Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Is this right or wrong? (Young person refused liver transplant) watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Well he doesn't fit in with the necessary criteria, and seeing as it was self inflicted I don't think he should be first choice.

    I know that's harsh, but there is a shortage and his age shouldn't be a factor.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    The real answer would be for people to need to "opt-out" of donating their organs when they die rather than the current system which is "opt-in". If you haven't opted-in to be a organ donor on your death, do it right now on the NHS website. Then we would not have such a shortage of organs.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by BumperBo)
    But health chiefs ruled he should not be exempt from strict organ donation criteria which require an alcohol-free period of at least six months.

    It would've been unsafe to perform the implant, the new liver would have been at high risk immediately anyways (even compared to normal transplants). It wasn't to spite the guy
    Where does it say that in the article? The above quote is moral criteria, is it not? I don't see how 6 months can be medically related criteria :confused: .
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    If you haven't opted-in to be a organ donor on your death, do it right now on the NHS website. Then we would not have such a shortage of organs.
    Agreed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    England starts to see sense. Though they do this 'extreme' Yet still pay smokers to quit and in discussion obese people to diet. <_<
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's harsh to say it but I agree with the decision that was made.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    The real answer would be for people to need to "opt-out" of donating their organs when they die rather than the current system which is "opt-in". If you haven't opted-in to be a organ donor on your death, do it right now on the NHS website. Then we would not have such a shortage of organs.
    This. Most people don't donate because they can't be bothered, not because they don't want to.

    Alternatively we could copy China's solution and use the organs of executed criminals :p:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    Where does it say that in the article? The above quote is moral criteria, is it not? I don't see how 6 months can be medically related criteria :confused: .
    You don't see how alcohol can affect a weak newly transplanted liver?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Liver disease is pretty insiduous and obviously incredibly serious, you don't even have to drink particularly excessively to develop it. You sort of swell up with fluid- so you get a huge tummy, huge legs, it can start filling the outside of your lungs.. so the fluid puts a strain on all your organs- especially your heart. The liver can't breakdown the toxins it usually does which also makes you feel crap and this and vitamin deficiencys cause brain damage.. There's ways to relieve the fluid (drains, giving albumin, diuretics) but sometimes they aren't enough, hence transplants..

    This is obviously sad and I've seen lots of people like him (though people in their thirties and upwards) many of which will live with liver failure for quite some time. Presumably as he didnt fit the criteria for a transplant he probably wouldnt have survived even with the transplant. It does serve as a reminder to really think about not drinking too much.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Fusilero)
    You don't see how alcohol can affect a weak newly transplanted liver?
    Alcohol metabolic rate is something like 1 unit per hour minimum, and perhaps you could allow for minute amounts that may still be circulating beyond that and the weakened liver, but 6 months? That's got to be a rule to ensure that there is no risk of reversion to alcoholism, not a medical quantity, and as such is more of a moral decision still.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If the idiot started binge-drinking from 13 then why the **** does he deserve a new liver if there are so few available?
    Absolutely spot-on decision from the doctors.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bluestorm)
    What do you think of this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8159813.stm

    Should he have been denied a liver just because he caused his own to fail? There are lots of people whose organs fail because of their own fault yet they still get transplants.
    Show me some statistics.

    Different organs require different levels of financial, professional and practical commitment.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    It's a tricky one. The fact that he began drinking at 13 doesn't automatically mean he should be refused. There are so many reasons why someone may drink (or take drugs even) at a young age. When you get in to that cycle it is very difficult to get out. It is all too easy for those of us who have been blessed with good upbringings and a happy home and education to judge those who have been born into lower socio-economic groups. And perhaps this may have been the case here. There may also have been reasons why he didn't seek professional help for his alcohol addiction earlier on. Every case is individual with different circumstances, and I think the rules should accommodate this fact.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    It is wrong that he was denied a liver transplant. Doctors are supposed to help everyone indiscriminately.
    That doesnt make sense. Are you saying they should just pick a name out the hat to choose who gets a liver rather than assessing each case individually?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I think you can argue the toss both ways. Some will say there was a chance to save a young life and it wasn't taken, others will say he was an alcoholic and didn't deserve the transplant.

    The line I would take is that the parents should be put up infront of a judge and jury, and made to have a long hard think about the role they played from behind bars. I live on a rough estate with countless examples of this young boy getting lashed on cider every night with not an adult in sight. If we tackled the underlying problem regarding ill-educated people breeding like rabbits, supported by a fundamentally flawed benefits system, we might not need to have another one of these conversations.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    It is wrong that he was denied a liver transplant. Doctors are supposed to help everyone indiscriminately.

    However, since the waiting list is long and full of people who were less responsible for their condition, it was correct to put others first. In the event that there was a transplant available and the doctors refused to do it, then it probably would've been cruel.
    Can you see a mahooooooooooooosive flaw in your post there?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    Where does it say that in the article? The above quote is moral criteria, is it not? I don't see how 6 months can be medically related criteria :confused: .
    Well there's a significant difference between those who haven't had alcohol for more than 6 months compared to less:

    <6 months w/o alcohol: 70% went back to drinking
    >6 months w/o alcohol: 42% went back to drinking

    source

    Plus their body has had more time to get rid of the leftover alcohol and related ingredients.
    It's not like a dropoff where, at 6 months, the person is suddenly MUCH better, but they can't have someone full of alcohol get a new liver that has to deal with rejection AND all the built up alcohol right away.

    They had to set the limit somewhere. Some say that the rule is actually immoral, so there's no way the rule is based on morality. Denying someone an organ because you feel they don't "deserve" it would NEVER become a medical requirement. :P
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ironmike)
    I think you can argue the toss both ways. Some will say there was a chance to save a young life and it wasn't taken, others will say he was an alcoholic and didn't deserve the transplant.

    The line I would take is that the parents should be put up infront of a judge and jury, and made to have a long hard think about the role they played from behind bars. I live on a rough estate with countless examples of this young boy getting lashed on cider every night with not an adult in sight. If we tackled the underlying problem regarding ill-educated people breeding like rabbits, supported by a fundamentally flawed benefits system, we might not need to have another one of these conversations.
    Behind bars..? O.o It's an organ donation not grand theft auto
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think the decision was correct.

    The young man had not been sober for the required 6 months.
    He probably wasn't well enough to survive the transplant and the rehabilitation afterwards would be aggrevated by his continuing alcohol addiction.
    He caused his own liver failure and would probably continue to drink.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Needs to be more organs available. I think it's a sad story.

    As for all the haters calling him an idiot who deserved to die, how bleeding ignorant, pathetic and childish of you. You don't know what it's like to be an alcoholic.
    You don't realise the dependency, and you think it's as simple as "zomg he did thiz to himself ther4 he desevz no sympathyz".
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.