Sex offender denied chance to donate kidney

[okarol]

Sex offender denied chance to donate kidney

MON, 21 FEB 2011 7:00P.M.

There are 500 people on dialysis waiting for the organ that could give them their life back. There are nowhere near enough donors.
But if you needed a kidney - would you care where it came from?
Would you refuse it if it had once been the kidney of a murderer, or a sex offender?
Should an organ donor be judged on their medical suitability or on moral grounds?
This is a story about a healthy would-be donor - who says a recipient is not being given the chance of a new life because doctors have made a judgement about his character.
Watch the video. http://www.3news.co.nz/Sex-offender-denied-chance-to-donate-kidney/tabid/817/articleID/199196/Default.aspx

[MooseMom]

I'm baffled.  It sounds to me like the transplant center is more interesting in avoiding controversy and/or keeping their reputation well-polished than in saving lives.  If I lived in NZ and desperately needed a kidney, I'd be furious that the transplant center would be making choices for me.

[jbeany]

Okay, granted, he's a creep.  The idea that he's not allowed to donate doesn't necessarily track for me.  Although I do have to wonder if they rejected him before or after the required psych interview.  If the interview showed that his actual motivation was less about altruism and more about narcissism, or worse, forcing some kind of connection to someone who might feel the need to accept him regardless of his crimes, then the rejection makes more sense.  And of course, the transplant center can't come out and say "He's crazy for more reasons than just the obvious sex crimes."  because of the confidentiality reasons.

[MooseMom]

How can you force acceptance if the recipient remains anonymous?  Does an altruistic donor automatically have the right to know who received his kidney?  I can't imagine that is true.

While I certainly don't condone his actions, I'd bet that a lot of men have done what he has done...chatting to what who they believe are young girls online and engaging in fantasy.  Are there levels of sexual offense?  Is there a difference between a rapist and a guy who is essentially just an online creep?  This guy never even met any of the people to whom he was chatting up online; I suspect this is a scenario that is universal, but I may be wrong because I'm not male and don't really know.

Yes, there may be more to this story that can't be revealed because of confidentiality issues, but then again, there may not be.  Furthermore, what happens the next time a less than savory character wants to be an altruistic donor.  What if this creepy guy was a potential recipient?  If he's not a deserving donor, would he be a deserving recipient?  Do we have to put all donors on a pedestal?  Do we have the right to turn them into epic heroes when they may be less than perfect?  Who are we to judge these people? 

This guy stated that he was not offering a kidney out of a desire for absolution, but would that be a "bad" reason to donate?  If someone has committed a crime and wants to find a way to attone for it, and if he would like to save someone's life by offering a kidney, is that wrong?  This particular man will soon finish his parole and will have served his legally imposed sentence, but what if he still feels like he wants to make amends for what he did and still want to do that via kidney donation?  If there is no medical reason to refuse him, what's wrong with absolution?

Discuss...

[cariad]

It sounds like he's doing this as a way to be re-accepted into society. When she asked if he was doing it for absolution, you could tell he did not think he had done anything wrong, so it would not be that, but more to have this counterbalance to his crimes that are so detested by people in most of the world.

Anyone who thinks an eleven year old girl "got as much out of it as I did" is mentally ill in one of the more sickening ways. They probably have rejected him on psychiatric grounds. He makes a good case for himself most of the time, but when he earnestly states that these encounters were consensual, one can instantly see how out of touch with reality he is. I don't know about New Zealand, but such a person would be rejected in the US as well. For publicity's sake, the hospital should probably just test him and then make up some medical excuse why he cannot donate, but I'm sure they won't, because that would be unethical.

Interesting case!

[monrein]

What an unnecessary palaver all this is in my opinion.  I would absolutely accept his kidney as long as it checked out from the perspective of health, he should be not receive all this silly publicity, the hospital should refuse all comment on the case, and of course he should receive no special considerations with regard to his sentence or parole conditions. 

I see no ethical objections based on the information presented and he made a lot of sense to me in his interview regarding the need for healthy kidney donation.  His sexual fantasies are a whole other ball of wax and he could well have recuperated from surgery in prison and taxpayers would have received something for their money by getting someone off of costly dialysis. 

I feel quite sure that many organ donors have at some point in their lives been unethical and perhaps downright immoral.  Good deeds can be done by those who are also guilty of bad deeds and we human beings are complex indeed. 

[kyshiag]

I didn't watch the video but I see it like this:  If the guy made a mistake and is trying to get his life together and wants to make this donation from a good spot. I say allow him.  If he's a nut and can't make those types of decisions for himself, then don't take it.  Many organization would accept a monetary donation from him.

[cariad]

I think it's the no remorse and no indication that he understands his crime that will see him rejected from any organ donor program. I do not believe it has anything to do with judging him or putting donors on a pedestal. He is mentally ill. It would be unethical to take advantage of his offer. If he doesn't understand that these are not consensual encounters, what else would he not understand? That people won't necessarily forgive him just for being an organ donor? In the end, it does sound to me like they have his best interests in mind. He struck me as utterly round the bend. If he were to die and donate his organs, I would probably accept one. It has nothing to do with not wanting to accept a less-than-holy kidney. Perhaps they could offer him treatment for his delusions, rather than imprisonment? Then I could see him going on to be a live donor.

