Health Canada’s recent decision, to disregard potential organs from men who have had sex with men in the last few years, has furthered the debate on public health policy and the inclusion of the gay community, specifically gay males. The announcement, made in December 2007, singles out a segment of the population on the predication that organs from practicing homosexuals are more likely to pose a risk of HIV transmission during an organ transplant.

Why did Health Canada decide that the organs from sexually active gay men were of higher risk, when no new studies have been undertaken on this issue, and there have been no new reported incidents? The last standardization of organ transplant methods was in 2003, however, Health Canada claims that this newly announced policy has been the practice for some time - that it has just now been formalized.

It is quite likely that the impetus for this policy change came from south of the border. In November, a Chicago hospital had reported that four organ transplant recipients, all of whom received organs from the same donor, tested positive for the HIV virus months after the transplants had taken place. It seemed that when the organs were first obtained from the donor the test had been negative. The virus went undetected in its dormant form, and thus the transplant procedures were subsequently carried out.

The Chicago incident highlighted an overlooked potential risk within the organ transplant process, namely that HIV can have a dormant period. Health Canada’s solution to this was to enact a blanket policy to refuse organs from all men who have had sex with other men within the last 5 years, with more than one partner. Although other categories of people are restricted from donating such as intravenous drug users, prostitutes, and people who have received a tattoo within the last 12 months, the restriction on gay men is far more severe and without any substantial evidence that they are a higher risk for transmitting HIV.

What many see as an altruistic act – giving an irreplaceable part of oneself to help those in distress - may in fact be a matter of staving off a potential health related liability. It is hard to forget the tainted blood scandal in the nineteen eighties. Considered one of the darkest moments in Canada’s history the blood scandal continues to haunt health professionals today. The last thing any public health agency in Canada needs is a tainted organ scandal; it would prove none other than disastrous.

The facts speak for themselves – that a transplant donor has a greater chance of dying waiting for an organ that they do of contracting HIV through a transplant. Over 250 people die each year in Canada waiting for transplants. With this new policy in place the organs from about seven perfectly healthy potential donors could automatically be discarded each year, putting a further premium on the amount of available organs in the country. But not only does this policy reduce the available organs, it still does not eliminate the possibly of HIV transmission; the policy cannot account for donors who are not forthcoming about their sexual experiences, or alternatively that relatives who may have to vouch for the donor, are not privy to every piece of personal information about their passing loved ones.

To say that there is no risk involved by using the organs of practicing homosexuals would be a fallacy. However, practicing gay men do not pose any greater threat than other sexually active human being. This whole situation is quite possibly a sign that the gay community needs to continue to remind the greater straight community about what HIV is, that they too can become infected, and how to avoid doing so.