No transplant for alcoholics

[HBK-aholic]

Patients addicted to alcohol cost the NHS millions of pounds per year, which includes transpants so desperately needed. However, the money isn't really the issue. Organ donors are scarce, and many believe the few livers that can be used should go to those more 'innocent'; ill not because of their own faults.

I'm split here, I'd hate the idea of someone I know missing out on a transplant because some drunk has it. And because I hate the idea of alcohoilcs, that idea is even harder to think about. But at the same time, is it ethical to deny treatment in this way? Who is it that can decide whether to extend life or not?

 

[OIL]

I think there is only one solution to this. Give first option to people who didn't fuck up their liver with alcohol. I mean, it's the person's decision to go drinking way beyond their limits, while it may not have been another person's decision that got them in the position to be needing a transplant.

This way, you can get rid of the ethical problem because you're not directly denying someone a transplant. It's just, they'll be pushed way down the list. They may get one eventually, but more innocent people as you put it, will get it first. & rightly so.

 

[ad21k]

Do you mean just alcoholics, or poeple who binge drink and have liver damage too?

It would be highly hypocritical to say to deny an alcoholic a liver transplant, if your going to give a transplant to someone who drinks a lot and has damaged their liver but isn't an alcoholic.

The biggest problem isn't what people have done before a transplant, but what they do after. If an drinker gives up after a transplant then its fine, but if they continue to drink afterwards then it is clearly a waste that could have gone elsewhere.

There isn't really a soloution for it that is totally fair, but the two options as I see it are you either give first choice to non-drinkers, or you make patients sign a form prior to the transplant stating the NHS will deny any future medical care for the patients liver as a result of continuing to drink alcohol.

On a side note I'm suprised no-one has been able to produce a chemical that replicates the effect of alcohol but doesnt damage your liver, it must be possible surely.

 

[Azrael Cain]

As it pertains to the topic, the alcoholic made a choice to drink, and to drink excessively. Whatever the reasons, the choice was made, and now s/he must live with that choice. If that means no liver, then no liver. There are people who are dying of liver cancer who, I don't want to say deserve but perhaps need a liver because their agony was not self-inflicted.

Is that a cold, and maybe heartless outlook? Maybe. But a human being is responsible for his/her own choices, right and wrong. We have responsibilities as members of a society, and as people. In the face of a crisis, what do I do: drink myself stupid or face up to the situation? The former is easier, but the latter yields better results. People have the audacity and ability to throw blame around each other like nothing else and escape responsibility like nothing else.

But on the flip side, alcoholics are people, too and as people, all people, they and we have desires, intentions and complexities within. We assume that because they've been drinking most of their life, their life is shit and so it should not continue. It isn't so much an ethical dilemma as it is a case of judging a person based on their actions without knowing the reasons behind their actions. Few things excuse being an alcoholic, that is true, but how many of us "normal people" haven't felt the need for a drink or two after something tragic, or a difficult day -- I know I have, and in some cases have done exactly that, buried myself in a bottle of gin or a beer. Not in excess, but still.

It does all really come down to what happens after they get the liver. The fear is that the alcoholics will just abuse the system to get a new liver to continue drinking, and no doctor wants to "waste" it. This is the fear that has lead to this rule in medicine, as well as the uncertainty of not knowing what people do once they're out. It's not like the hospital can monitor the recipient once they get the liver and leave -- they can be drinking all they want.

I think that this dilemma could be solved if we just do away with alcohol altogether. There'a a radical idea, eh? But without alcohol, there'd be no alcoholics, fewer drunk driving accidents, fewer spousal abuse cases, fewer rapes, fewer underage drinking infractions, fewer underage ODs, fewer bar fights and deaths in bar fights, fewer altercations altogether ("Are you eyeing my woman?! Fuck you!" *Right Hook* - that type of thing)...

It's a distraction, man, that's all it is... and atop it, it's a depressant for fuck's sake, so it's not like it's a good distraction. The more one drinks, the worse things get...

...but thats enough of my soap-boxing...

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Given your socialized health system, yes, I do believe that, for organs other than the liver that can be affected by alcohol consumption, the NHS should give priority to those who have not damaged their bodies through the use of alcohol. But, the last time I checked, the liver is a regenerative organ; you can take a portion of it, and it will eventually grow back to its original size. So, in this case, I don't see why you shouldn't give alcoholics just as much of a chance for a liver transplant as non-alcoholics. Unless, of course, there are not many people who are willing to donate a portion of their liver to alcoholics or the livers of deceased organ donors cannot be shared among people needing liver transplants.

 

[klunderbunker]

I don't have a problem with people that have damaged their liver through drinking not being given transplants if that's what's going on. For people that drink, alcohol is a luxury. I don't care if they're addicted. It's their own fault for being in that condition. Why should someone like that deserve a healthy liver over someone that is say in a car wreck, possibly because of a drunk driver? I've always wanted alcohol to be illegal internationally, but that'll never happen. It's absurd that when there are so few donors that a person who is innocent of any wrongdoing needs a transplant but is denied so a person who has hurt themselves already will likely start damaging the new one all over again. No sympathy at all for them.