I know both of my donors very well, and they are both far from saints. At one dark period of our marriage, Gwyn said that he wanted to donate to me to get a second chance. I shouted back at him "then you can't donate at all!" That would be totally unethical of me to accept a kidney from someone with some tacit promise that I would stay in a marriage or love them more or whatever. It took some time for him to understand why that comment freaked me out so entirely, but he gets it now. Some people need to be saved from themselves, and this particular individual strikes me as one of them.

[jbeany]

How can you force acceptance if the recipient remains anonymous?  Does an altruistic donor automatically have the right to know who received his kidney?  I can't imagine that is true.

That's just it - I don't know how NZ does it, but I doubt the Gift of Life organization here does things much differently.  They exchange anonymous letters for a certain period of time, and then when everyone has gotten far enough in the process, the donor (or donor's family) and recipient can choose to exchange names.  The sex offender has no obligation to tell the recipient about his crime in the initial letters.  The doctors wouldn't be allowed to reveal that info.  Really, what recipient isn't eventually going to want to meet the person who got them off D?  And once those names are exchanged, there's no deleting that information.  So the idea that he's looking for something, some kind of acceptance in spite of his crimes, from recipient would set off all kinds of red flags for me if I was the social worker or whomever was doing the psych interview.

[MooseMom]

Really, what recipient isn't eventually going to want to meet the person who got them off D?  And once those names are exchanged, there's no deleting that information. 

Maybe the recipient can make that choice from him/herself.  Just because s/he may WANT to meet the recipient doesn't mean that s/he must.  Perhaps the donor doesn't want to be identified.  Maybe as a condition of donation, the donor could be told there would be no name-exchanging, and the recipient could be told as much as legally possible about the donor and THEN the recipient could decide for him/herself whether or not s/he wanted a kidney from this particular person with this particular history.  The transplant center is abusing its power and is making an awful lot of life-changing decisions for at least two people without any reason based on clinical outcome.

I suspect that this man's behaviour does not classify him as "mentally ill."  His behaviour was criminal according to NZ law, but criminal behaviour is not the same as mental illness.

 I understand not wanting to accept a kidney from a husband who is trying to get a "second chance" in a marriage that is going through a rough patch, but I don't know what that has to do with this particular situation.  Chances are this man's kidney would go to a middled aged diabetic guy who has no ties whatsoever to him.  I don't understand why this man's reasons for wanting to donate are so suspect.  Are transplant centers now going to be units from the thought police?  Who are they to decide if this man needs to be saved from himself?  Granted, like another poster said, there may be reasons not divulged to us for rejecting this donor, but if there are, the reporter should have said so or should not have reported the story at all.  But if the only reason they are not letting someone's life be saved by a transplant is because the potential donor chatted up underaged girls online, then I am astonished.  I need a kidney and I don't really care if the donor is some perv who got his jollies writing sexually fantastic stories.  Give the kidney to me!  I'll take it and I won't care one whit what anyone else thinks.

[RichardMEL]

The only potential objection I might have, or minor (and I stress MINOR) concern is the grey issue of "genetic memory" - hear me out people!! You know the stories that waft around from time to time - that Mr X was donated a kidney from his wife and all a sudden loved to shop and knit as she does, or Ms Y who got a cadaveric kidney and started to have cravings for pizza and beer when she never used to, and it turned out the donor lived on pizza and beer.....

obviously you can see where I am going with that.

I'm not saying I believe that it exists, or doesn't, but there are enough stories to make me think of it in the context that COULD one's behaviour be altered in a similar way? If a murderer/sex offender/criminal/etc donated a kidney and something of that was passed on..... is that then fair to the recipient? to society?


Like I said.. MINOR thought. After all I have danny and the only craving I have is for Mars Bars!! The only harm that is doing is to my girth and weight! 

As for the issue of an offender trying to "get back in the good books" - ouch that's such a difficult one. I mean at the core you don't REALLY know how sincere they are, or if the they'd always had the thought to donate a kidney, or it's a stunt of sorts, or what. In a way the psych test would probably rule them out on some grounds anyway - no?

A tough one from a number of angles, I feel.

[MooseMom]

Richard, you were on dialysis for four years, right?  FOUR YEARS having to sit in that chair with needles in your arms, having to watch every sip you took, every bite of food.  Four years waiting for that call.  Four years watching others get the call while you did not.  If someone at your transplant center came to you and said, "Look, mate...we have this altruistic donor who we think would be a great match for you.  Trouble is, he spent some time in jail because he was caught chatting up underaged girls online and then writing stories about the encounters..."  Richard, would you have turned that kidney down? 

[RichardMEL]

Richard, you were on dialysis for four years, right?  FOUR YEARS having to sit in that chair with needles in your arms, having to watch every sip you took, every bite of food.  Four years waiting for that call.  Four years watching others get the call while you did not.  If someone at your transplant center came to you and said, "Look, mate...we have this altruistic donor who we think would be a great match for you.  Trouble is, he spent some time in jail because he was caught chatting up underaged girls online and then writing stories about the encounters..."  Richard, would you have turned that kidney down?

for THAT specifically? no. I guess I was thinking more generally.

