2-year-old denied kidney transplant because father violated probation

LIVEFRMNYC

macrumors 604
Original poster
Oct 27, 2009
7,433
8,607
So they're going to let a child die over some nonsense? :mad::mad::mad:

I don't even understand what the father's probation has to do with his son's kidney transplant.

Where are the so-called pro-lifers on this one?


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/aj-burgess-kidney-transplant-father-probation-violation-emory-hospital-atlanta/
"The lady said we need your parole information and your probation info. He said 'why?' We need you to be on good behavior for three to four months before you can give your son the kidney. And January 2018 we will think about re-evaluating you basically," Carmella said.



 

Zenithal

macrumors G3
Sep 10, 2009
9,033
10,115
Hospitals deny it because of the increased risk of infectious diseases. A 24 hour hold has minimal risk. Anything in excess and in general population increases risks. A child can't fight illness after a transplant as well as an adult. This is for patient safety. Not punishing the parents.

He could be infected with something and it not showing up in tests for 6-12 weeks.
 

Scepticalscribe

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Jul 29, 2008
45,590
30,787
The Far Horizon
Hospitals deny it because of the increased risk of infectious diseases. A 24 hour hold has minimal risk. Anything in excess and in general population increases risks. A child can't fight illness after a transplant as well as an adult. This is for patient safety. Not punishing the parents.

He could be infected with something and it not showing up in tests for 6-12 weeks.
Hm.

While I would argue that what you have written is true - utterly true - and probably completely justifiable on medical grounds, I would also have to pose the question whether this is the decision that would have been taken were the kid from a white, upper middle class family.

In other words, I wonder whether, and to what extent, (sub-consciously, of course) considerations of race and class may have kicked in when this decision was made.
 

Zenithal

macrumors G3
Sep 10, 2009
9,033
10,115
Hm.

While I would argue that what you have written is true - utterly true - and probably completely justifiable on medical grounds, I would also have to pose the question whether this is the decision that would have been taken were the kid from a white, upper middle class family.

In other words, I wonder whether, and to what extent, (sub-consciously, of course) considerations of race and class may have kicked in when this decision was made.
It wouldn't matter. If the hospital goes through with it and the child is found to be infected, then both the hospital and medical professionals during the operation would come under legal scrutiny. Medical professionals been been taken to the cleaners for far less and far more innocent actions. The family may have agreed to it, but the onus is on the medical professionals.
 

LIVEFRMNYC

macrumors 604
Original poster
Oct 27, 2009
7,433
8,607
Hospitals deny it because of the increased risk of infectious diseases. A 24 hour hold has minimal risk. Anything in excess and in general population increases risks. A child can't fight illness after a transplant as well as an adult. This is for patient safety. Not punishing the parents.

He could be infected with something and it not showing up in tests for 6-12 weeks.

How does that correlate with a probation violation? Especially since he was in violation of weapons possession, not any drug or substance usage. They already had him at go status, why the need to evaluate based on probation violation?

And why no comment, when they could have explain the reason, if it was true. I'm not buying the reason you posted at all. (no offense to you)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ronntaylor

Zenithal

macrumors G3
Sep 10, 2009
9,033
10,115
How does that correlate with a probation violation? Especially since he was in violation of weapons possession, not any drug or substance usage. They already had him at go status, why the need to evaluate based on probation violation?

And why no comment, when they could have explain the reason, if it was true. I'm not buying the reason you posted at all. (no offense to you)
I just explained it to you in very simple English. He was in jail. He'd been out for months. He'd been tested by the hospital and he'd been screened for any activity in his blood. When he violated his parole, it likely sent him to jail for a few days to whatever period the courts decided. Because of this, the period in which he'd been out of jail and had been constantly screened by the hospital was reset.


Let me give you an example of why this is so crucial.

HIV takes anywhere from 4-6 weeks to develop antibodies that show up in a text. 12 weeks post incarceration is the golden window.
HAV has a maximum window of 50 days.
HBV has a maximum window of 6 months. Symptoms begin on average at 4 months.


