out. Also special linens for dust mites and the new blue light devices to sanitize the air in my home. For the mold allergy i have trouble the entire eastern usa has high level of mold hard to avoid that so i take the medication prescribed. it has almost been a year and the original physician will soon recheck the blood. I have also been taking armour thyroid to help repair the damage done. My hair is growing back i had not noticed it thinning. I can see a big difference now.

For those who can afford it, there are interior designers who specialize in allergy-free environments.

Dear scottc, may god bless you and heal you. A new procedure is being done with two transplants at the same time. the organ that is failing and a donor bone marrow. Getting a new pancreas at the same time might be a good idea.this way you still have your bone marrow and the donors marrow with both immune system so good no anti-rejection drugs needed. i am unsure of the statistics but sounds great to not have to take a bunch of pills. i hope you try the allergy control methods. oops my biggest allergy was too wheat. diagnosing that was by chance when i went on the atkins diet for two yrs and the inflammation went away in my body. when i took a bite of any bread my abdomen would visibly swell up within minutes. breaking the wheat addiction is difficult now i understand what drug addicts and alcoholics are dealing with. the body wants it and the brain has to stay focused not to be sucked back into the old habits. very hard. i am a chocoholic also. lol