Anyway how many times did I write MINOR? I meant minor (and damnit, no pun intended with regards to the guy referred to in the story :O ).

Anyway it seems that any recipient didn't get the chance to turn the kidney down because the transplant folks wouldn't allow it - which seems to be the core issue(and I agree it is an issue). Surely it should be for a recipient to decide if they are comfortable or not with getting an organ from a source they may or may not have a concern with (on whatever grounds).

MM I'm sorry I have the feeling my general musings on the topic of genetic memory(which is a bit of a reach and OT to this discussion anyway) may have upset or offended you - if I did I apologise.

[MooseMom]

Oh gosh, no...I'm not offended in the least by the whole genetic memory thing!!  There have been so many creepy movies and stories about this sort of thing that I'd bet a lot of potential recipients at least think about it.

What offends me is exactly what you've pointed out, that potential recipients aren't even getting the chance to decide if they'd accept a kidney from this man.  I wonder if sometimes transplant centers get carried away with their life-or-death power.  The people that make these decisions probably don't think much about the day to day burden of dialysis.  They know in theory these people are ill, but they aren't forced to live with dialysis themselves, and I wonder if they lose sight of what dialysis really means.

(I did sound rather aggressive, didn't I?!  Sorry, I didn't realize I was posting in that tone! )

[cariad]

I just rewatched it, and it said he was also convicted of child pornography. I am not sure what that means exactly, but it sounds like it was a separate charge. I am thinking this is how Gary Glitter got his start. Sex offenders love to talk about how it is a victimless crime to look at perverted pics of kids. I think we can all agree that it isn't, and that the drive to do something like that speaks to an underlying mental illness that desperately needs treatment.

Anyway, MM, if you're saying that parts of the transplant eval need a serious overhaul - welcome to my world. I've been saying this for ages and ages. However, I think altruistic donors will always be more fully scrutinized, as it should be. Have you read Jenna's story from the LA times? The thing that stuck with me most were the contacts from live donors that wanted something in return, I believe one said he wanted "a family again" or something sinister like that. A more savvy manipulator would not necessarily come out and say something like this, and therefore that would have to be on the psychological evaluator to catch it.

By becoming a donor, this man would have every right to pick his recipient. He doesn't have to be a non-directed donor. How do we know that he wasn't insisting on that right? Because he says so? There are just so many possibilities. He's now attempting to circumvent the hospital by going to the media and requesting that people contact him that way. I truly hope that this program handles this intelligently, that if they do get calls, they don't just run off and contact this guy and give him the information. They are NOT trained to do this and really should stay out of it in my opinion.

Gwyn was seeking a short cut when he made that rather stupid remark about getting a second chance. He knew perfectly well, or should have, that what needed to be done was to admit there was a problem and work to fix it. This man could reenter society by admitting that he did something criminal and making amends in appropriate ways. Criminal behaviour and mental illness are not the same, but they often co-exist. This individual struck me as a mentally ill time-waster. He wants to convince people that this is about judging him for his crime, and that is probably really easy to do with people who don't know a lot about the transplant process, which will be most of the population of New Zealand. Plus, they have said all he has to do is finish up his parole. Well, a type of 'parole' is imposed upon recipients and donors all the time. Give up cigarettes for six months, lose weight and keep it off for a year, get psychological counseling and report back to us. If he wants to be so anonymous, why not just work with them on that and then if he is still rejected, complain? And what's this about saying that the 15-20 people in question are in a 'living hell'? That is a characterization that I know at least one kiwi would not appreciate. He is speaking for people he does not even know, and I would find that offensive if it were me in that 15 to 20.

In the US, this man would be an automatic high-risk donor - he's been to prison. If you received a call saying simply "We have a kidney from an ex-convict for you, do you accept?" what would your decision be do you think? In US prisons, we think of sex abuse and high rates of IV drugs. I don't think I would have the nerve. Then if you were able to ask "what was he in prison for?" and the answer was "hmmm, let's see.... ah, right - it says sex offender...." If it were me, that conversation would be over.

This person has everyone right where he wants them as far as I can see. The hospital's hands are tied, they cannot really defend themselves nor say exactly what they know. The media are giving him a lift as he climbs onto the cross. We only hear his account of what he is in prison for, and who knows what else there is to this story. This is a totally one-sided presentation of the facts from the criminal's perspective and it leaves too many questions for me to want to champion this man's cause. I am having an impossible time seeing this as a great loss to New Zealand transplant hopefuls.

Anyhow, as always, just my opinion, don't really want to get into an angry battle over an entirely speculative conversation.

[Hazmat35]

I am sorry, but I would have to accept the Kidney.  And I would tell anyone else to take it, also. 

I do believe that you can have "cravings" that you never had before, but I don't think you would have cravings of "murder" or of committing some heinous crime.  The mind makes a person do strange things, but you have to think of what is best for you.  And I think that if any one of us could get a kidney, we'd better take it!  The chance may never come again!