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

[SmartIdiot]

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.

And your point is...?

 

[Plurralbles]

I dont' believe it's right to decide that someon doesn't deserve to live. I think that's pretty douchy. There's a transplant wait list for a reason and it should stay that way with everyone who needs one on equal footing.

 

[Feriluce]

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.

You forgot about obese people as well. Cant give those people healthcare either now can we?

 

[bad rider]

"Got shot? What the hell were you doing in Brixton? No operation"

With your permision, I'm gonna write that down in a book of quotes for a rainy day.

 

[SmartIdiot]

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 realise now my response was overly aggressive, however I never meant to come across as tarring all alcoholics with the same brush or implying they were the scum of the earth. However, given the high demand and short supply of livers going around I find it highly unlikely that it would just 'rot in the donors body'.

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.

Congratulations.

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!"

At the risk of sounding arrogant: yawn. Heard that arguement a thousand times. I'm a man of principles and I stick to them, not just whenever it suits me. Here it's no different.

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.

Yes. Yes and yes, I've also noticed AA does nothing to help. Where I used to live many people I knew would go to the meetings with half a bottle of whiskey in their jacket, others would just go to them, hear it out, go to the pub after, get smashed and then go to church for confession as if it makes the blindest bit of difference.

However at the end of the day it's up to the person to decide what goes in their body. As stated in a previous post when I said 'once and alcoholic, always an alcoholic' I was referring to the addiction itself. A guy can be an alcoholic and have stayed sober for 10 years. The moment he gets just one drink in him that sobriety is all over and it's back to square one. I know this doesn't apply to all cases but again I am only speaking from what I have witnessed.

 

[Feriluce]

It would have to be someone who has been clean for years before they should be considered.

Quick follow up on that, do you think that people that play sports should get free medical care if they injure themselves in a sporting accident?

Most players have a policy for when they play that covers them when they are on the field. ans colleges do offer coverage you just need to find out if it covers them on and off campus.

on topic:
The damage done from drug and alcohol abuse builds up over years. I believe one should be clean and remain clean for years before the option comes up for them. Why should the government or the company plan fork out 100k for a transplant to have someone go and fuck it up by going back to their old habit that made their original organ fail to begin with.

Yeah, but what If they need a transplant? Should they be treated in the same manner as alcoholics. (For arguements sake,-and I'm honestly not sure on this- say they can play again afterwards and intend to.)

Obviously they should be treated the same way as alcoholics, which in turn should be treated the same as everyone else.

I alot of you people in this thread truly disgusts me. Makes me glad that I live in a country where every human life is valued equally.

 

[Uncreation]

ONCE AN ALCOHOLIC, ALWAYS AN ALCOHOLIC.

I'm inclined to agree with you. My father is an alcoholic and the number of times he 'stopped' drinking only to start again soon after was soul destroying. Even if there was some sort of system where alcoholics were given lower priority I still don't believe he would deserve a new liver.

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

I can understand your point of view, since i was in your situation as well, but i think i'm going to agree with KnowYourOnion. They should not be left off the list, just gives a lower priority.

 

[Krion_Vark]

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...

The Liver is the only internal organ that can regrow itself. The liver is also probably one of the easiest to get transplanted because you don't need THE WHOLE thing for the transplant. You saying that they shouldn't is just being ignorant of the fact that they have to get help before they are even considered for the transplant. They also need to be LOW risk to start drinking again. Seriously if you want to complain about something think about the big picture and read all the facts not just the first paragraph before you make an argument about why they should or shouldn't get a liver.

Here is a scenario where your argument is 100% invalid:
A man who was an alcoholic from lets throw an age range out there 23-34. He is now 45 and has been sober for 11 years. He has a family with 3 kids ages 8, 4 and 2, and has just been given the news that he has liver disease from his excessive drinking 11 years before and he has been given less than a year to live because of how much damage there is to the liver. He won't be able to see his children grow up.

Are you telling me that this guy who has been sober for 11 years who has a family does not deserve to get a liver transplant JUST because he was an alcoholic?

