24-year-old Corey Etevenaux suffered serious brain injury in a car accident last month in New Zealand.
After three days on life support, his mother Cherie Etevenaux made the difficult decision to turn the machines off.
Etevenaux contacted Organ Donation New Zealand to arrange for Corey’s heart valves and corneas to be donated to someone in need.
“Instead she told me they couldn’t take Corey’s heart valves or corneas because of his lifestyle,” Etevenaux says. “Eventually she said it was because he’s a homosexual man.”
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
“They would not take them because he was homosexual.”
Whaaaat?
“I was shocked about it and a little bit angry to start because I couldn’t believe that the staff at the hospital would put us through that,” Etevenaux continues.
“Corey was a fit, healthy young man and I thought his heart valves would have been snapped up. It just doesn’t make sense. There are people who are suffering out there and we could have potentially helped them.”
Organ Donation New Zealand donor coordinator Janice Langlands says the organization considers a range of risk factors when deciding whether to accept donations, including whether or not donors smoked, had tattoos, and their sexual partners.
“For somebody to get HIV or Hepatitis B or C from a corneal graft,” she says, “that is something most recipients wouldn’t want to get.”
Despite the fact that potential donors are tested for infectious diseases, Langlands adds, there is still a chance of something going undetected.
“There [are] a small number of weeks where a person might have an infection but it doesn’t show in the blood tests and that’s where we have to ask the question about social lifestyle factors as well.”
For the record: Etevenaux was not HIV-positive. Also, there are no instances of HIV being transferred from a donor to a recipient for more than 30 years.
“I know Corey would have loved to have helped someone,” Etevenaux says, “but some poor family has lost out.”
Related: FDA Decides You Shouldn’t Be Banned From Blood Donations For A Lifetime. Just A Year
troyfight
for fvck’s sake.
AlexEf
Somehow you’ve avoided mentioning his partner who was beside him all the time while in hospital
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/102105031/dying-tissue-donor-rejected-because-he-was-gay
danasummers845
like Timothy answered I am amazed that someone able to make $7869 in four weeks on the
computer . find out here…
hkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkj
Kieran
3 whole days on life support? Wow.
Corey was a young man. Give the guy at least a couple weeks to see if there is any improvement before you pull the plug.
Chris
Thank you doctor…
Bryguyf69
In many cases of massive trauma, no improvement is possible. And that was the unanimous opinion of everyone involved in his case. The fact is, brain tissue can’t be replaced or regrown once destroyed. In stroke, for example, the therapy is to re-route and retrain surviving areas of the brain to functionally substitute for the parts that died. And we’re only talking about small areas, e.g. the part that controls the left arm or speech. If the trauma is massive, e.g. a bad bullet wound or crushed brain, you can forget it. This guy was in a very bad vehicular accident. The doctors and loved ones made the right choice. There’s no need to waste resources and prolong the agony of loved ones.
Jaxton
What a horribly homophobic country New Zealand must be!!
Many countries also have homophobic blood banks.
AlexEf
Oh please. You have no idea what you are talking about.
JK 1984
New Zealand really isn’t homophobic as a country. We certainly have homophobic individuals and institutions (churches, “family” groups, usual type of suspects) but overall acceptance is good.
As for blood banks, it does make my blood boil (no pun intended) that as a gay man in a monogamous relationship for 10 years my blood is considered unclean yet a straight person can have sex with multiple people and get any disease and they are allowed to donate.
Having a safe blood is important, but risk factors should be weighed on the individual, not assigned based on sexuality.
Sam6969
It is all about cold, rational statistics, but if you happen to be in a faithful same-sex relationship, it sounds quite unfair. Corey was with his partner for almost two years, though we do not know, if it was an open relationship or not. Physicians won’t take the risks, if it is just for a corneal graft, tissue transplant and blood donation. However, for larger organs, they will take the risk, because it is life-saving for a patient.
Also, I learned those large organs can only be taken within 20 minutes after the person is switched off. If the person lives longer, their organs are not suitable for transplant anymore:
“Once life support is switched off, organs can be donated within 20 minutes but if a patient lives longer, large organs are unsuitable for transplanting.”
source: https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/352369/family-upset-by-tissue-donation-rejection
Sam6969
As he lived longer than 20 minutes, large organs could not be taken and as he was gay, likely not sexually abstinent for the past 12 months (a currently international rule), tissue and blood either.