 

[Richard]

Everyone should be entitiled to a transplant if it was a matter of life and death, but I think that people who didn't choose to fuck up their liver should be offered first but the alchoholics should not have to be told "Sorry, you made a mistake with you life, now you're gonna die" if there are spare transplants (which I doubt there is).

My dad used to be an alchoholic and I know for sure that if he had a problem with his liver and needed a transplant, I would want him to get a liver transplant and this is what you have to think about. The familes/people affected by the lack of transplants for alchoholics. If someone you cared about, wether friend or family was an alchoholic, would you still deny them a liver transplant? I wouldn't.

 

[The Dewbliners]

Speaking as a social drinker (albeit, extremely social, on occassion), I can honestly say that if I were to need a transplant due to my fucked liver, and somebody else needed one, somebody who never drank a drop in their life, I'd gladly forego the transplant. Not because I didn't deserve that organ, but because I realize that as soon as I get out of the rehabing process, I'd be bellied up to my friendly neighborhood bar, thus negating the whole process.


As an aside, everyone saying that banning alcohol altogether is a valid solution, at least here in the States, do a little research. That's been attempted in the past (remember the Prohibition unit in your history books?). It didn't exactly go the way the government had hoped then, so there's this nifty little ammendment in our constitution stating that the federal government will not prohibit the use of alcohol. However, each state could pass said legislation. Just won't happen, as it would just create more crime, etc. I apologize for that tirade, but it needed to be said.

 

[My$terio_Fan]

So there has been some discussion in the media and in the health care sector, about whether or not alcholics who need liver transplants due to their over consumption of booze, should be able to get them.

I am personally torn on the issue. A part of me once to say they shouldn't get another liver since it was their own fault for destroying their first, but the other side of me say's everyone deserves a 2nd chance.

If you are going to ban alcholics from getting liver transplants, why don't you ban medical treatment to people who develope heart disease from eating fatty foods, or people who smoke, ect.

My real father is an alcholic douche bag and while I really couldn't care less if he needed a liver or what not, I think if it was my mother(or someone else I love)who was an alcholic and needed a liver I would want her to get it. People make mistakes and alchol can consume your life since it's an addiction, so in a way I think it's wrong for the medical community to turn you down because you have made an mistake and got addicted.

But then theirs the people who need livers, because of blood problems, accidents, or other reasons not in their control who have to wait in line with people who did the damage to themselves. It's sad to think that these people could die waiting on livers, because theirs 50 alcholics waiting ahead of them for livers.

So personally I'm really torn on how I feel about this, but what are your thoughts?

 

[AnthonyMango/NoFate007]

Nope, they shouldn't be allowed to get the transplants.

Everybody knows full well that alcohol can lead to liver damage (amongst many other problems as well) and if they choose to take the risk, they deserve the consequences. Alcohol isn't something vital to your system. You don't need to drink, and if you chose not to, you might not be in this position, but you took your chances. To me, it'd be like trying to argue that your patient that smokes 2 packs of cigarettes a day should be given a perfectly healthy lung over someone who actually took care of themselves.

I'm someone who doesn't drink, smoke, or do any drugs. If someone told me I couldn't get a transplant because someone that took horrible care of their body was getting it instead, I would be furious. If you try to justify it by saying "everyone has a right to live", yes they certainly do, but this particular person was completely aware that there would be negative health damage as a result of their drinking and decided to opt for it. They clearly don't value their life in that way if they were willing to risk it significantly. So if you give that liver to someone who was an alcoholic and has a good chance of ruining this one as well, in the meanwhile, you could be neglecting someone who was just born with a liver condition and would live a long and healthy life with that transplant.

 

[Tastycles]

There's two sides to this. What is the limit? Is a teetotaller any more entiled to the liver than someone who has the occaisional drink here and there? It's very hard to determine. People develop alcohol problems for all kinds of reasons, sometimes because something has seriously fucked up in their lives. To continually punish them for that is wrong, but only if they have made an effort to change.

Nobody ever needs a transplant out of the blue, so for me it is simple. In the year - 18 months between diagnosis and the liver becoming available, you have to be alcohol free. Completely alcohol free. I am a passionate advocate of organ donation, but I wouldn't be if I thought my liver was going to the next George Best.

Then, once they have the liver, I'd come up with a way of punishing them if they go back to the bottle. Something like a huge fine would do nicely.

You cannot blanketly refuse alcoholics a chance to make themselves better, otherwise they will continue to drink until they die. If you did this for alcoholics, then you'd have to turn down lung transplants for smokers. If you did that you'd have to turn down heart surgery and transplants for fat people. It isn't right that someone should drink their way through two livers, but it also isn't right to tell someone that they have made a mistake, and that they can never be fully cured from it.

