I don't know, alot of alcoholics are lonely, stressed or suffer from depression. It would be horrible to deny them treatment, and leave them to die.
Poll: Should recovered alcoholics be given liver transplants on the NHS?
- Thread starter Hammer's Girl
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Motorcyclists choose to ride a bike - deny treatment. - Good idea.Superbeast said:I know you corrected this in a later post, so I won't go too hard on youSmartIdiot said:
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.
Motorcyclists choose to ride a bike - deny treatment.Trebort said: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....
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)aspher said:
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
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!
Drivers choose to drive without seatbelts - deny treatment. - I agree.
Kids forget to look at the road when crossing - deny treatment. - I dislike them anyway.
Policemen put themselves at risk of harm - deny treatment. - Yes, but these should be an exception.
Firefighters inhale smoke as part of their job - deny treatment. - These should also be an exception.
Builders choose to use dangerous tools - deny treatment. - Another exception.
Mountain climbers choose to put themselves at risk - deny treatment. - Deny deny deny.
People choose to employ smokers at their place of work - deny treatment (cancer). - People should not employ them. Simple as.
I love having an opinion
. I think you are right, I would be very unpopular. But I'd be the fucking best. (I'd probably save the government it's 6 Billion points in my department alone if I were Secretary for Health )
I voted no but there is one exception. If the person follows two rules I think they can be considered. They must first have never gotten arrested for DUI (or any drunk driving related offense) and they must have quit drinking for reasons beyond getting a liver transplant. If they quit drinking because they realized they were harming those they loved, they can get on the list. If they quit drinking so they can get a liver transplant they should be shot.
Also note, I say they can be considered. This does not mean they are promised a new liver, simply that they have a chance just like everyone else.
Also note, I say they can be considered. This does not mean they are promised a new liver, simply that they have a chance just like everyone else.
To me, sure, these people pay taxes as much as anyone else, but, more than that, they're paying MORE taxes, when you consider just how much tax there is on alcohol and tobacco in this country.
As a fat bloke, I'd be happy for them to tax the less healthy foods too, then I could get left the hell alone for my dietary choices. (not that people leave alone drinkers and smokers either).
I imagine my food bill, combined with the fact I'll be dead before I'm 50 and not costing my country a damn penny in either pensions or old age healthcare or care homes, I'd be giving out free cake vouchers to all if I ran the country
I'm partly in agreement with the guy above however in terms of running the country.
We all know politicians lie, so why the hell doesn't one of them really go for it, say anything to get power, then to hell with it, do everything you can to improve the country, even if it hurts for a few years, with any luck there'll be signs of change just before you're about to get booted out. The only problem with this plan is the media, who'd bill you as Satan on a daily basis, and sadly 90% of people take the front page of the tabloids as fact.
As a fat bloke, I'd be happy for them to tax the less healthy foods too, then I could get left the hell alone for my dietary choices. (not that people leave alone drinkers and smokers either).
I imagine my food bill, combined with the fact I'll be dead before I'm 50 and not costing my country a damn penny in either pensions or old age healthcare or care homes, I'd be giving out free cake vouchers to all if I ran the country
I'm partly in agreement with the guy above however in terms of running the country.
We all know politicians lie, so why the hell doesn't one of them really go for it, say anything to get power, then to hell with it, do everything you can to improve the country, even if it hurts for a few years, with any luck there'll be signs of change just before you're about to get booted out. The only problem with this plan is the media, who'd bill you as Satan on a daily basis, and sadly 90% of people take the front page of the tabloids as fact.
It really depends on the person I think. How long were they alcoholic? Does addiction run in the family? Have they relapsed before? How old are they? Any other serious medical conditions? I know that makes it pretty biased against people with the odds stacked against them, but there is probably a bunch of other people at the same time who could be using that liver.
You don't think about it unless it'll happen to you or someone you love.
They're a changed person, so yes. People can change for the better, especially if they've seen the error of their ways.
They're a changed person, so yes. People can change for the better, especially if they've seen the error of their ways.