There was a time in global history when we didn't have these limits in place. Testing of donated blood wasn't done either. What happened? A lot of people got infected and died as a result. This isn't a hospital guideline. This is an FDA and CDC guideline. On the opposite side of the problem and forgetting the daughter for a moment, if the father was ill and had to go through UNOS for an organ transplant, he would have been denied and kicked to the end of the wait list.


Yes, it sucks, it sucks that this father can't help his little girl out and it sucks this little girl has to wait. At the end of the day, they're looking out for the health of that girl. There is literally no surgeon who'll touch his organs and give it to someone else or the daughter. They're free to go to another country and have it done, though. They assume all risk in that event.
[doublepost=1509348888][/doublepost]Additionally, post surgery, you're put on immunosuppressants. That's not a good mix with those three major diseases out of a few dozen that could be present in the donor's organ and blood.
 

LIVEFRMNYC

macrumors 604
Original poster
Oct 27, 2009
7,433
8,607
I just explained it to you in very simple English. He was in jail. He'd been out for months. He'd been tested by the hospital and he'd been screened for any activity in his blood. When he violated his parole, it likely sent him to jail for a few days to whatever period the courts decided. Because of this, the period in which he'd been out of jail and had been constantly screened by the hospital was reset.


Let me give you an example of why this is so crucial.

HIV takes anywhere from 4-6 weeks to develop antibodies that show up in a text. 12 weeks post incarceration is the golden window.
HAV has a maximum window of 50 days.
HBV has a maximum window of 6 months. Symptoms begin on average at 4 months.


There was a time in global history when we didn't have these limits in place. Testing of donated blood wasn't done either. What happened? A lot of people got infected and died as a result. This isn't a hospital guideline. This is an FDA and CDC guideline. On the opposite side of the problem and forgetting the daughter for a moment, if the father was ill and had to go through UNOS for an organ transplant, he would have been denied and kicked to the end of the wait list.


Yes, it sucks, it sucks that this father can't help his little girl out and it sucks this little girl has to wait. At the end of the day, they're looking out for the health of that girl. There is literally no surgeon who'll touch his organs and give it to someone else or the daughter. They're free to go to another country and have it done, though. They assume all risk in that event.
[doublepost=1509348888][/doublepost]Additionally, post surgery, you're put on immunosuppressants. That's not a good mix with those three major diseases out of a few dozen that could be present in the donor's organ and blood.

Thanks for explaining. But it's still highly suspicious Emory couldn't give a statement explaining so, without breaking patient confidentiality.

I'll be looking into this more.

It also doesn't make sense to automatically assume a donor's stay in jail is more of a risk vs a donor that hasn't has a stay in jail. They are both essentially strangers that can say anything to the medical staff. It's pretty bias on Emory's part, if your reason is the true reason.
 

A.Goldberg

macrumors 68020
Jan 31, 2015
2,327
7,657
Boston
Generally speaking any signs of “non-compliance” make transplant boards very, very nervous. If this guy can’t follow the rules of his probation, how can they trust him to follow the other guidelines they will ask of him. I’d have to assume the medical opinion of the board is that the fathers noncompliance outweighs the immediate need of the transplant.

It’s a rather cruel situation to be put in. On the one hand, this may just be the system functioning automatically without regard being given to the case. On the other hand, failure to follow legal probation does raise the question can he follow the required medical advice. I question how imminently the organ transplant is required. Obviously this stressful situation, but people can do surprisingly well on dialysis (not that I’d wish that upon anyone).

Ultimately these rules are designed to give the organ the best chance of success. But I don’t think the son needs to pay for the sins of his father. Hopefully this can all be worked out and everyone goes on to live a happy, healthy life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zenithal

Zenithal

macrumors G3
Sep 10, 2009
9,033
10,115
Thanks for explaining. But it's still highly suspicious Emory couldn't give a statement explaining so, without breaking patient confidentiality.
Emory doesn't make the laws. Their policies are governed by HIPPA. You violate it, even a smidgen, you get reamed.

It also doesn't make sense to automatically assume a donor's stay in jail is more of a risk vs a donor that hasn't has a stay in jail. They are both essentially strangers that can say anything to the medical staff. It's pretty bias on Emory's part, if your reason is the true reason.
Not quite. With incarceration, a 1 day incarceration increases the risks of bloodborne or airborne diseases making its way into the donor. After a few days, the risk chance is so great because of the major gap between possible infection to reactive blood.

