Submitted by qutronix t3_yufck3 in askscience
My logic looks something like this. The danger of transplants is that our immune system will constantly try to kill transplanted organ. To prevent this, we take immunosupresant drugs that weaken our immune system to the point it cant effectively kill our organs. AIDS weakens our immune system. Thus we dont need additional weakening.
penicilling t1_iw98lxu wrote
>Would person with AIDS need to take immunosupressants for transplated organs?
Well, it's complicated.
First of all, AIDS is the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. The HIV virus (human immunodeficiency virus) will, if untreated, eventually result in AIDS. People with AIDS are at very high risk for all sorts of infections, and if the HIV doesn't get treated, and if prophylactic antibiotics are not used, then they will ultimately die, often from infection, cancer, or both.
So if you have AIDS (as opposed to being HIV positive without immunodeficiency), you are at very high risk for serious problems, and you would not be a candidate for any kind of elective surgery, and certainly not a major surgery like an organ transplantation.
Until recently, even having HIV was generally a contraindication to getting an organ transplant. Because people with HIV have shorter lifespans, and because of the need for lifelong immunosuppressive medications, it was not thought that it was either a good use of limited resources, plus there is a risk that immunosuppressive medications could strongly interfere with HIV treatment.
Recently, some transplant centers have begun organ transplantation in HIV-positive patients. But we don't know whether this is going to result in longer lives for HIV-positive patients, as there could be worsening of HIV and the development of AIDS.
Now to specifically answer your question: no one really knows what to do in a situation like an HIV-positive patient with an organ transplant who develops AIDS. It's a no-win situation, and the person might well develop serious infections, organ rejection, or both.