Read an article on the front page of the Citizen, about Discovery Health (Bongi's favourite) refusing to fund a liver transplant on what seems like suspicion of alcohol abuse.So I want to debate transplants. And the ethical eligibility to receive one. Liver transplants spring to mind.
Many conditions cause end-stage liver disease that would then require a liver transplant for survival. Livers are a scarce resource that do not become available everyday. For instance, in the UK, 17000 people are waiting for a liver transplant. If you're lucky, between 50 and 200 become available every year.
So, how do you allocate organs appropriately and fairly?
Do you want to give a liver to a person, who through large consumption of alcohol caused cirrhosis? Or do you want to give it to a child, who through no fault of their own, has biliary atresia. Or to a woman who developed auto immune hepatitis?
Most international guidelines say that for a person who has alcohol-induced liver failure to become eligible for a transplant, they need to have shown a period of abstinence and/or a period of rehabilitation. Usually 6 months.
After this period - does that make them deserving of a liver transplant? Should the guidelines be abolished as people who are alcoholics have a disease "that they are not in control of"? Even if you will continue to drink and destroy your new liver?
Should self-induced liver disease be deserving at all (taking into account the more deserving children and adults out there, who have had no control of the cause of their liver failure)?
What do you think?
Personally, I will tell the Organ Donation Society NOT to give my liver / organs to anybody who has not been substance abuse rehabilitated. Full stop.
Comments
having said the above, if one of my children died and we donated his liver and i heard manto got it, i would be devastated.
In terms of allocation (and this I remember from my days at medical school - so it is state guidelines) they allocate on blood compatibility first, then on size, then on need...
All i'm saying is that if you have two people, one who is alcohol induced and one who isn't who BOTH are a great match... who should it go to????
I believe that if the patient went through the guidelines of abstinence and rehab, then they are both deserving.
But the question for many transplant centres in the world is: do they vigorously uphold the guideline??
although it is certainly unfair to give a liver or any other organ to people who didnt deserve it, i think they should get a chance to they are humans like us after all.
On the other hand, they destroyed themselves. it their own responsibility,
Would you let a reformed child abuser adopt?
Would you give a lung transplant to someone with metastatic cancer?
Are these even comparable?
Nevertheless the usual physician came back and kicked him right off the transplant list.
This week I was told by his consultant that he has been turned down for transplant because of his past alcohol abuse. It's a death sentence because he will have less than six months to live now. He's 50 years old and the only family member I have left.
Don't you dare judge him because he's a good person, a kind person and he fought his alcoholism. He doesn't deserve to die and I don't deserve to watch him die. He effectively became a father to me when he was only 12 years old and I was a baby, after watching our own father die of a long illness.
So sit at home and write your comments and post your blogs. I'll be at the hospital again and then I'll come home and cry some more because my heart is breaking and there's no help or compassion from anyone.
I hope none of you ever have to endure what I'm going through or that if you do, then you don't meet the prejudice I've encountered.
What's interesting if we didn't have the medical technology or no one donated organs this issue would be mute. People would probably cherish life more and/or accept the consequences of their actions. Many people live who deserve to die, others die who deserve to live. I don't care if u r a saint... No one gave your brother a death sentence except for him. As for being judgemental, well if we had livers for everyone then no worries, but since there is a shotage we have to be...
as you all know we as a cicity are not perftic at all so there is no reason that all people that are in need of a liver should not be givin the chance to live. this is y i say dont let your gov tell you that drugs are bad when they promote the worst drug ever achole . it kills more people than any drug knowen to man ever more that both world wars combind just think about that one !!!!!! sorry about the spelling
polite and respectful. If possible, bring food and treats to the staff every day or as often as possible. You'd b surprised how that makes a difference. But most importantly, fight the doctor that said he can't get on the list. Do your research on eligibility, dig up past patients who are on the list, maybe by seeking out support groups. Fight! Even on the list, chances are he may not make it and pass away before he gets his transplant, but at least you will know you did everything you could and if he's on the list he has at least a chance.
I repeat, everyone take some time, educate yourself about what you speak of and then make recommendations but NONE OF YOU - NONE OF US - have any right nor will the right ever be given to us to play God...there is only one and I am betting none of you are He.
Big fat hairy deal. The chances are high that he will destroy the second liver, too.
If we had plenty of livers to go around, fine, give him one.
We don't.
It should go to someone who is going to get the most benefit from it, not to someone who has a high probability of throwing it all away.