You're right... to a point. When you sign up to be a donor through the DMV or whatever your state calls it, you give authority to the state to donate your organs. When you die, your organs are harvested with permission by your next of kin, they'll begin harvesting. At which point tests get run and your medical history is retrieved. If the tests are fine and the history has major gaps or issues, they often reject the organs. Now if you actively donate to a stranger, it goes through UNOS, and they run batteries of tests on you. While it doesn't eliminate the risk of complication, it's so minute that it makes very little difference. Major diseases that could cripple a patients other organs or kill them won't be around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yaxomoxay

LIVEFRMNYC

macrumors 604
Original poster
Oct 27, 2009
7,433
8,607
Emory doesn't make the laws. Their policies are governed by HIPPA. You violate it, even a smidgen, you get reamed.



Not quite. With incarceration, a 1 day incarceration increases the risks of bloodborne or airborne diseases making its way into the donor. After a few days, the risk chance is so great because of the major gap between possible infection to reactive blood.

You're right... to a point. When you sign up to be a donor through the DMV or whatever your state calls it, you give authority to the state to donate your organs. When you die, your organs are harvested with permission by your next of kin, they'll begin harvesting. At which point tests get run and your medical history is retrieved. If the tests are fine and the history has major gaps or issues, they often reject the organs. Now if you actively donate to a stranger, it goes through UNOS, and they run batteries of tests on you. While it doesn't eliminate the risk of complication, it's so minute that it makes very little difference. Major diseases that could cripple a patients other organs or kill them won't be around.

Thanks again for explaining.

Now for argument's sake. I would say the same(if not worst) risk can be had for donors that travel public transportation or work in a school, medical, restaurant, and etc environment. I personally think the NYC Subways are more risky than a stay in jail. LOL

I do agree with Scepticalscribe, in questioning whether all possible forms of discretion was used to the child's benefit.

One last thing ..... I think when it comes to family donors, the family should have the final say.
 

Zenithal

macrumors G3
Sep 10, 2009
9,033
10,115
Now for argument's sake. I would say the same(if not worst) risk can be had for donors that travel public transportation or work in a school, medical, restaurant, and etc environment. I personally think the NYC Subways are more risky than a stay in jail. LOL
Except as stated you're still tested. Constantly.

I do agree with Scepticalscribe, in questioning whether all possible forms of discretion was used to the child's benefit.
Except this is happened before. It's happened with Whites. Asians. Middle Easterners. You name it.
One last thing ..... I think when it comes to family donors, the family should have the final say.
That's not a wise decision. In these circumstances, parents or family members let their emotions get the best of them. An emotionally compromised individual is not one who can make rational, life-changing decisions. Regardless, even if the parents wanted to, the hospital and providers have the final say if it poses a risk, regardless of chance, to the receiving patient. Additionally, even if allowed, if something went wrong, the law doesn't protect the hospital or medical providers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yaxomoxay

LIVEFRMNYC

macrumors 604
Original poster
Oct 27, 2009
7,433
8,607
Except as stated you're still tested. Constantly.
Yes but like you mentioned, they wouldn't have to wait an extra 4 months for being in those same higher risk environments that I mentioned.


Except this is happened before. It's happened with Whites. Asians. Middle Easterners. You name it.
I was thinking more on the line of financial class.


That's not a wise decision. In these circumstances, parents or family members let their emotions get the best of them. An emotionally compromised individual is not one who can make rational, life-changing decisions. Regardless, even if the parents wanted to, the hospital and providers have the final say if it poses a risk, regardless of chance, to the receiving patient. Additionally, even if allowed, if something went wrong, the law doesn't protect the hospital or medical providers.
Yea, but there can't be a one size fits all regulation. There should be some type of exception for the family donors, for the medical staff to weigh the chance of the receiver's survival during the wait period against normal regulation procedures. Which I truly think they would have done if the family was wealthy.
 

Zenithal

macrumors G3
Sep 10, 2009
9,033
10,115
Yes but like you mentioned, they wouldn't have to wait an extra 4 months for being in those same higher risk environments that I mentioned.
Let me make this clear once again, because you have a very difficult time understanding what I'm saying.