What? Life threatening illnesses like Cirrhosis of the Liver?Rakkana said:
So you're saying not "deserve to die" more "not worthy of saving". Both sound equally monstrous, it's just some pointless technicality.Baneat said:
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.
It depends on the person, that kind of thing has to be decided on a case by case basis.
But personally if they're recovering, for say, at least a year, then you should give them a chance.
And there's no such thing as a recovered alcoholic, it's a problem they live with for the rest of their lives.
But personally if they're recovering, for say, at least a year, then you should give them a chance.
And there's no such thing as a recovered alcoholic, it's a problem they live with for the rest of their lives.
It even worse that in the United States people get Medicare due to disability from Drug and Alcohol abuse! Kinda irritates me when I see that, because its saying I cannot work due to a medical condition I brought upon myself so now I want everyone else to foot the bill.SmartIdiot said:
As for smokers, most insurance plans in the US can have a smoker's clause in it. As ok you wanna smoke fine but you are paying 20% more because its a known risk. And group plans in the us are like group vaults, everyone contributes a part as well as the employer to pay for medical treatments.
It would have to be someone who has been clean for years before they should be considered.
Of course they should be eligible.
At the same time, not very many organs always available. So while I do think that they should be allowed to have the transplant, if a liver becomes available, I think an alcoholic should be turned down if hes on the top of the organ donor list, someone else needs that liver more than they do right now. This, of course, also depends on the conditions of other patients needing livers on the list- how severe they are.
And if said alcoholic would be likely to ruin it again. Any liver transplanted to a recovering alcoholic should come with rehab
At the same time, not very many organs always available. So while I do think that they should be allowed to have the transplant, if a liver becomes available, I think an alcoholic should be turned down if hes on the top of the organ donor list, someone else needs that liver more than they do right now. This, of course, also depends on the conditions of other patients needing livers on the list- how severe they are.
And if said alcoholic would be likely to ruin it again. Any liver transplanted to a recovering alcoholic should come with rehab
Two drugs for the 'Oh, derp, they'll just go and ruin it again.' Look up:
Disulfiram.
Naltrexone.
Disulfiram.
Naltrexone.
I say no. You chose your actions, and you knew the risks of your actions. People don't want to seem to pay the consequences for their actions anymore, they just want to do whatever the hell they like and expect someone else to fix it for them. I'm not saying that they are undeserving of treatment, but there are a lot more people in serious need of those livers who did nothing to complicate their situations by bad decisions.
I have a strong dislike of alcoholics for personal reasons, but I'm not going to sit here and say that all people who drink to excess deserve liver failure and to die a painful death. Anything done to excess is bad. Sure, I eat and smoke and I know in the future what the consequences might be if I don't take more responsibility for what I am doing now, but who the hell in their right mind even thinks about that?
Seems like in the United States, the government is doing nearly all they can to make cigarettes as borderline illegal as they can. By the end of this month, they are prohibiting the postal service from shipping them anymore, and a lot of states do not allow people to smoke indoors, unless they own their own house. You can't smoke in bars, at work, closer than 100 feet of the doors at work, in company cars, all hotel rooms, rental cars, and I've even seen some outdoor concerts that don't allow smoking. But drinking apparently doesn't suffer the same restrictions, I suppose because they can argue that being drunk doesn't affect the person sitting next to you... unless you happen to throw up on them or kill them in a car accident driving home. Why alcohol in general doesn't suffer the same stigmas as cigarettes and isn't listed in drug schedule is beyond me at this point. Alcohol has no health benefits and is addictive and ruins people's lives, yet it is as legal as water, so long as you are of a certain age in this country. I'm not exactly saying that this world should mirror the one shown in the movie Demolition Man, but I think there needs to be more stricter rules for alcohol like they have for cigarettes. There are certain benefits from red wine and whatnot, but they have compressed those benefits into a pill form, so it eliminates the need to get drunk if you claim you are only doing it for the healthy aspect.
