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

[ghostalker.cepo]

It's been my experience on here that a lot of you are very anti drugs, very anti smoking and quite anti drinking, which while not being a bad thing at all, which probably means a lot of you have no idea how easy it is to fall into an addiction and how hard it is to beat one. And if an addict has tried hard to beat their addiction, they don't want to to be that person anymore.

Saying "They've had their chance, they've fucked up their bodies enough, they don't deserve a second chance" is... wrong. Everyone should deserve a second chance. A recovered addict is a new person with a new life. They are just as deserving as anyone else. Why should they die because they made a mistake? A mistake they're trying to fix.

I'm not saying lets give all our transplant organs to recovering alcoholics or drug addicts, but I am asking why are you vilifing them? Although they brought it on themselves, no-one chooses to be a drug addict, it's not exactly fun is it? So why condemn then if they've reformed? Especially if you've been checking up on them regularly.

 

[Baby Tea]

Perhaps I was a bit OTT in posting my view back there. I just do not trust anyone who says "I'm on the wagon" or "Straight and narrow for me" anymore as each time, every one of them has fallen. Yes I've heard some people actually do make it and to be fair, the aforementioned people did have a good run on staying clean however, they relapsed and became worse than they were before. When I said 'once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic' I meant the addiction is still there. It only takes one drink to trigger it all off again. I guess I'm kinda jaded on this one. To me it's not case of if someone relapses it's when. I do want to have a positive outlook on it and I'd love to say I could support the idea of giving alcoholics a second chance but I just find it hard to trust people like that.

If you've been hurt by someone who said they were 'clean' only to be worse, then I can understand why would feel that way (And I'm sorry. I've seen some bad things involving alcoholics myself, and I know it's not pleasant). Your posts also suggests, though, that you don't understand what it's like to have a physical addiction. In my original reply, I said:

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 qualified 'in the sense that they will always drink' because you're right in that the addiction will probably never be fully gone. It'll be a very long, hard fight feom someone trying to get out of an addiction. Whether you think it's psychosomatic, or whether it's actually a physical addiction, it's not something you can easily quit 'cold turkey'. It's extremely hard to quit/stop a physical addiction, and understandable if someone doesn't do it their first try. The sensation of withdrawl far from pleasant, and the holly-wood style depictions of 'one night clean and you'll be alright' are so far from the truth it hurts to watch them.

I'm only replying because I've seen and met a lot of people who have fought off drug and alcohol addictions. Never once did they claim it was easy, and every one says it'll always be hard. It isn't about 'trust' if someone slips up, it's about understanding and being a good support base.

 

[bam13302]

This sounds like more "is 6 months long enough to determin that they are a recovered alcoholic"

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

Better to use the organs on people who didn't fuck up their own shit.

 

[Sephychu]

Sure, I reckon so.
If they're recovered, they don't deserve to continue to pay for mistakes they've vowed to put behind them
If they're at the top of the transplant list, by definition it means that nobody needs it more at that time than they do, so they should, yes.

 

[Red Right Hand]

If they've paid their National Insurance then why the hell not?

 

[Zorg Machine]

I they don't drink, it should be fine. They should be sober for quite a while and gone to at least 5 AA (or something similar)meetings.

 

[Superbeast]

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 know you corrected this in a later post, so I won't go too hard on you

I'm an ex-alcoholic, and I don't have a problem any more. Fortunately for me it was caught early (I started drinking from a severe depression), and after pretty much "cold turkey" treatment I'm now able to drink again (something long-term alcoholics cannot) but I am very careful with my moderation. So I am extremely lucky, really.

For example a night out for me now, ending up inebriated, is 3 pints and a shot or two, or a bottle of wine. By most university students it's really lightweight (I get tipsy on 2 pints). When I had my problem, I was spending £50-60 a night, drinking around 6 pints and a few Whiskeys at the pub, going home and drinking a bottle of wine and a bottle of Sambucca. I'd wake up the next morning and reach for the beer.

My point is that serious alcoholics, who have recovered from their problem and never drink any more, are fully deserving of a new liver. Going through the shock of needing surgery, being lucky enough to get a new liver and the recovery period after surgery is a huge shock to the system, and is quite likely to make sure the person stays alcohol-free. Obviously there are exceptions, as with everything else in life, but we should not deny treatment to those who need it, regardless of why they need it.

It would be a bit like my step-dad - he gave up smoking instantly after 5 heart-attacks in 3 days because of it. Shock and trauma to your system can seriously kick a fair few addictions.

I voted no.

The NHS is there to provide medical care to people who need it, not to nursemaid self inflicted injuries.

Alcies and smokers should be denied service.

Also....

What's next? Denying treatment of obese people because they eat too much food? It's a slippery slope when we start to deny people health treatment based upon the circumstance in which they acquired the condition.

Yes, Fatties should be denied service. They could try using a little self control and not eating too much cake. (Unless they have a geninue medical condition making them fat, like an overactive thingy, each fattie should be tested, if they are just pie munchers, then they should be rolled out of the hospital)

Back to organs... who should get priority over a liver? A 14 year old boy, for example, with their entire future ahead of them, or some middle aged guy who has pickled their liver since they were 14? Bah. No contest.