 

[Frankster]

Should reformed/recovered smokers be given new lungs?

Seems same kinda situation to my eyes, and i KNOW the vast majority of peeps on this site would say no to that, but drinkers are less demonized it seems.

I ain't fussed personally, if we got spare organs then go for it, if not priority to those who haven't bought their predicaments upon themselves.

 

[Billion Backs]

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.

That.

If one contributes to the program the same way everyone else does, they should be receiving the same service everyone else does. I'd imagine the priority on giving livers to ex-alcoholics would be lower then giving livers to those who are going to die if they don't get one, but that's just reasonable - you treat more dangerous cases first.

If they took advice from certain posters in this thread, only the people in absolutely peak condition would receive medical treatment... And they don't really need it.

 

[Hawgh]

Sure, if there's no one else on the list. Otherwise, they'll stay at the bottom until it clears up.

 

[Brandon237]

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


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?

Agreed, did you read the case of the South African minister of health, she was an alcoholic and got her transplant instead of a diabetic boy who was scheduled to get the liver. The frikkin minister had a drinking party to celebrate life and Killed the new liver. Resulting in two deaths where the boy could have and should have been saved.

Go and perish you drunkard fools, you will not claim the minds, livers and spleens of my sober comrades.

 

[Rayansaki]

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.

You get hepatitis for a simple one time mistake. You probably abused alcohol for years to get severe liver damage. Yes, I think patients should be punished for being directly responsible for their damaged organs. I don't mean being prevented from ever getting a transplant, just being a lower priority to someone that needs a liver because of more natural causes.

 

[RewardMe]

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

What? Life threatening illnesses like Cirrhosis of the Liver?

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.

So you're saying not "deserve to die" more "not worthy of saving". Both sound equally monstrous, it's just some pointless technicality.

How utterly heartless and naive of you, do you think people actually REALISE the damage they are doing? There is now way to know you have fatally damaged your organs from excessive consumption till it is too late.

You're not living in the real world if you think you can keep bumping ex-alcoholics to the bottom of the list because patients keep coming in with "unpreventable" conditions.

The only way to be SURE is to completely abstain from all vices. If you drink and get drunk you are in NO POSITION AT ALL to say alcoholics deserve to die from Cirrhosis as a different roll of the dice you would be in their position. There is nothing special about alcoholism, it just means drinking too much, by its very nature it is very hard to self regulate. You "choice" was to ever take your first drink.

Do you not realise you are setting up a two-tier medical establishment of "preventable diseases" who are basically doomed to languish in pain and suffering and lingering death while the "innocent" patients get priority time, resources and organs. Simply because their medical need was not brought on by their own action.

Utter bullshit. Frankly it is worse than some Orwellian nightmare, it is as society ruled by moral absolutes and a twisted sense of "social justice", hubris mediated by the infulential in their ivory towers, playing god.

Hehe, indeed. I'd think you will find though that alot of these no comments are coming from people outside the U.K with no free medical services themselves. I would'nt worry about a change anytime soon in britain. I'm happy with status quo, and so is most of the U.K.

 

[Dogstile]

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.

And your point is...?

That I really can't be bothered and I was going for a cheap lol and a way out the argument.
But using the "children might die" thing only effects people who /like/ children, and because they don't pay the national insurance, I reckon the alcoholic who's been paying for years has more of a right.

 

[Levitas1234]

Put them on the list but don't give them a high priority
This way they still get a liver but the more urgent cases are treated first

This sounds like the only truly humane option. I'd go with that.

That's the option they're already doing... And there aren't enough livers to go around so the whole point of this is that 1 in 5 livers automatically goes to a recovering alcoholic, it's not like if you're on the list you get a liver.