People not in prison and willing to donate = Tested. Constantly. Organs can be rejected with whim. Person have a cold or flu? No go.
Prison for 3 days or 2 weeks = 6 to 12 month wait.

We do things for a reason. A familial match is the best pairing you can get. The second best is someone really close to the patient. This isn't the movies or a TV show. There's always backup donors. The family can go through UNOS via a wait list. First come, first serve. Or they can find someone who's a familial match.

Again, to repeat.

DMV/License Donor Dot = Your organs may or may not be harvested depending on condition and testing done while your body is on a ventilator to keep your body functioning. Your brain may be dead, but your organs are still working mthrough mechanical means. If the test is great but you have major gaps in your medical history or serious health issues, you're rejected.

If you actively choose to donate while alive, which is a big feat in itself, you go through testing. Again, this isn't the movies. You're not cut up the next day. It'll take a few weeks if you've got a solid medical history. If it's life or death, UNOS works with medical providers to get you urgent care.

I was thinking more on the line of financial class.
At a single hospital? No. The only advantage the very wealthy have are paying for tests at multiple hospitals and being able to fly or pay the hospital for private transportation at a moments notice. Otherwise, they're just like anyone else and go on the UNOS list. Like I said, first come first serve.

Yea, but there can't be a one size fits all regulation. There should be some type of exception for the family donors, for the medical staff to weigh the chance of the receiver's survival during the wait period against normal regulation procedures. Which I truly think they would have done if the family was wealthy.
In a life or death situation where UNOS can't find a match, the hospital may risk it. They and their legal team as well as your insurance carrier will have you sign paperwork indemnifying them and waiving all rights and privileges for legal recourse. Though, even then, this doesn't necessarily protect them from you. In the end, rich or poor, the hospital, medical providers and medical groups who come together to provide care (doctors work in groups) won't risk their careers on it.

As I said, you're free to go to another country that doesn't place as much emphasis on transplant success as the US. You're free to take that risk. You're also free to get lawmakers to change the current attitude on transplants. Phone up the CDC tomorrow and open a dialogue with them about this if you feel so strongly about it. Or donate your kidney to this kid if you're a match.


And before you ask, eventually, if you're of age and wealthy, and smoke or drink or do any drug as a recipient, you're kicked to the back of the list. Transplants are no joke. It's a very dangerous operation that requires immense skill from your transplant team and the very best of conditions for both donor and recipient. Additionally, all post-ops require the use of immunosuppressant drugs. So a donor's body that's already weak and recovering from surgery now has to deal with any non-sterile issue in their body and outside. These drugs make it so you don't die and cause your innate organs to fail if your body begins rejecting and attacking the transplanted organ.

I mean, it's up to this family if they want to risk a very high chance of their little girl dying. Doctor take an oat to protect and help their patients. As far as I'm concerned this outcome is no one's fault but the father's. Who chose to engage in behavior that went against the guidelines for his probation. Knowing full well beforehand what would happen if he was caught, and what going back to jail meant.
 
Last edited:

LIVEFRMNYC

macrumors 604
Original poster
Oct 27, 2009
7,433
8,607
Let me make this clear once again, because you have a very difficult time understanding what I'm saying.

People not in prison and willing to donate = Tested. Constantly. Organs can be rejected with whim. Person have a cold or flu? No go.
Prison for 3 days or 2 weeks = 6 to 12 month wait.

We do things for a reason. A familial match is the best pairing you can get. The second best is someone really close to the patient. This isn't the movies or a TV show. There's always backup donors. The family can go through UNOS via a wait list. First come, first serve. Or they can find someone who's a familial match.

