Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

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

Announcements
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Its sad that he died so young and was binge drinking at the age of 13. Bad parenting was clearly a contribution to this situation but from reading the article that will clearly be overlooked as no blame is put on the parents. Its likely when people read this article they'll be thinking instead of who are the people who deserve to recieve transplants when they need them and I think that they made the right decision. The liver that person might have recieved will go to someone who will probably look after it better and deserves it instead of the binge drinker who would probably wreck it. Sadly because there are probably more binge drinkers in the UK than people with natural liver problems many livers and organs will go to people who abused their orginal organs when priority should really go to people who have natural organ problems first, its sad that people will still die but Its clearthat thats morally the right thing to do when you can't save everyone.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    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.
    There aren't enough organs for everyone who needs them anyway. Talking about a 'third chance' is ridiculous. Each case has to be thought about individually, and this includes applying the six month alcohol free criteria.

    And paying for organ donations? Did you stop for a moment and think where that might lead?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _Demosthenes)
    There aren't enough organs for everyone who needs them anyway. Talking about a 'third chance' is ridiculous. Each case has to be thought about individually, and this includes applying the six month alcohol free criteria.

    And paying for organ donations? Did you stop for a moment and think where that might lead?
    I thought all about your points, don't worry. It's not about privatisation, it's about priority. I would be aghast to see the NHS become a profit-based system.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    So if two people are the same age and both binge drinkers needing a transplant the richer one gets the organ?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timetokill)
    Personally I think (as harsh as it sounds) that people who have caused their own medical problems, such as the one in the article should generally not be given priority over those who have illnesses which are not of their own doing.

    Organs are unfortunately so few and far between that life and death decisions have to be made and I cant really see how it it could be justified if a vital organ went to someone who had ****** it up for themselves over someone who was born with a birth defect say.

    Its a horrible, horrible thing either way and the guy was young which is a shame but thats the consequences of his actions. Hopefully stories such as this will wake society up and make them realise that the NHS isnt a bottomless pit that will be able to help and provide for you no matter what crap you inflict upon yourself. I also hope it'll encourage more people to sign up as organ doners by restoring faith that the right decisions are made and their organs wont just go to some drunk.
    This.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BumperBo)
    Behind bars..? O.o It's an organ donation not grand theft auto
    Yes from behind bars. This has nothing to do with organ donation. This has everything to do with making people responsible for the children they bring into this world. I am guessing that if the kid was sucking on bottles of cider before he was able to walk, then the role model being set for him wasn't too great.

    I see it everywhere where I live. Now the summer holidays have come, its even worse. Young children out at all times of the night with cigarettes and beer. Some of these kids won't even be in secondary school.

    I personally think the only way to break this circle is to start making people accountable. Your kid found on a park bench pissed out of his brains, community service. Second time, more community service and a very stern talking to. Third time, off to prison and put the kids in the care of someone who can set a good example and try to steer them in the right direction. It will take time and money, but a lot less time and money than trying to give liver transplants to half the teenagers of this country.

    Accountability for your actions whether that be dropping litter or bringing children into the world.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quail)
    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.
    It's not about deserving or not deserving, it's about the best rationing of limited resources.
    Offline

    0
    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.
    **** him, he only would've ****** it up again later.

    Although I was incensed to find that George Best received about 5 new livers.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Very right.

    He committed suicide unwittingly in my opinion. No sympathy whatsoever.

    If I could choose who my organs went to after I died, I'd certainly refuse alcoholics/ex-alcoholics/junkies.

    The 6 month rule is very fair - probably too fair sometimes.

    I'd even refuse George Best (as a Man Utd fan).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quail)
    Doctors still choose to spend time and use resources on people who self harm.
    Self harm and being an alcoholic are different - I'm not messing up my organs which would eventually leave me needing a transplant or dying.

    I have no sympathy for this man. He's damaged his liver and appears to have made no attempt to stop drinking. Meanwhile, there are people who need organs (through no fault of their own) who can't get them due to a shortage.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    It's very unfortunate that he died but at the same time hopefully someone more deserving, i.e. not someone who deliberately ***** up their insides, gets the transplant.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HectaSelecta)
    Actually, what occurred is not allowed.
    Yes it is, to be given a new liver, whether you are an alcoholic or not, you have to have abstained from alcohol for 6 months, there are no exceptions.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    It's damn right. The NHS needs to adopt harsher policies on things like this. It annoys me when you see people who would be perfectly healthy if they just did some exercise and cut out some bad habits instead go to the NHS and have some artificial correction to their underlying health problem.

    I can't believe how selfish some people are.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    The real question is why we aren't sinking a load more cash into stem cell research so we can all binge as much as we want and get a new liver on demand.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quail)
    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.
    He was given the chance, but failed to meet one of the criteria for organ tranplants which is staying alcohol free for 6 months.
    So he was given the chance regardless of the situation just obviously couldn't manage it.
    And there are obviously limited organs availlable for transplants. Which usually go high priority anyway to those with life threatning condtions which haven't devloped through binge drinking/drugs whatever.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    its sad but we must learn to control our drinking problems. But this guy had the choice to control is drinking problem year ago. It was his choice to drink and die. That's fine with me if people want to do that. But the should not be given a transplant people with more serious problems need it more than some bum like the guy that just died
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574...64-401,00.html

    What are your opinions on the matter?

    I personally agree with the decision the doctor's took. This guy was a binge drinker since 13 and even though his mother said he was prepared to stop drinking, I don't buy it...If this guy has been binge drinking for 9 years, I doubt he would have had the capacity to go cold turkey for six months...but on the off chance he could have kicked the booze, it still shouldn't have gone to him and should've gone to someone who wasn't directly responsible for destroying their liver.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    As sad as it is, I have to agree with their decision.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ironmike)
    Yes from behind bars. This has nothing to do with organ donation. This has everything to do with making people responsible for the children they bring into this world. I am guessing that if the kid was sucking on bottles of cider before he was able to walk, then the role model being set for him wasn't too great.

    I see it everywhere where I live. Now the summer holidays have come, its even worse. Young children out at all times of the night with cigarettes and beer. Some of these kids won't even be in secondary school.

    I personally think the only way to break this circle is to start making people accountable. Your kid found on a park bench pissed out of his brains, community service. Second time, more community service and a very stern talking to. Third time, off to prison and put the kids in the care of someone who can set a good example and try to steer them in the right direction. It will take time and money, but a lot less time and money than trying to give liver transplants to half the teenagers of this country.

    Accountability for your actions whether that be dropping litter or bringing children into the world.
    Lost me right there
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    As someone battling an alcohol problem, I'd say it's very easy to keep off the booze for six months. I've gone three and could have held out for six if I'd been told to do so by doctors. I was never drinking the quantities this lad was, but I imagine it would be possible for any alcoholic once the initial withdrawal was over. Bestie managed 2 years off before his transplant.

    The thing that scares drunks most is the thought of never drinking again, and, the nature of the beast being as it is, a few months after the operation, he'd be drinking back to his usual levels again. It takes a decade or so to **** up your own liver, but it takes only a few months of bottle a day style drinking to do in someone else's. So no, as sad as this all is, I don't think anybody with this magnitude of a problem should ethically be allowed a liver transplant.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
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.