Poll: Should recovered alcoholics be given liver transplants on the NHS?

[Hammer's Girl]

ONCE AN ALCOHOLIC, ALWAYS AN ALCOHOLIC.

I'm inclined to agree with you. My father is an alcoholic and the number of times he 'stopped' drinking only to start again soon after was soul destroying. Even if there was some sort of system where alcoholics were given lower priority I still don't believe he would deserve a new liver.

But then, to be fair, I wouldn't p*** on him if he was on fire

 

[aspher]

What's next? Denying treatment of obese people because they eat too much food? It's a slippery slope when we start to deny people health treatment based upon the circumstance in which they acquired the condition.

 

[Trebort]

I voted no.

The NHS is there to provide medical care to people who need it, not to nursemaid self inflicted injuries.

Alcies and smokers should be denied service.

Also....

What's next? Denying treatment of obese people because they eat too much food? It's a slippery slope when we start to deny people health treatment based upon the circumstance in which they acquired the condition.

Yes, Fatties should be denied service. They could try using a little self control and not eating too much cake. (Unless they have a geninue medical condition making them fat, like an overactive thingy, each fattie should be tested, if they are just pie munchers, then they should be rolled out of the hospital)

Back to organs... who should get priority over a liver? A 14 year old boy, for example, with their entire future ahead of them, or some middle aged guy who has pickled their liver since they were 14? Bah. No contest.

I can't for the life of me imagine why I am not actually the Secretary of State for Health

 

[Chipperz]

NO. ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOT!

You people may think I'm being unfair here but trust me on this one I've seen relapsing behaviour in alcoholics and druggies time and time and time again and as a result, lives ruined because of it. ONCE AN ALCOHOLIC, ALWAYS AN ALCOHOLIC. They are not worth the risk when there are plenty of others who actually need liver tranplants and aren't just going to end up destroying them.

I'm sorry you had a bad experience, but judging every addict the same way is remarkably naieve. Under your view, children born addicted (and it happens terrifyingly often) deserve to suffer for the sins of their mothers, and people who have been clean for years should be treated like junkies.

Does a catch-all "they deserve it" really seem right to you?

 

[jasta67]

Well, alcoholic wasn't the worse case. In Western Australia where i live, march of this live. A mother was given $250'000 by the government to go to Singapore for her SECOND liver transplant.
(full story > http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/liver-mum-claire-murray-in-surgery-in-singapore/story-e6frg12c-1225841881346 ).
so being an alcoholic isnt that bad compared to a heroin addict. She died two weeks after the second transplant

 

[The Hairminator]

I don't think they should die if there is a liver available and no one else could take it.

 

[jasta67]

Forgot to mention at the beginning she was a heroin addict.

 

[jasta67]

there is a long waiting list for organs in australia

 

[icaritos]

If they aren't drinking there's absolutely no reason to deny them a liver. I understand that there's no point in giving a liver to someone that is still drinking, but to simply let a person die because you don't like the choices they made earlier in their lives is sick, and make no mistake about it, if you just 'give them lower priority' you're basically letting them die. New people are constantly being added to those lists, and people that constantly stay near the bottom almost never get transplants.

And if you give them high priority you are letting someone else die. I rather see well the person who didn't bring their fate upon themselves regardless of how recovered the alcoholic is. I'm not saying they shouldn't get a liver, but their priority on the transplant list would be low if it depended on me.

 

[Corpse XxX]

Put them on the list but don't give them a high priority
This way they still get a liver but the more urgent cases are treated first

Exactly what i was about to say.. Lower priority on alcoholics..

 

[fenrizz]

Yes, I think so.
But people that never were alcoholics and/or drug addicts should get priority over them.

I hate to say this, but they kind of brought it on themselves, even if I consider alcoholism a disease.

 

[Caliostro]

Personally I don't think they should. They may well have made the effort to stop drinking in order to recieve treatment but what about all the other people in desperate need of transplants who have never done anything to bring the problem on themselves?