 

[Lee]

Funny that...alcoholics waste millions of NHS money...yet alcoholics give millions in NHS money, it's a full circle so leave them be.

 

[FromTheSouth]

I don't have a problem with people that have damaged their liver through drinking not being given transplants if that's what's going on.

But doctors take an oath to help all who need it. It is completely unethical to deny anyone a transplant. The same goes for smokers and lung transplants. First come, first served. It would suck if a loved one of mine didn't get a liver because some drunk did. On the flipside, I would hope that if I made some mistakes in my life, that a doctor wouldn't be judge, jury, and executioner. This is especially so if I didn't break the law. You are proposing death sentences for people who aren't even criminals, and that is wrong.

For people that drink, alcohol is a luxury. I don't care if they're addicted. It's their own fault for being in that condition.

So you're telling me that alcoholics, who can't control themselves should die because you don't approve of their behavior? Maybe we should deny health insurance to people who eat McDonald's. Where does the slippery slope stop? Should a nation with socialized medicine not give allergy shots to people who own animals? What about people that have bad backs from gardening? Should the government not pay for their health issues because of their terrible choice to garden? Oh, you approve of gardening, so that's OK? Drinking alcohol and gardening are both legal, and thus, those who participate in those activities should be treated equally.

Why should someone like that deserve a healthy liver over someone that is say in a car wreck, possibly because of a drunk driver?

Because doctor's take an oath to save every life they can. I like how you throw in the drunk driver statement to make a point, but your argument holds no water. If someone is doing something legally, then they should be treated the same as all other non-criminals. If anything, they should be first in line, in that the government did nothing to protect them from this terrible substance, alcohol. The government's negligence and greed has more to do with the "clean" person not getting a liver or a lung, by allowing these substances to be legal. If socialist countries don't want to pay for the health care of their citizens, of even worse, think that it is even remotely ethical to pick and choose who gets treatment, then they should actively try to help their citizens by outlawing substances that are harmful. So no more alcohol, cigarettes, narcotics, or fatty food, or candy, or cake, or gasoline....... Just because you like some harmful substances and not some others doesn't give you a right to choose who lives and who dies.

I've always wanted alcohol to be illegal internationally,

So alcohol is good enough for Jesus, but not for you? Got ya.

but that'll never happen. It's absurd that when there are so few donors that a person who is innocent of any wrongdoing needs a transplant but is denied so a person who has hurt themselves already will likely start damaging the new one all over again. No sympathy at all for them.

But plenty of sympathy for those who buy this hogwash. Greasy food can cause liver and kidney damage just like alcohol. Like I've been saying, the government has no right to decide who lives and who dies if none of these people are breaking laws. Furthermore, just because you don't like something, doesn't mean the people who use it deserve to die. Next, if the government did decide who got transplants, it would just be something else to hold over our heads and restrict freedoms. "Sure guys, have that beer, just don't get sick, because you will die. We're going to give that liver to the guy who eats three Big Macs a day, because he doesn't drink" A death sentence for alcohol? Are you serious KB?

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

The problem isn't really that simple. People who have parents that are addicted to things are more than likely to be addicted to the same thing. My ex-girlfriend is living with this douchebag that's just been diagnosed with irreversible sclorosis of the liver. His mum apparently was a heavy drinker, which therefore resulted in him being prone to alcohol addiction as well.

Now you might say, 'that's bullshit'. Trust me it isn't. I myself have certain difficulties with not taking certain things that my dad regularly took in his youth, and i've looked it up myself online and it's reportedly true.

Anyway, this idiot is 28 and he's got less than 12 months to live. He sat there running his mouth in tears, blabbing on about how he was going to stop drinking and get his act together and make sure the kids he never sees know he cares about them. Of course within 60 minutes of listening to that, he'd gone to a house party with even more alcohol and hasn't even decreased his alcohol intake at all. He's has these ******ed hopes that he'll be given a liver transplant as well, when of course there isn't a hope in hell of that happening.

Even his pisshead mates who also had been through rehab for alcohol abuse, were telling him to get his act together while passing him more booze as they did it.

Anyway, basically i was going to say that it isn't always as easy as everyone thinks to just kick those sorts of habits, but i my viewpoint is that people who can be relied upon to live healthily should always get priority. Things like the George Best situation should never be allowed to happen again.

 

[wolvdog316]

This is a slippery slope that has nothing to do with ethics. Has to do with money. At least it would in the USA. If you start banning transplants to people that damage their organs where does the line start and stop. Especially when it comes to Insurance claims. Alcoholics IMO would be a no brainer, but then what if you add people that aren't overweight but ate alot of greasy foods all their life. Does that mean no heart transplant? Or what about a lady that worked in a bar for 10 years. Didn't smoke, but got lung cancer. Occupational hazard?

I guess I should answer the question lol. I wouldn't approve of it. It wouldn't be fair. But nothing is ever fair. Money talks bullshit walks. People that need a organ, and has money will get it over a poor person.