Jaxton
Statistics aren’t always rational, sweetheart, especially if they classify individuals according to identity politics.
Illnesses are not determined by identity.
Sam6969
Jaxton, it is not (or no more, at least in western countries) about identity politics and prejudice, but sexual practices and the risks involved. The right medical word used is MSM (Male who have Sex with Men) and the statistics are based on international medical evidence.
Blood-borne viruses/infections (i.e. transmitted via blood) are highest in MSM (but also in drug users, sex workers and people who have had sexual intercourses in countries where there is a high prevalence of HIV and Hepatitis B), than in MSWO (Men who have Sex with Women Only).
Based on that fact, the main issue comes from testing blood samples and accurately detecting those viruses, as there is a window period, during which HIV and Hepatitis B are undetectable:
“Blood-borne viruses such as HIV and Hepatitis B do not show up in the blood straight away. This is often called the ‘window period’ between infection and detection and can vary from patient to patient. It is for that reason that an extended deferral period of 12 months was determined.”, wrote journalist Alexandra Phelan.
Most of western countries consider now a deferral period of 12 months, with the notable exception of the United Kingdom, who has a 3 months ban for MSM, since July 2017. They say tests have improved in detecting HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C and Syphilis. However, the other western countries consider there are still risks and not enough robust evidence to reduce that deferral time.
That’s why I initially said it is about cold, rational statistics (though the deferral time may vary) and assessment of the risks (aside from some countries being also likely prejudiced against LGBT)…which does not mean detection techniques and protocols cannot be improved in the future. They already have in the past (there used to be an MSM life-time ban in western countries, not so long ago).
It is still a long sexual abstinence and upsetting for some faithful MSM couples, but we must consider the bigger picture and not take things too personally. Hopefully, as scientific knowledge improves, bans will again be reduced and maybe lifted someday.
Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_who_have_sex_with_men_blood_donor_controversy
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/why-cant-gay-men-donate-blood-10426364.html
https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/wales-relax-rules-allow-gay-bi-men-donate-blood/
Bryguyf69
The donor coordinator said, ““For somebody to get HIV or Hepatitis B or C from a corneal graft…that is something most recipients wouldn’t want to get.”
—–
What a moronic comment. Of course, no one WANTS to get HIV or Hepatitis. I’ve always advocated allowing potential recipient to decide if they’re willing you take the “risk.” And in Corey’s case, my guess is that most people would be fine with him as a donor, given the extreme rarity of getting HIV or hepatitis fin cornea or valves, even if the donor was infected — which Corey wasn’t. What a waste of life-saving/improving organs.
chris33133
I guess the statement that undetectable = untransmittable doesn’t apply to tissue donation.
There are lots of cases where medicine “errs on the side of caution;” and, IMHO, causes more harm to the potential beneficiaries than good. I’m not sure if corneal and heart-valve donations (the specifics of this case) count to the point where the potential benefits are worth the risks, minimal as they (the risks) are. I’d have hoped that the medical teams would have told potential recipients and helped them to make informed decisions.
robert_moore
“Despite the fact that potential donors are tested for infectious diseases, Langlands adds, there is still a chance of something going undetected.”
I guess then that the only risk of something slipping through is if the donor is a gay man. Heterosexual people must be immune to things like STDs, hepatitis, or other diseases communicable through tissue.
Sam6969
No, it is obviously NOT specific to MSM (Men having Sex with Men), but the risks are proportionaly much higher for MSM, due to the sexual habits of many of them.
JK 1984
Sam 6969 that’s the issue though, having a blanket rule based on old research and not assessing people as individuals.
I am from NZ and have a relatively rare blood type which they were screaming out for donors a few years back, but because I am a MSM they wouldn’t consider it despite me being in a committed monogamous relationship for astound six years at the time.
Sam6969
JK 1984: sure, it is such a waste…
They most likely consider that if they include MSM in monogamous relationships, risks their partner cheating on them with other MSM at risk (without the donor knowing), are still higher than for other couples. So, they won’t take the risk.
Do not forget most countries’ objective is to reduce risks as much as they can.