Poll: Should recovered alcoholics be given liver transplants on the NHS?

[oktalist]

I'd say it's completely fair to save the life of someone who has worked hard to beat their addiction. Getting over an addiction to anything is incredibly difficult, if these people are really this determined to turn their life around I think they deserve a chance.

+1 for common sense.

"You ride a motorcycle? It's your fault your leg's broken"

Winner.

to simply let a person die because you don't like the choices they made earlier in their lives is sick, and make no mistake about it, if you just 'give them lower priority' you're basically letting them die.

You have given forth unto us the answer of correctitude.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1283965/Alcoholics-given-life-saving-liver-transplants.html

But then, to be fair, I wouldn't p*** on him if he was on fire

I'm detecting some deep-seated hostility towards alcoholics. Based on the example of just one person.

Oh, it's from the Daily Mail. That explains the sweeping generalisations based on anecdotal evidence.

 

[Stuntcrab]

Yes, if they realized they made a mistake and recovered from it then they should be allowed to "repair" the damage done from their mistakes.

 

[Treblaine]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1283965/Alcoholics-given-life-saving-liver-transplants.html

So do you believe that recovered alcoholics should be given livers on the NHS? Nobody is suggesting that people who are still drinking should be given the transplants. To be considered for a transplant the person must have been sober (ie. no alcohol at all) for six months.

Personally I don't think they should. They may well have made the effort to stop drinking in order to recieve treatment but what about all the other people in desperate need of transplants who have never done anything to bring the problem on themselves? And is six months really long enough to ensure that they won't ruin the nice new liver as soon as they're discharged from hospital?

But that's just my opinion...

Considering recovering alcoholics are people MOST LIKELY TO NEED a liver transplant, saying they can't have a transplant defeats the entire purpose.

I mean are you ACTUALLY SAYING that if people have conditions "brought on by their own actions" then they should not be eligible for treatment?

Frankly your suggestion is heartless and fascistic. That's not Godwin's Law, your approach is in line with anti-Hippocratic practices of the in 1930-40's Germans that completely ignore the individual welfare of patients.

People make mistakes, inducing living a life of excessive alcohol consumption, but that should not condemn them to death over the "holier than thou" who only are afflicted by illnesses caused purel by bad luck.

I mean even if they had liver cancer the patient is "partially to blame" as they could have lived a healthier lifestyle. Consider that if it was something they DID, they can change their lifestyle but if someone's liver is failing for genetic reasons (auto-immune) that makes it more likely to fail (get rejected) than an ex-alkie.

And lets not act as if livers are some infinitely divisible resource, the main source of transplantable organs is from close relatives (who are most likely to have a match) donating a lobe of their lung, lobe of liver, or kidney, and even then only if there is a good enough match for an adequate balance of immune-suppressant drugs. Only THEN is it organs from bodies of people had donor cards which has a low probability.

By the same logic:

"Should suicides be rescued or revived? They're only going to try to kill themselves again"

 

[Dogstile]

NO. ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOT!

You people may think I'm being unfair here but trust me on this one I've seen relapsing behaviour in alcoholics and druggies time and time and time again and as a result, lives ruined because of it. ONCE AN ALCOHOLIC, ALWAYS AN ALCOHOLIC. They are not worth the risk when there are plenty of others who actually need liver tranplants and aren't just going to end up destroying them.

Why not? They pay national insurance like everyone else.

You might want to quickly skim the next couple of pages. Long and short of it is, in my experience it's not always easy to tell who means to stay sober and who is too far gone to come back and when the damage on done to your body is self inflicted like that why should a replacement be given when it's uncertain if you'll take care of it or not? Whereas someone who is ill through no fault of their own may really need it, be in with a chance of recovery and be able to live a more wholesome (not to mention longer) life, rather than risk destroying it.

Yeah, just skimmed it, my point remains the same. They pay national insurance, they get the treatment. By paying national insurance we help eachother, so its not fair that we don't help them.

 

[SmartIdiot]

NO. ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOT!

You people may think I'm being unfair here but trust me on this one I've seen relapsing behaviour in alcoholics and druggies time and time and time again and as a result, lives ruined because of it. ONCE AN ALCOHOLIC, ALWAYS AN ALCOHOLIC. They are not worth the risk when there are plenty of others who actually need liver tranplants and aren't just going to end up destroying them.

Why not? They pay national insurance like everyone else.

You might want to quickly skim the next couple of pages. Long and short of it is, in my experience it's not always easy to tell who means to stay sober and who is too far gone to come back and when the damage on done to your body is self inflicted like that why should a replacement be given when it's uncertain if you'll take care of it or not? Whereas someone who is ill through no fault of their own may really need it, be in with a chance of recovery and be able to live a more wholesome (not to mention longer) life, rather than risk destroying it.