I understood very well what your saying. My point still stands. To make a donor and recipient wait an EXTRA 4 months based on a donors recent jail stay is bias. There is no proof of a higher risk or liability from a jail stay that's any more or less difference from someone that hasn't been to jail. A donor having sex with their spouse can be considered more of a risk. I doubt they ask the spouse of the donor if he or she is cheating while strapped to a lie detector. A stay in jail, which was probably only several days at best, is just as negligible of a risk as a classroom teacher.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ronntaylor

lowendlinux

macrumors 603
Sep 24, 2014
5,155
6,312
North Country (way upstate NY)
I understood very well what your saying. My point still stands. To make a donor and recipient wait an EXTRA 4 months based on a donors recent jail stay is bias. There is no proof of a higher risk or liability from a jail stay that's any more or less difference from someone that hasn't been to jail. A donor having sex with their spouse can be considered more of a risk. I doubt they ask the spouse of the donor if he or she is cheating while strapped to a lie detector. A stay in jail, which was probably only several days at best, is just as negligible of a risk as a classroom teacher.
You can't even give blood for 6 months after a stay in jail no matter how short
 
  • Like
Reactions: yaxomoxay

LIVEFRMNYC

macrumors 604
Original poster
Oct 27, 2009
7,433
8,607
You can't even give blood for 6 months after a stay in jail no matter how short
Damn, that's freaking retarded. I can understand on the basis of a specific charge, like substance abuse or sex crime. But for most other things it doesn't make sense. Do they think everyone that does a stay in jail is getting man handled or drinking toilet water?
 

lowendlinux

macrumors 603
Sep 24, 2014
5,155
6,312
North Country (way upstate NY)
Damn, that's freaking retarded. I can understand on the basis of a specific charge, like substance abuse or sex crime. But for most other things it doesn't make sense. Do they think everyone that does a stay in jail is getting man handled or drinking toilet water?
I don't know I always thought it was kinda silly myself but I couldn't give blood in basic training for that exact reason.
 

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Mar 3, 2010
3,611
24,543
Texas
Damn, that's freaking retarded. I can understand on the basis of a specific charge, like substance abuse or sex crime. But for most other things it doesn't make sense. Do they think everyone that does a stay in jail is getting man handled or drinking toilet water?
It seems that you’re unable to question your own point of view. You call the procedure retarded and say that it doesn’t make sense.
Maybe, and I say maybe, this procedure comes from years of testing? Years of experience? Years of legal battles? Lab verifications ? Maybe. Just maybe.

@Zenithal explained quite beautifully that despite the clickbait title and the sad story there is much more to it.
 

LIVEFRMNYC

macrumors 604
Original poster
Oct 27, 2009
7,433
8,607
It seems that you’re unable to question your own point of view. You call the procedure retarded and say that it doesn’t make sense.
Maybe, and I say maybe, this procedure comes from years of testing? Years of experience? Years of legal battles? Lab verifications ? Maybe. Just maybe.

@Zenithal explained quite beautifully that despite the clickbait title and the sad story there is much more to it.
Maybe isn't a good enough answer when a child's life is on the line. All I'm doing is asking questions for a solid answer. Without a legit answer, the rules Zenithal explained make no sense and seem bias. Unless someone can point to me specific examples and testing that people who have done a jail stay are more likely to be infected with an illness vs anyone else, I'm going to keep calling it like I see it.
 

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Mar 3, 2010
3,611
24,543
Texas
Maybe isn't a good enough answer when a child's life is on the line. All I'm doing is asking questions for a solid answer. Without a legit answer, the rules Zenithal explained make no sense and seem bias. Unless someone can point to me specific examples and testing that people who have done a jail stay are more likely to be infected with an illness vs anyone else, I'm going to keep calling it like I see it.
Again, it’s not bias. Where’s the bias? The father had to do one thing, and one thing only: stay out of jail. He didn’t do the only thing he was asked to do, so I would not blame the hospital who is doing what it is supposed to do.
Since the child’s life is in danger the hospital is not going to play with it. The kid is not an experimental tool to validate or disprove theories on the viability of jail population as organ donors. The risk is too high for both the father (which due to undetected infection can have problems), and to the kid (which could receive a sick organ). The hospital is also at risk, legally speaking.
I think that ultimately with better testing the medical community will be able to reduce wait times for inmate donors, but as of now the hospital did the only sensible thing.
 

SRLMJ23

Contributor
Jul 11, 2008
2,020
982
Central New York
I just explained it to you in very simple English. He was in jail. He'd been out for months. He'd been tested by the hospital and he'd been screened for any activity in his blood. When he violated his parole, it likely sent him to jail for a few days to whatever period the courts decided. Because of this, the period in which he'd been out of jail and had been constantly screened by the hospital was reset.


