Poll: Would You Save This Person?

Recommended Videos

crudus

New member
Oct 20, 2008
4,415
0
0
No(x2). First question: quitting something you have been addicted to for almost half your life is a hard and daunting task which I doubt this 22-year-old is up for. No matter how close he got to death. As far as the mother's statement goes: of course he knew what he was doing. He was 13, he was old enough to know that alcohol is bad in large quantities (most of us are in his age group so we know he went through health class to learn it). If I were in that hospital bed I wouldn't blame anyone of their opinion of me.

Second question: in my mind you have to use resources more sparingly in times you have more (even unlimited). You need people to learn the value of what they have before they should be aloud access to larger quantities of resources. Otherwise they are little more than kids that do what they feel without real consequence.
 

Unknower

New member
Jun 4, 2008
865
0
0
I think he should be given another chance. However, he should have lower priority in getting a new liver.

Also:

 

DirkGently

New member
Oct 22, 2008
966
0
0
stinkychops said:
DirkGently said:
No, and no. Alcoholism and addication are not diseases. It is not something you cannot help. You are in that position solely because of your actions, not those of a microbe or something only visible under a microscope. I wouldn't save him either way.
That does not mean someone should not help you.

When a child falls over you pick them up, when someone gets a throat infection you give them anti-biotics. It comes at a cost, but it is immoral not to help those you can.
You don't fuck up your liver from the equivalent of falling out of your chair. It takes years of abusive drinking. He was not born with some genetic defect or have his liver attacked by disease. He made his bed, he gets to lie in it.

SODAssault said:
DirkGently said:
No, and no. Alcoholism and addication are not diseases. It is not something you cannot help. You are in that position solely because of your actions, not those of a microbe or something only visible under a microscope. I wouldn't save him either way.
Just to set the record straight, self-destructive tendencies are a deep-rooted psychological problem developed as a coping mechanism against either one's own instability or environment, and not uncommonly, both. While such psychological problems could certainly be dismissed as too intangible to be considered a real illness by everyday people unless the afflicted attacks someone else, I assure you, they are not something that one can simply will away.
And if you don't buy into determinism, he made his own choices. If you do, (as you seem to), he essentially has a terminal illness from the influences on him already. He'd bone up his new liver anyway. Fuck him.

Cliff_m85 said:
DirkGently said:
Cliff_m85 said:
Technically the best bet for organs would just be a lottery.
What? How? How does 'technically' come into play at all? How is random chance the best method for determining who gets a life saving organ and who doesn't when there is perfectly good quantifiable data on which to judge the need of those in danger?
It's not my job to judge people as a doctor. Everyone should get a fair shot at the organ.
But it is. There is such a thing called triage. A man with gunshot wound needs more immediate treatment than the kid with the broken arm. Likewise, there are ethics rules about wasting an important organ on somebody who fucked it up themselves over somebody's whose was damaged in an accident or from a disease. Nevermind the person who needs a liver in the next week to live or the person who can go for a year without it. And that's ignoring if either of them ruined their own liver through careless behavior and neglected their own needs.


In summary, If they didn't want to save themselves, why should we?
 

Ophiuchus

8 miles high and falling fast
Mar 31, 2008
2,095
0
0
SODAssault said:
DirkGently said:
No, and no. Alcoholism and addication are not diseases. It is not something you cannot help. You are in that position solely because of your actions, not those of a microbe or something only visible under a microscope. I wouldn't save him either way.
Just to set the record straight, self-destructive tendencies are a deep-rooted psychological problem developed as a coping mechanism against either one's own instability or environment, and not uncommonly, both. While such psychological problems could certainly be dismissed as too intangible to be considered a real illness by everyday people unless the afflicted attacks someone else, I assure you, they are not something that one can simply will away.
I like you.

I think that, if a liver becomes available and there's no more deserving candidate (italicised for emphasis, because this is the important factor), he might as well have it.

The way I see it: if you give it to him, he might go back to his old ways and waste the organ... but he might not. If there's no other candidate but we refuse him the transplant on point of principle, the organ goes to waste and he dies. Basic maths - give it to him, there's at least a basic chance that the organ will be used responsibly. Refuse it, there's precisely zero chance because livers tend not to function so well in the bin.

Of course, this means that I'd be happy to see him have it if there were unlimited supplies.