Yeah, just skimmed it, my point remains the same. They pay national insurance, they get the treatment. By paying national insurance we help eachother, so its not fair that we don't help them.

True. But it's also not fair that a child dies and an alcoholic gets another organ to wreck. Look at what happened to George Best.

 

[Superbeast]

Superbeast in particular, you proved me wrong. I apologise if my earlier post offended you at all.

Not at all - though I may not have been quite so polite had I not seen your second post. But you did not offend me.

That's not to say I'm turning around my view on this. I still think liver transplants and recovered alcoholics isn't such a great idea, it's not always easy to tell the difference between who will really make the effort to stay healthy and those who are just too far gone. Although next time I encounter someone with a problem like this(hopefully I won't) I'll hold back on the 'tough love' so to speak.

It really is a hard decision. I take the view that we should help all, in the hope that they will stay healthy and accept that some will "waste" a liver that should have gone to someone else, rather than rescind the option for all recovered alcoholics because some will lapse back into their old behaviour.

Those that get treatment (having been sober previously) and then relapse multiple times without remorse/attempts to curb their behaviour (ie stop going to AA meetings and so forth) are extremely infuriating to everyone, but I just think people should be wary of tarring all alcoholics with the same brush, particularly when it comes to the availability of life-saving treatment.

 

[Rayansaki]

Well either we give them the transplants or we run the risk of not saving lives because we don't agree with the lifestyle.

"You're an ex alcoholic? No transplant"
"You smoke? Why should we waste lungs on you?"
"You ride a motorcycle? It's your fault your leg's broken"
"Got shot? What the hell were you doing in Brixton? No operation"

If the ex alcoholic paid national insurance then they've contributed to the system and deserve the operation.

Yes, but there needs to be some kind of punishment in priority
Should someone who wasted his/her livers by doing heavy drinking be given a liver over someone else?

 

[Dogstile]

NO. ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOT!

You people may think I'm being unfair here but trust me on this one I've seen relapsing behaviour in alcoholics and druggies time and time and time again and as a result, lives ruined because of it. ONCE AN ALCOHOLIC, ALWAYS AN ALCOHOLIC. They are not worth the risk when there are plenty of others who actually need liver tranplants and aren't just going to end up destroying them.

Why not? They pay national insurance like everyone else.

You might want to quickly skim the next couple of pages. Long and short of it is, in my experience it's not always easy to tell who means to stay sober and who is too far gone to come back and when the damage on done to your body is self inflicted like that why should a replacement be given when it's uncertain if you'll take care of it or not? Whereas someone who is ill through no fault of their own may really need it, be in with a chance of recovery and be able to live a more wholesome (not to mention longer) life, rather than risk destroying it.

Yeah, just skimmed it, my point remains the same. They pay national insurance, they get the treatment. By paying national insurance we help eachother, so its not fair that we don't help them.

True. But it's also not fair that a child dies and an alcoholic gets another organ to wreck. Look at what happened to George Best.

I would like to play my trap card and point out that a child does not pay for the national insurance in a SURPRISE DICK MOVE.

 

[Treblaine]

NO. ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOT!

You people may think I'm being unfair here but trust me on this one I've seen relapsing behaviour in alcoholics and druggies time and time and time again and as a result, lives ruined because of it. ONCE AN ALCOHOLIC, ALWAYS AN ALCOHOLIC. They are not worth the risk when there are plenty of others who actually need liver tranplants and aren't just going to end up destroying them.

I'd like to see you tell someone dying of cirrhosis of the liver:

"yeah, we've got a matching liver (from an organ donor) and I know you WILL die a slow and painful death... but sorry I'd much rather it go to waste letting it rot in the donor's body the SLIGHTEST CHANCE it will *go-to-waste* in YOU... a dirty alkie"

I am an organ donor and if I die I would be completely happy if it gave an alcoholic dying of cirrhosis a 2nd chance at life.

Remember, in a lot of cases if is a relative like a sibling or parent who is found to be a match (close family members the most likely to be a close enough match), would you ACTUALLY stand in the way of that procedure? Would you actually say:

"Don't waste your time trying to save your father/son's life, he DID THIS TO HIMSELF. He isn't worth saving. He'll only drink away this liver!"

Another thing you have to realise is a big reason most alcholoics relapse is because of the INSANELY STUPID and UTTERLY UNSCIENTIFIC Alcoholics Anonymous organisation which has NO FUCKING CLUE how to deal with addiction. really, it was set up by a bunch of amateurs in the 1930's who wrote a book that has not changed in the past 80 years.