Let me give you an example of why this is so crucial.

HIV takes anywhere from 4-6 weeks to develop antibodies that show up in a text. 12 weeks post incarceration is the golden window.
HAV has a maximum window of 50 days.
HBV has a maximum window of 6 months. Symptoms begin on average at 4 months.


There was a time in global history when we didn't have these limits in place. Testing of donated blood wasn't done either. What happened? A lot of people got infected and died as a result. This isn't a hospital guideline. This is an FDA and CDC guideline. On the opposite side of the problem and forgetting the daughter for a moment, if the father was ill and had to go through UNOS for an organ transplant, he would have been denied and kicked to the end of the wait list.


Yes, it sucks, it sucks that this father can't help his little girl out and it sucks this little girl has to wait. At the end of the day, they're looking out for the health of that girl. There is literally no surgeon who'll touch his organs and give it to someone else or the daughter. They're free to go to another country and have it done, though. They assume all risk in that event.
[doublepost=1509348888][/doublepost]Additionally, post surgery, you're put on immunosuppressants. That's not a good mix with those three major diseases out of a few dozen that could be present in the donor's organ and blood.
I am a medical professional and I can 100% tell you that what Zenithal is saying is completely true. They are simply looking out for the childs wellbeing. I truly have sympathy for this family because I have kidney disease and once when I was 4 years old, my family started being tested to see if any of them were candidates for giving me a kidney and fortunately my kidneys started working again and I did not need a kidney. That was in 1989, and when I was older and asked my family members what it was like, they said the testing and questions that were asked were extremely thorough, I can only imagine what it is like now! It is done for a reason. They do not just give someone a kidney with testing the person it is coming from for the exact reason that Zenithal is talking about, diseases you may not know you have or possibly issues with your own kidneys that would prevent you from being a candidate. Smoke marijuana, shows up in your blood...probably ruled out.

From the CDC:

https://www.cdc.gov/transplantsafety/overview/faq.html

Most important part of what I linked to:

What are screening and testing requirements for organ and tissue donation?
Organ and tissue recovery organizations are required to obtain a medical and social history of deceased donors by asking their next-of-kin, and sometimes other persons who knew the potential donor, questions about: 1) behaviors that may have exposed the potential donor to certain diseases and 2) the potential donor’s past medical history. This questionnaire serves as one of several resources to assess the donor’s risk for having a disease.

Hospitals are required to evaluate living potential kidney donors for the presence of behaviors or medical history that may increase the risk of infection in the donor.

OPOs, tissue banks, and eye banks (and a small number of hospitals that perform organ recovery from kidney donors) are also required to perform certain tests to see if the potential donor may have infections, such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) , hepatitis B or hepatitis C virus, syphilis and cytomegalovirus (CMV). These test results are provided to the healthcare facility where transplantation of the organ or tissue will occur.

Just as Zenithal said, HIV, Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, and from the CDC, syphilis. Why are those diseases top priority? HIV is obvious, but a lot of people in jail/prison have HIV. Hepatitis A is easily transferred through food and is found in inmates a lot. Hepatitis B is transferred through the blood and dramatically effects the liver and is found in a lot of inmates. Syphilis, a sexually transmitted disease that is bacterial is transmitted by sexual intercourse (other ways to but not in play in this situation) and many inmates, especially ones that have come into jail recently have STD's, syphilis being a more popular one.

Like I said, I am a kidney patient and was once in this situation but was lucky and got out of it without needing a transplant and I truly feel for this family and little girl. Dialysis is no fun, you feel horrible after it and then two days later just as your starting to feel a little better its time for dialysis again. Terrible.

I pray for the family and this little girl, that she gets the kidney she needs and goes on to live a great, successful life.

