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

[Hammer's Girl]

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...

 

[T3h Camp3r T3rr0r1st]

nah, they had their chance, if they decided to start drinking then they should have done what I did, cut myself open, remove half my liver, drink forever... EPIC WIN!

 

[KnowYourOnion]

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

 

[King of the Sandbox]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[iLikeHippos]

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

Quite much this.

The ex-drunks doesn't deserve to suffer, but there's no way in hell they deserve a liver more than one who had no choice in it.

 

[Scabadus]

I think that 6 months is enough to say that they have beaten the addiction. However, thr problem is, how do we confirm those six months? Unless there are ways to tell if someone's been drinking (other than the smell on their breath the next morning) it's hard to say if they've beaten their addiction.

On the other hand, if their are ways to tell, I don't think they should need to have been sober before they were told they needed a transplant. If this was the wake up call that they desperatly needed, then that seems fair to me.

 

[Valkyrie101]

As long as they are recovered and willing to stay sober, then yes. However, they should be given low priority on the list, ensuring that non-alcoholics in need of a transplant get one first, and they only get one chance. No multiple replacements like George Best.

 

[Davey Woo]

Yes, but other people in need of a transplant should be given priority. Which probably happens already I'm not sure.

 

[ZephrC]

If they aren't drinking there's absolutely no reason to deny them a liver. I understand that there's no point in giving a liver to someone that is still drinking, but 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. New people are constantly being added to those lists, and people that constantly stay near the bottom almost never get transplants.

 

[Sonicron]

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

Couldn't have said it better myself.
Also, these folks need to be psychologically analyzed, evaluated and approved before they can be classified as eligible for a transplant.

 

[Baby Tea]

ONCE AN ALCOHOLIC, ALWAYS AN ALCOHOLIC.

Well that is simply not true. I get that you've seen this before, and so have I.
I have family who had serious alcohol problems, and have since sobered up. To say that everyone who becomes an alcoholic will always be an alcoholic (In the sense they they will always drink) is objectively wrong. I'm sorry you've had bad experiences with people who couldn't make it, but don't generalize.

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

I'd probably go with this solution.

EDIT:

If they aren't drinking there's absolutely no reason to deny them a liver. I understand that there's no point in giving a liver to someone that is still drinking, but 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. New people are constantly being added to those lists, and people that constantly stay near the bottom almost never get transplants.

Nope, I've changed my mind. I'd go with this solution.
If they've stopped, put them on the list like everyone else.

 

[Iron Mal]

I think that it depends on the attitude and behavior of the person, if they clearly do seem to be making an effort to change their life and clean their act up then there is no reason we should deny the transplant (doctors save lives and these people can be saved).

If they're going to pull a 'George Best' and go through multiple livers because of their alcoholism then it might be reasonable to deny treatment (why waste valuable resources on someone who's just going to throw it away and end up back on the operating table again?).

 

[exp. 99]

If they pay their share of the national health service, then there is no reason why they should be denied the transplant. To do otherwise would be essentially the same as robbing them; you'd be taking their money, and giving nothing in return. This debate honestly has incredibly little to do with morality.

Now, asking about my thoughs on the morality of the subject, I still say the exact same. The term here is "RECOVERED". If they are a recovered alcoholic, then what gives you the right to judge a man who has gone through six shades of hell to break a physical addiction? Those ain't easy to kick, and the testament to willpower that a man must possess to do such is not inconsiderable. Are you REALLY prepared to deny someone who has spent at least six months of high stress intensive mental labor a chance that they've been fighting for?

There's nothing humane about it, nor can I see a moral justification outside of people simply throwing stones at someone's past while paying no heed to their present.

 

[FallenJellyDoughnut]

nah, they had their chance, if they decided to start drinking then they should have done what I did, cut myself open, remove half my liver, drink forever... EPIC WIN!

Wouldn't you need to wait for the rest of it to grow back though?

 

[bad rider]

No, they shouldn't they deliberatlyput themselves at risk. They new the risks and they should pay the consequences. Also, this should apply to people who are involved in car crashes, kids that climb trees and anyone who does a sport.

Oh wait, it's almost like people put themselves at risk everyday, not treating someone because of a lifestyle choice seems ridiculous.

 

[Catchy Slogan]

Yes. They pay taxes towards the NHS, just like everyone else. The NHS is for everyone. It's incredibly hard to break an addiction, and to tell them they heve to die because of it? It just seems cruel. I know there is a shortage of organs for people, but I don't think that anyone should be denied the right to be treated on the NHS.