Very Sad Organ Donation Situation

[realtraveller]

HIV transplant: Patient should assess risk :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Metro & Tri-State

Organ donation clearinghouse "Gift of Hope" knows donor is a gay man who had engaged in high risk behavior.

Organs test clean. No HIV found.

Gift of Hope discloses this to hospitals.

Patient claims, through her attorney, that she was not told.

Patient and three others now have HIV.

Why wouldn't the patients' doctors have informed them of all the potential risks of getting an organ from any particular donor?

If you were on the jury, would you find for the patient or the hospitals/doctors?

[pippadaisy[$]]

Probably the hospital. It's a sad story, but I'm willing to bet that the transplant patient heard "we have an organ" and didn't hear the "there are risks involved... let us lay them out for you."

[erik_kosberg]

...a kidney infected with HIV and hepatitis C...

...two blood tests showed no antibodies for HIV or hepatitis.

It's not at all clear from the story if anyone has proof that the kidney did indeed come from an infected man. Tests were done, no antibodies were found. So were the tests defective or has the patient contracted diseases in some way other than from the donor's kidney?

[pippadaisy[$]]

It's confirmed that it was from the donor, because all the other recipients of organs from this donor are also now HIV positive.

And it can take up to 12 weeks after infection for antibodies to show up on a test. The donor simply as infected no long before his death.

[jgibson2[$]]

People should be fully informed of the risks BEFORE they are placed on the donor recipient list.

Yes, this is sad, but nobody is on an organ recipient list unless they are really sick. I don't know how anti-rejection drugs impact the progress of HIV infection, and I don't know how the antivirals affect the donated organs, but I suspect that the recipients have a longer potential lifespan WITH the infected organs than with no transplant.

I also doubt that this one will make it to court.

[realtraveller]

A friend of a friend of mine is waiting for a kidney transplant. She is a 40 year old newly married woman. I think she'd rather go in for the three times weekly dialysis than take a kidney from a high risk donor.

Everyone in this case has the worst luck imaginable.

Will the case go to trial. Probably not, because most cases settle. The organ recipient's heirs will become multi-millionaires off the hospital's and doctor's insurance policies.

[jgibson2[$]]

Kathy,
You seem to think that these people will die before the cases settle. Might not happen.

HIV infection doesn't necessarily progress rapidly to AIDS. I don't know that they'll be millionaires in any case.

Worse luck than being dead already? Maybe, maybe not.

[theworm[$]]

Wow. Sad case and I really need to think about it for a while. I do agree that being HIV positive is not an express ticket to AIDS or death, but its a terrible outcome to a transplant. I just need to really decide how I feel about this - with all modern medicine improvements come substantial risk. I'm not sure how the risks should be handled.

[MrsNormanMaine[$]]

There is no such thing as a risk free medical procedure and, when bad things happen, it's not necessarily anyone's fault. Unfortunately, we live in a culture that is unwilling to accept these two basic facts.

Dr. MNM

[realtraveller]

One of the articles quoted the patients' attorney as saying that HIV complicates anti-rejection medication.

Doctors should inform patients of all risks of procedures, even remote risks. It's the patients decision and the patient's life.

It's just a very sad situation, from the young man who died to be the organ donor, to the people who needed transplants and now had the really rotten luck of getting infected organs, to the doctors and hospitals whose reputations are now tarnished.

[pippadaisy[$]]

I would be SHOCKED if the consent form didn't include the risk of HIV or other disease. My C-SECTION consents included the possibility because of the potential for transfusions.

[frazzledspice]

These people would most likely have died without the transplants, and, although it is very sad that they have contracted HIV because of their transplants, their lives have still been extended. (Glass half full instead of empty theory.)

But in the future, if such an organ becomes available for donation, the potential recipient should be fully informed that the donor had engaged in high-risk behavior and that, although no antibodies showed up in the tests, the tests are not foolproof. That way they are fully informed, and will make their choice aware of the potential risks.

[jgibson2[$]]

We don't actually know whether the patient who claims not to have been informed was in fact not informed. It is very likely that she signed a consent form which did not specifically state that the donor was known to engage in high risk behaviors (IOW, he and/or his family told the truth, unlike many people).

It is quite possible that the patient was TOLD and either does not remember or her attorney discovered that she didn't sign something with that information in it.

People have very convenient memories when things aren't in writing. Happens all the time.

They also sign consent forms without thoroughly thinking through all the possible consequences. The odds of actually getting infected organs from someone who engages in high risk behaviors, but who currently tests negative isn't really very high in comparison to the risk of dying because there's no organ available. I think most people would take the chance.