 

[master m99]

well i think its dependent on the person , if someone had proven they are sober and generally are the kinda that will give back to the world the yes they should but someone who has quit but is generally an asshle drain on socity then no, granted this kinda bias us illigal in the health system and partly immoral in some light to think this on my part but still.
p.s, the whole drain on socity thing doesnt mean those who cant work or are generally unable to help but those who simply wont work ie people who abuse the dole and other such supports (again not those who actually need it those who abbuse it and really shouldent be allowed it)

 

[Low Key]

All they have to be is sober for six months? No, I don't agree with that. Make that 5 years, then maybe. They should have to prove they are committed to sobriety and won't just start drinking again when they feel their life isn't in danger anymore. Also, they need to prove they are staying sober after the transplant by having a check up twice a year. Any sign of liver degradation from drinking, and they should be thrown in jail for stealing.

Honestly, I don't believe they should get liver transplants, but if the plan is approved, the recovered alcoholic should have to be made accountable for their actions. I think most won't have a problem with that since they are getting a second chance at life.

 

[Treblaine]

At the risk of sounding arrogant: yawn. Heard that arguement a thousand times. I'm a man of principles and I stick to them, not just whenever it suits me. Here it's no different.

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.

Yes. Yes and yes, I've also noticed AA does nothing to help. Where I used to live many people I knew would go to the meetings with half a bottle of whiskey in their jacket, others would just go to them, hear it out, go to the pub after, get smashed and then go to church for confession as if it makes the blindest bit of difference.

However at the end of the day it's up to the person to decide what goes in their body. As stated in a previous post when I said 'once and alcoholic, always an alcoholic' I was referring to the addiction itself. A guy can be an alcoholic and have stayed sober for 10 years. The moment he gets just one drink in him that sobriety is all over and it's back to square one. I know this doesn't apply to all cases but again I am only speaking from what I have witnessed.

You didn't really answer my question.

Would you stand in the way of someone donating an organ or body part to save a close family member?

Even if their need for an organ was brought on by their own actions? How can you justify such opposition? If you had the power to stop such a procedure... would you? Could you? It's THEIR organ to donate, it's not going to anybody else. It would SAVE SOMEONE'S LIFE!

But your final two paragraphs interest me the most.

You're right Alcoholism and all addictions are not "a disease" like AA try to claim, they don't fit the definition of a disease and the experts have stated the most important step is realising and reinforcing the fact that even addicts have choice. AA's mantra of admitting they have no self control fundamentally undermines treatment any progress in remaining sober.

They key is understanding why they want to consume their drug (incl. alcohol) to a point where a a positive feedback loop forms:
This is when they get intoxicated so much, and so often they become desensitised to it, so each time they need to consume More and for Longer to have the same effect, only that de-sensitises them EVEN MORE.

But that needs professional psychologists, you won't figure out your behavioural problems in an AA meeting. The problem is those experts rare, highly trained and so are EXPENSIVE while AA meetings are effectively free. But I still think they are vital for proper treatment of addiction as even though people have the power to make their own choices... they need to realise why they want to make one choice rather than another far healthier and productive choice.

People can't be cured of addiction because addiction is not a disease. Clinically, addiction ends when you have overcome the withdrawal symptoms. Once they have worked out how they ended up addicted and how to avoid it then it is completely reasonable to say they are not an addict any more.

We can treat addiction clinically, or we can keep treating it dogmatically with mantras like "once an addict, always an addict".

 

[Frequen-Z]

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.

This is a perfect example of a slippery slope argument and it is ludicrous. What analogy is there to be made from people damaging themselves with a controlled substance and being shot by someone else with an illegal firearm?

The irony is, I think the top two sentences there are correct, despite your intention being to show people otherwise. If someone damages their own body, why should they deserve other peoples organs?
People relapse, not all, but some, and that makes alcoholics/former alcoholics not without a degree of distrust against them. And when the number of organs is low, like it is, there isn't much justification to giving an untrustworthy (with their organs, at least) person an organ that could be used on a person who had no fault in the failure of their body and are far less likely to re-ruin it themselves.

Whereas, getting shot is not something a person does to themselves (at least, I've not met anyone who's shot themselves and lived to tell the tale) and geographical location is not a legitimate reason to say someone else shooting them is their own fault. And even if it was, not everyone is in a position to choose where they live.