I can't for the life of me imagine why I am not actually the Secretary of State for Health

Motorcyclists choose to ride a bike - deny treatment.
Drivers choose to drive without seatbelts - deny treatment.
Kids forget to look at the road when crossing - deny treatment.
Policemen put themselves at risk of harm - deny treatment.
Firefighters inhale smoke as part of their job - deny treatment.
Builders choose to use dangerous tools - deny treatment.
Mountain climbers choose to put themselves at risk - deny treatment.
People choose to employ smokers at their place of work - deny treatment (cancer).

You'd save the NHS a lot of money as Secretary for Health, but I doubt you'd be popular.

The entire point of the NHS is that it is there for everyone, regardless of lifestyle choices, social background, employment and so forth. Refusing treatment because of "personal choices" is an incredibly immoral way to look at something that is paid for by the entire population and is open to the entire population.

It'd be like having the benefits system closed to anyone who became bankrupt, homeless or did something stupid and became disabled. It just wouldn't work.

And I bet you'd change your view if you were less healthy than you currently are - say your endocrine system screws up with puberty, or with reaching middle-age - you can pile on weight without changing your lifestyle from previous years - should you still be denied treatment for being a "fattie cake-eating pie-muncher"? After all, you were still eating those things!

 

[ghostalker.cepo]

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.

True, but you're missing out one key detail. Willpower. They can never drink alcohol again, just like a smoker can't have a cigarette again or a cocaine addict can't snort coke again. You will always crave whatever you were addicted to, but it diminishes over time, and your willpower is what stops you slipping. I admit, it is possible to slip, but if you're serious about recovery, you can recover again.

Sounds like you've had a rough experience though

Hmmm...

Should sick people receive treatment for their illness from a government agency entirely dedicated to giving treatment to sick people?

The depth of the moral dilemma is astounding.

Look, a) never take moral cues from the British press, b) the way to prevent deaths while waiting for transplants is to optimize the process, not to deny treatment, c)organs don't miraculously walk to their recipients. There are more pressing concerns when performing a transplants than whether you personally object to the recipient's lifestyle.

For one thing, the article is from the Daily Mail, a British tabloid with the kind of "fair and balanced" scaremongering view of Fox News. So don't judge the British Press on that, or any of our tabloids, check out BBC or The Times or The Independent.

The NHS is an administative shambles. A really good idea, but sadly tied up with 30 years of bureaucracy. On the plus side, if you break your leg or have a heart attack, you will be treated, and you won't have a $20,000 bill for it.

 

[RicoADF]

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

Agreed, they should be on the list, but those that haven't ruined theirs should go first.

 

[Kukakkau]

No because it was their own faults that caused the condition in the first place.

Also as with all addictions there is a good chance of relapse - I'd rather see the liver being given to someone who has a disease they had no choice over than someone who damaged it themself

EDIT: didn't mean a downright no just that they should be held back on the list and only not given one if they are deemed to have too high a chance of relapse

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

If they don't truly need it, then don't bother. There are people who deserve it more due to means beyond their control.

 

[Ravek]

Sounds like you've had a rough experience though

I haven't. Sorry if I was misleading.

 

[exp. 99]

I can only shake my head in amazement at just how many folks here are on a high and mighty kick. It's sad, really, that so many people miss the point of the NHS, and that so many folks are willing to draw that line, knowing that it's just that first step on a snowballed process to something infinitely worse.

First step's always the hardest, and the second step is almost always inevitable. Granted, there are exceptions...

...but I'm damn glad none of you are in charge of any health policy. You all terrify me.

 

[SmartIdiot]

*snip*(for the sake of page length)

*snip*(see above)

All good points. I am aware that withdrawing from hardened use of alcohol is not easy (what with the DTs and other not-so-wonderful stuff that occurs) and in extreme cases, can kill a person. I guess the anger I felt towards people not sticking with it 1st, 2nd, 3rd or the Nth time round and having lived and worked in a place where people even think it's funny to joke about a persons lack of willpower concerning alcohol(not to mention the ones in denial...) overtook my compassion on this one. I know there are those who are genuinely trying to straighten themselves out and working really hard to do so and I am also aware that it is largely an uphill fight.

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

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.

 

[tim98042]

i think personally it should be considered on a person by person basis, maybe follow them up with home visits etc to see what the person is like, if the show no regard at all then deny them, but if they have shown a real effort to improve their life and stay alchohol free then i reckon they should be considered at least.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[VanityGirl]

I'm surprised anyone would consider even giving an alcoholic a new liver. In hospitals, even an ex-alcoholic would be considered high risk and prone to relapse. A lot of doctors would not want to give an ex-alcoholic a new liver because they think "With a new liver, they'll go drink and destroy it again." This is the actual thinking of many doctors.

I think if they are able to get a new liver, they should be on the bottum of the transplant list, that way people who are in dire need of one can have one first.