This is not the issue with giving liver transplants to drinkers. The issue is that they'd just destroy it right after, which is a waste.

I'm not to keen on legislating who has the right to live based on habits that only harm themselves, but given the supply and demand of organs, I can understand the rule. That said, if someone is provenly recovered, then there's no reason they shouldn't get a transplant. Would you like your whole life to be all about the worst thing you've ever done? Would you like it if someone refused to save your life, if they let you die, based on past mistakes that only hurt yourself?

 

[ZephrC]

If they aren't drinking there's absolutely no reason to deny them a liver. I understand that there's no point in giving a liver to someone that is still drinking, but to simply let a person die because you don't like the choices they made earlier in their lives is sick, and make no mistake about it, if you just 'give them lower priority' you're basically letting them die. New people are constantly being added to those lists, and people that constantly stay near the bottom almost never get transplants.

And if you give them high priority you are letting someone else die. I rather see well the person who didn't bring their fate upon themselves regardless of how recovered the alcoholic is. I'm not saying they shouldn't get a liver, but their priority on the transplant list would be low if it depended on me.

And I think it's horrible to choose who lives and dies over opinions on behavior they're not even engaging in anymore.

 

[Vampire cat]

Whats the point of free healthcare if it doesn't concern everyone. Yes they should. I do think people need to be sober for quite a while (6 months is good I guess) and people that doesn't have a self-induced contidion should take priority.

 

[linwolf]

Yes, I can't see any reason not to give them transplant. If they are recovered it would be wrong to condemn them on past mistakes.

 

[razer17]

Well they ruined their livers themselves, so the should only get a transplant if there were a surplus of them. That seems quite unlikely though.

 

[SmartIdiot]

NO. ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOT!

You people may think I'm being unfair here but trust me on this one I've seen relapsing behaviour in alcoholics and druggies time and time and time again and as a result, lives ruined because of it. ONCE AN ALCOHOLIC, ALWAYS AN ALCOHOLIC. They are not worth the risk when there are plenty of others who actually need liver tranplants and aren't just going to end up destroying them.

I'm sorry you had a bad experience, but judging every addict the same way is remarkably naieve. Under your view, children born addicted (and it happens terrifyingly often) deserve to suffer for the sins of their mothers, and people who have been clean for years should be treated like junkies.

Does a catch-all "they deserve it" really seem right to you?

For those that have brought it on themselves, yes.

ONCE AN ALCOHOLIC, ALWAYS AN ALCOHOLIC.

Well that is simply not true. I get that you've seen this before, and so have I.
I have family who had serious alcohol problems, and have since sobered up. To say that everyone who becomes an alcoholic will always be an alcoholic (In the sense they they will always drink) is objectively wrong. I'm sorry you've had bad experiences with people who couldn't make it, but don't generalize.

(This is for both posts) Perhaps I was a bit OTT in posting my view back there. I just do not trust anyone who says "I'm on the wagon" or "Straight and narrow for me" anymore as each time, every one of them has fallen. Yes I've heard some people actually do make it and to be fair, the aforementioned people did have a good run on staying clean however, they relapsed and became worse than they were before. When I said 'once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic' I meant the addiction is still there. It only takes one drink to trigger it all off again. I guess I'm kinda jaded on this one. To me it's not case of if someone relapses it's when. I do want to have a positive outlook on it and I'd love to say I could support the idea of giving alcoholics a second chance but I just find it hard to trust people like that.

 

[siffty]

to me it depends on the person if they have come form something involving philological reasons then may be id the just liked to get pissed then no

 

[Prometherion]

Think it depends, if the person has genuinely recovered and learnt to manage their addiction then yeah. Call it a second chance.

However I think we must ensure that no-one can abuse this opportunity.

 

[rokkolpo]

it's their own fault.

now they have to wait for their damn liver.