Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    It was right he didn't get it because he didn't fit the 6 month alcohol free criteria, which others would have, and so they should get it.
    It's really sad he died at 22 though, and sad he started binge drinking at 13. Should have gotten more help/had better parents.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rockrunride)
    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".
    Agreed, repped.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I feel sorry for the guy but I don't see what other decision the doctors could have made really. Its scary that he can seem more or less fine and then be admitted into hospital never to leave because his liver is so damaged, and at such a young age too.
    "UCL extend their sympathies to his family" pfft what were the family doing to let him be out binge drinking at 13?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by atheistwithfaith)
    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?
    Did you read my entire post? Because I clearly explained how doctors should approach trasplants, etc. I meant that if there are available transplants for everyone on the list, then they should be used and not denied to the patients. But of course that's not the case. Just read my post and not just the first line.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clubber Lang)
    Can you see a mahooooooooooooosive flaw in your post there?
    The premise for the first statement was that there are enough transplants available for everyone. The premise for the second statement was that there aren't - because in reality there aren't. The point is that doctors shouldn't refuse to give treatment to someone just because they "did it to themselves". This only applies to the situation that they do have transplants for everyone on the list.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    these only a limited number of organs, and well your going to give them to the person you will know will look after it, in this case he caused it himself due to drinking, he could of stopped, you don't get to that level without being told to stop by a few doctors, you give it to the person you will know will look after it, with a limited number of organs

    look at geoge best, given a new liver, goes back to drinking a dies a year later
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    They should not be denied organs, as long as they sign a legally binding contract which forbids them from binge drinking/smoking/abusing drugs ever again, lest they be fined and barred from future abuse-related transplants, or made to go private.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    or made to go private.
    Private organ transplants? Are you having a bubble?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BrightGirl)
    It was right he didn't get it because he didn't fit the 6 month alcohol free criteria,
    That's it, I don't think it gets any more complicated than that.

    The rules on organ transplants are very strict, it's not the decision of the 'doctors' it's UK Transplant's decision based on the standard criteria.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    He should be used in advertising as an example.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Completely right decision.

    This has just reminded me how much I hate George Best.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renal)
    Private organ transplants? Are you having a bubble?
    Organs would still be available but they would have to pay for them, on the NHS or otherwise.

    If this guy had liver failure and he repeatedly ignored doctor's warnings and his own illness and went on drinking despite that, then it's his problem.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    His fault, unlucky.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    Organs would still be available but they would have to pay for them, on the NHS or otherwise.
    I think that proposition is entirely immoral.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Wow, he lives very close to me. But in response to OP, I think it was the right thing to do. He chose to ruin his liver so why should he be allowed to get another one?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renal)
    I think that proposition is entirely immoral.
    What's so immoral about it. They get one second chance with a free organ transplant, and if they screw that up and go back to drink, then there's not much hope for them. If they want a third chance, then they should pay for it rather than thinking that whatever happens, they will get a transplant.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HectaSelecta)
    Actually, what occurred is not allowed.

    Binge drinkers who get liver disease are entitled to receive a liver transplant since it's their first time needing one.
    Of course it is allowed lol, why do you think it happened? They decided not to give him a transplant because he hadn't stopped drinking for 6 months prior to it. He would have gotten a transplant eventually if all the circumstances were correct but he didn't live long enough for it to happen - his own fault.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Yes its a sad story, but he isnt the only person waiting for a transplant who died whilst waiting for said transplant. The criteria for a transplant ( of any organ) is very strict, they are not just given out will nilly. I think that more should have been done to help this guy before he even got to the point where he needed a new liver personally. I do wonder what he would have done if he had"ve been strong enough to survive the transplant, would he have gone back to the drink?. I can only presume so, look what happened to George Best. He went back to it ( which didnt surprise me one bit) and then he was dead. That was a waste of a liver that someone who didnt binge drink or was teetotal could have used.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Personally I'd say it's wrong. If he needs a liver transplant, he needs a liver transplant. Doctors still choose to spend time and use resources on people who self harm, and obviously I know that lots of people require organs... but I think that once you start getting into deciding whether someone DESERVES it or not, the boundaries get too blurred and it complicates everything. I know it's not realistic as there aren't enough organs to go round, but ideally, everyone SHOULD get the organs they need regardless of the reason.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Very sad, but as many have pointed out - If he had been dry for 6 months, he'd have been ready for one, if there were more organs avaliable (I'd fully support an opt out donor register) then there wouldn't be such a long list.
 
 
 
Poll
Do protests make a difference in political decisions?
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.