The statistics are clear, you have EQUAL CHANCE staying clean from almost all addiction going it alone as with goign with AA. But for some dumb reason it has entered public consciousness as "THE treatment" probably because although it sounds like a medical treatment, there is NO MEDICAL NOR ACADEMIC OVERSIGHT. It has all the credibility (i.e. none) of Aromatherapy!

Academics who actually study addiction have nothing but contempt for Alcoholics Anonymous, especially for its reliance on religious faith which is FAR from universal. In fact the entire organisation is run like a religious faith, there is no peer review, there is no adaptation, hell record keeping is incredibly low. They are nothing but snake oil salesman.

That is a huge part of the "addiction crisis" in the western world.

 

[Hammer's Girl]

I'm detecting some deep-seated hostility towards alcoholics. Based on the example of just one person.

I'm not hostile to all alcoholics, just him. But I confess that my attitude towards chances of recovery and relapse are probably skewed by my experience.

 

[Treblaine]

Yes, but there needs to be some kind of punishment in priority
Should someone who wasted his/her livers by doing heavy drinking be given a liver over someone else?

The Hippocratic Oath's hidden God-Complex clause:

"Thou shalt always pass judgement on your patients and withhold treatment as a form of punishment for the crime of not worshipping and protecting thine body"

Liver transplants are doled out according to NEED, NOT worth! The patient's need is dependant on both how good a match it is and how likely it is to be accepted, yes, continued drinking is a factor but alcoholism is a behaviour that can be changed.

But if someone needs a new liver due to some aspect "beyond their control", such as Hepatitis or and auto-immune disease, the liver is more likely to be rejected and "go to waste" than an alcoholic who stays clean.

Hmm, I'm wondering. How do YOU think that those suffering from hepatitis should be "punished"? I mean it's "their fault" for having unprotected sex.

For Fuck Sake.

This whole thread makes me mad as fuck, "punish the patients" "they get what they deserve"

You all sound just like those religious extremists that say HIV/AIDS is a punishment from God against Gays and drug users.

 

[Treblaine]

I'm detecting some deep-seated hostility towards alcoholics. Based on the example of just one person.

I'm not hostile to all alcoholics, just him. But I confess that my attitude towards chances of recovery and relapse are probably skewed by my experience.

What treatment (if any) did this person get?

If it was just AA sessions I am not surprised at all.

 

[Gudrests]

I'd say it's completely fair to save the life of someone who has worked hard to beat their addiction. Getting over an addiction to anything is incredibly difficult, if these people are really this determined to turn their life around I think they deserve a chance.

And what if they were forced to quit because they might have liver problems...and getting a new fresh healthy liver...they have no reason not to drink again. they take away from someone who has never done the wrong thing to give to someone who has done the wrong thing, and stoped, so they could again?.....dosnt sound fair to me

 

[oktalist]

I'm detecting some deep-seated hostility towards alcoholics. Based on the example of just one person.

I'm not hostile to all alcoholics, just him. But I confess that my attitude towards chances of recovery and relapse are probably skewed by my experience.

Understandable, I guess. Can't begin to fathom what that was like.

I am an organ donor and if I die I would be completely happy if it gave an alcoholic dying of cirrhosis a 2nd chance at life.

I think only organ donors should be allowed to post in this thread from now on.

You are right about the AA. People should watch more South Park.

 

[The Maddest March Hare]

I'd say it's completely fair to save the life of someone who has worked hard to beat their addiction. Getting over an addiction to anything is incredibly difficult, if these people are really this determined to turn their life around I think they deserve a chance.

And what if they were forced to quit because they might have liver problems...and getting a new fresh healthy liver...they have no reason not to drink again. they take away from someone who has never done the wrong thing to give to someone who has done the wrong thing, and stoped, so they could again?.....dosnt sound fair to me

That's why I specified it should be for people who have worked hard to beat the addiction, not just people who have been forced to stop drinking. If they could prove they were clean, possibly having a history of rehab clinics and an improvement on their medical record, then they deserve a second chance. I think that's completely fair.

 

[Purplefood1]

If they get the liver they have to agree to go to counselling or something to make sure they stop drinking, other than that yes they should.

 

[Skullmaster123]

It is the duty of a doctor to treat someone not to judge them.

 

[Marter]

If they are completely recovered, then I think that they should not be denied. They beat their addiction, so they should be given any chance at life they can get.

 

[Baneat]

It's not a question of whether they deserve to die, but someone who damaged their liver themselves should bottom the list with those who couldn't do anything to prevent it.

 

[Rakkana]

As long as the people with life threatening illnesses get treated first i have no problems.