:apple:
 

LIVEFRMNYC

macrumors 604
Original poster
Oct 27, 2009
7,433
8,607
Again, it’s not bias. Where’s the bias? The father had to do one thing, and one thing only: stay out of jail. He didn’t do the only thing he was asked to do, so I would not blame the hospital who is doing what it is supposed to do.
Since the child’s life is in danger the hospital is not going to play with it. The kid is not an experimental tool to validate or disprove theories on the viability of jail population as organ donors. The risk is too high for both the father (which due to undetected infection can have problems), and to the kid (which could receive a sick organ). The hospital is also at risk, legally speaking.
I think that ultimately with better testing the medical community will be able to reduce wait times for inmate donors, but as of now the hospital did the only sensible thing.
I already explained in my previous posts ..... Where is the evidence that someone doing a short jail stay(not prison) is at more of a risk vs everyone else?

I highly doubt they are telling those that work in the medical field, homeless shelters, schools, occupations working with animals, to take time off and wait an extra 4 months for clearance. So what is it about jail? If nobody can give me an actual clear answer, then I'm going to assume bias.

The father's actions were stupid, assuming he's guilty of the actual charge. But since it's not a substance or sex related incident, it shouldn't hinder his clearance.
 

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Mar 3, 2010
3,611
24,543
Texas
I already explained in my previous posts ..... Where is the evidence that someone doing a short jail stay(not prison) is at more of a risk vs everyone else?
Here’s one: Guidelines for Preventing HIV Through Transplantation of Human Tissue and Organs, CDC Recommendations and Reports, May 20, 1994 /43(RR-8); 1–17.

Here’s two: https://web.archive.org/web/20070616003127/http://hepatitismag.com/storydetail.asp?storyid=7

Here’s three: Simooya, Oscar O (2010). “Infections in Prisons” Open Infectious Diseases Journal. 4: 33–7.

Here’s four: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV Testing Implementation Guidance for Correctional Settings. January 2009: 1-38. Available at: http://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/5279.

And here’s a wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infectious_diseases_within_American_prisons

I highly doubt they are telling those that work in the medical field, homeless shelters, schools, occupations working with animals, to take time off and wait an extra 4 months for clearance. So what is it about jail? If nobody can give me an actual clear answer, then I'm going to assume bias.
Some occupations and some people can’t even donate blood (as myself).


The father's actions were stupid, assuming he's guilty of the actual charge. But since it's not a substance or sex related incident, it shouldn't hinder his clearance.
It’s not a matter of stupidity. It’s a matter of incompatibility with being on a donor list. He put himself in a very high risk environment. The type of accident that caused it is irrelevant.
 

LIVEFRMNYC

macrumors 604
Original poster
Oct 27, 2009
7,433
8,607
Here’s one: Guidelines for Preventing HIV Through Transplantation of Human Tissue and Organs, CDC Recommendations and Reports, May 20, 1994 /43(RR-8); 1–17.

Here’s two: https://web.archive.org/web/20070616003127/http://hepatitismag.com/storydetail.asp?storyid=7

Here’s three: Simooya, Oscar O (2010). “Infections in Prisons” Open Infectious Diseases Journal. 4: 33–7.

Here’s four: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV Testing Implementation Guidance for Correctional Settings. January 2009: 1-38. Available at: http://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/5279.

And here’s a wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infectious_diseases_within_American_prisons



Some occupations and some people can’t even donate blood (as myself).




It’s not a matter of stupidity. It’s a matter of incompatibility with being on a donor list. He put himself in a very high risk environment. The type of accident that caused it is irrelevant.


There is a clear difference from doing a several days in Jail vs doing time in Prison. Which is why I noted(Not Prison) in my previous statement.

There is also HCV along with other illness outbreaks in schools, shelters, and the medical field. Even in housing and lower income neighborhoods.

Again, I'm looking for a clear compassion of risk factors from those that had a stay in Jail vs others that could be in any close quartered populated environment.

I do wonder if a corrections officer as a donor would need to take leave from their job and wait an extra 4 months.
 

A.Goldberg

macrumors 68020
Jan 31, 2015
2,327
7,657
Boston
We also don’t know the fathers legal history. Perhaps his gun issues historically correlated with drug use. The thing with drug testing is its not perfect. Drugs can go undetected after just days. If there is any suspicion of drug use they may want to wait.

Again, as inconvient and scary as this is for the family, I doubt the hospital would risk the boys life unnecessarily. I’m not an expert in pediatric nephrology, but adults live for years without kidneys, living off dialysis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yaxomoxay