Hard drug addicts should fall into the same category as alcoholics when it comes to any kind of organ transplants because they chose their fate when they sat around for years shooting heroin between their toes. You knew every single time you stuck a needle in you or poured yourself another drink that you were doing harm to your body, but when those ramifications start to actually affect you, that's when you begin to worry. I don't remember ever seeing a warning label on a bottle of alcohol, and there is no sign that those warnings actually deter anyone from any harmful behaviors. The thing is, governments make entirely too much money off of people making bad decisions because of the outrageous taxes they impose on cigarettes and alcohol that they don't really want to make those things illegal. They want you to make poor decisions and drown your sorrows in your drugs of choice, so long as they make a few bucks in the process. The overall drain on the health care system apparently seems like a small price to pay in the eyes of the government when weighed against the income those substances bring in before the trouble starts for any one person.
Should all people who ruin their lives be denied access to quality medical care because they make poor choices? No. But someone who intentionally does harm to themselves over years don't deserve the same respect as someone who had no choice in their resulting health condition. Let people who were born with lousy organs and accidents have priority over people who were too weak/stupid to make good life choices over someone who never had a choice from the beginning.
I have a strong dislike of alcoholics for personal reasons, but I'm not going to sit here and say that all people who drink to excess deserve liver failure and to die a painful death. Anything done to excess is bad. Sure, I eat and smoke and I know in the future what the consequences might be if I don't take more responsibility for what I am doing now, but who the hell in their right mind even thinks about that?
Seems like in the United States, the government is doing nearly all they can to make cigarettes as borderline illegal as they can. By the end of this month, they are prohibiting the postal service from shipping them anymore, and a lot of states do not allow people to smoke indoors, unless they own their own house. You can't smoke in bars, at work, closer than 100 feet of the doors at work, in company cars, all hotel rooms, rental cars, and I've even seen some outdoor concerts that don't allow smoking. But drinking apparently doesn't suffer the same restrictions, I suppose because they can argue that being drunk doesn't affect the person sitting next to you... unless you happen to throw up on them or kill them in a car accident driving home. Why alcohol in general doesn't suffer the same stigmas as cigarettes and isn't listed in drug schedule is beyond me at this point. Alcohol has no health benefits and is addictive and ruins people's lives, yet it is as legal as water, so long as you are of a certain age in this country. I'm not exactly saying that this world should mirror the one shown in the movie Demolition Man, but I think there needs to be more stricter rules for alcohol like they have for cigarettes. There are certain benefits from red wine and whatnot, but they have compressed those benefits into a pill form, so it eliminates the need to get drunk if you claim you are only doing it for the healthy aspect.
Hard drug addicts should fall into the same category as alcoholics when it comes to any kind of organ transplants because they chose their fate when they sat around for years shooting heroin between their toes. You knew every single time you stuck a needle in you or poured yourself another drink that you were doing harm to your body, but when those ramifications start to actually affect you, that's when you begin to worry. I don't remember ever seeing a warning label on a bottle of alcohol, and there is no sign that those warnings actually deter anyone from any harmful behaviors. The thing is, governments make entirely too much money off of people making bad decisions because of the outrageous taxes they impose on cigarettes and alcohol that they don't really want to make those things illegal. They want you to make poor decisions and drown your sorrows in your drugs of choice, so long as they make a few bucks in the process. The overall drain on the health care system apparently seems like a small price to pay in the eyes of the government when weighed against the income those substances bring in before the trouble starts for any one person.
Should all people who ruin their lives be denied access to quality medical care because they make poor choices? No. But someone who intentionally does harm to themselves over years don't deserve the same respect as someone who had no choice in their resulting health condition. Let people who were born with lousy organs and accidents have priority over people who were too weak/stupid to make good life choices over someone who never had a choice from the beginning.
I voted the 4th option.May be after serious examinations and lots of "professional" talking with psychologists and psychiatrists,may be,then...
I think it depends, I don't think we should deny them one. Like, if there's the choice between the alcoholic and a man who didn't drink his liver to death, oh hell yeah the drunky shouldn't get the liver. But, if there's no one else who needs a liver at the moment, you can't really say to the alcoholic "Nope sorry, I can't give this to you because you're an alcoholic."