Of course. They should be given the same treatment as any other person. That's the point of the NHS to heal the sick no matter who they are. If someone needs a liver then they should be given one.
Poll: Should recovered alcoholics be given liver transplants on the NHS?
- Thread starter Hammer's Girl
- Start date
Recommended Videos
they drunk it of their own free will, they are responsible so no
there are many other people who need livers why should drunkards get it?
there are many other people who need livers why should drunkards get it?
if there off the sauce then they aren't in danger of burning out another organ, in a perfect world, but anyone who knows or is an alcoholic understands that every day is a temptation to go back to drinking.
but if they had the will to stop for a reasonable amount of time, like for instance alcohol free for 6-8 months then that shows they have the mental fortitude to fight off the cravings.
but if they had the will to stop for a reasonable amount of time, like for instance alcohol free for 6-8 months then that shows they have the mental fortitude to fight off the cravings.
Even though A.A doesn't publish stats on who successful gets rid of their addiction and those who do not, independent studies show that only about 5% of those who say they will quit, actually manage to in the time frame they said they would. For most addicts, I'm pretty sure they fail the first 5 times they try to quit. They might succeed after numerous attempts, but the first few attempts at trying to quit are almost always doomed to failure.
So, you might say, give the transplant to an alcoholic who has a history of fighting their addiction. But usually, the longer you've been addicted, the less likely you are to receive a transplant.
In the interests of not being completely cruel and heartless, an recovered addict should be given a transplant, ONCE they have proved themselves capable of going cold turkey for at least a month (if they have that long to live). And I'm talking total surveillance here, and checks on their fridge and hospital room to see what they have. And if they can do that, give them the transplant, but also tell them if they trash their organ again, they get nothing.
An alcoholic or a drug user is still a person, and anyone has the POTENTIAL to quit. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Experience and statistics say they usually won't. But USUALLY won't doesn't equate to ALWAYS won't.
You can say that they drank of their own free will and thus "deserve" what they get. Well, technically, eating a lot of red meat raises the risk of certain cancers. Do you want to be refused treatment because you had a crummy diet? I eat a LOT of red/white meat (mostly white meat), and I don't want to be refused treatment.
Now, I'm a teetotaler. I drink no alcohol at all. Never have, never will. So you might think I'm the sort to condemn those that do drink. Well, I'm not going to. I'm willing to give people a shot. It is true that 95% of people cannot quit. But how will you find those 5% that can, if you aren't willing to trust?
Even if 99% of people in this world are bad (and I don't believe that by the way, it's more like 30% of people in the world are bad), you can't find the good 1% (or 70% in my case), if you aren't willing to trust someone. And even if you never find someone good, you can be confident in the knowledge that you were a good enough person to try to trust.
So, you might say, give the transplant to an alcoholic who has a history of fighting their addiction. But usually, the longer you've been addicted, the less likely you are to receive a transplant.
In the interests of not being completely cruel and heartless, an recovered addict should be given a transplant, ONCE they have proved themselves capable of going cold turkey for at least a month (if they have that long to live). And I'm talking total surveillance here, and checks on their fridge and hospital room to see what they have. And if they can do that, give them the transplant, but also tell them if they trash their organ again, they get nothing.
An alcoholic or a drug user is still a person, and anyone has the POTENTIAL to quit. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Experience and statistics say they usually won't. But USUALLY won't doesn't equate to ALWAYS won't.
You can say that they drank of their own free will and thus "deserve" what they get. Well, technically, eating a lot of red meat raises the risk of certain cancers. Do you want to be refused treatment because you had a crummy diet? I eat a LOT of red/white meat (mostly white meat), and I don't want to be refused treatment.
Now, I'm a teetotaler. I drink no alcohol at all. Never have, never will. So you might think I'm the sort to condemn those that do drink. Well, I'm not going to. I'm willing to give people a shot. It is true that 95% of people cannot quit. But how will you find those 5% that can, if you aren't willing to trust?
Even if 99% of people in this world are bad (and I don't believe that by the way, it's more like 30% of people in the world are bad), you can't find the good 1% (or 70% in my case), if you aren't willing to trust someone. And even if you never find someone good, you can be confident in the knowledge that you were a good enough person to try to trust.
As long as they are recovered I think they should be put on the list with the same priority of any other non drinking person of that age etc.
Someone mentioned something about ex alcoholic vs 14 year old who's never drunk in his life, 14 year old is going to be a higher priority anyway IIRC.
Although I would like to point out that 6-8 months is in no way a reasonable amount of time to guarantee they are going to stay off. 6-8 months is (certainly in drug treatment circles) a real danger zone, a lot of people who quit various addictions go back on at about 6 months. Maybe alcohol is different though.
Someone mentioned something about ex alcoholic vs 14 year old who's never drunk in his life, 14 year old is going to be a higher priority anyway IIRC.
Although I would like to point out that 6-8 months is in no way a reasonable amount of time to guarantee they are going to stay off. 6-8 months is (certainly in drug treatment circles) a real danger zone, a lot of people who quit various addictions go back on at about 6 months. Maybe alcohol is different though.
There is no such thing as a recovered alcoholic. Even if they're not currently drinking. They will drop back into their old habits completely if they ever drink a significant amount again. They can't really help it at that stage, since their brains have been irrevocably altered by the alcohol abuse. (Recent research in rats confirms this) It's really sad.