If that person needed it more urgently, there wouldn't be as much of an ethical dilemma. Such an unforgiving and heartless policy is not befitting of the medical profession

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Oh, so letting the child go without the liver with the possibility that another match may not come around, just to let some guy who's probably just going to pickle it again get it is --forgiving-- (okay yeah it's pretty forgiving, but foolishly so)? it's forgiving, but foolish. Besides, even if he is somehow foolproof-ly forced to never taste alcohol again, it's his own fault he pickled his liver, but the child is just a victim of bad luck.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm afraid you're all making the assumption that the alcoholic is somehow a bad person who is undeserving. Don't you think it's incredibly judgmental and callous to brand the alcoholic as automatically evil or wrong? What if he or she was driven into depression after their family were killed in a horrible car pile up? Would you be so cold towards their problem then? That's the point I'm making. Without knowing the situation in full, how can we possibly make and judgments or decisions. The only way to be fair is to base the system on need, but at the same time, the patient can also be presented with a CHOICE. "Sir/Madam, there is also a child in need of this liver. They don't need it as urgently as you, and can probably hang on for another donor, but would you be willing to let them go first?". People who jumped on my post and tried to tear it apart, you are all guilty of making unfair assumptions and judgments on the part of the alcoholic. Shame on you all.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Unless the situation has changed, there is still a good chance that he will destroy the new liver too. He'd still be depressed, so the end result is the same. Sometimes, it is not how you get there that matters, especially when another life is at stake.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Of course, but what I'm trying to illustrate, is the filthy, unfounded and unreasonable prejudice of everyone against the alcoholic. The precise ins and outs of the situation could be many and deviously complex, which means we mustn't so callously pass judgment

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No Tommy I don't think you know what you are talking about. The alcoholic was knowingly destroying his liver. So giving him a liver again would mean that he would do it again. So it would go to waste, whereas a child has a whole life in front of him, and he/she had no choice in needing a liver. I would rather save a child's life than wasting it to another alcoholic.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Even if he's not going to drink again, he shouldn't be a high-priority patient. He had one liver and chose to destroy it, he doesn't deserve a second one that could otherwise go to someone who didn't knowingly destroy theirs.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm glad none of you are in positions of authority in the medical profession. The world of medicine under most of you would be terrifying indeed. I made another reply above which you can see, and to reiterate - who the hell do you think you all are passing judgment so quickly over the alcoholic? The reason I disagree with the statement is mainly due to its ambiguity. Those of you who jump on what I say and call me stupid, or ignorant, or cruel - you are fools. Just look at the statement and how illogically sweeping and absolute it is. What if the "child" is a criminal who murdered a toddler with a baseball bat, but the alcoholic was driven to drink by a massive tragedy? Would you be so quick to judge the alcoholic then? There's more in my response above, feel free to answer it here in this minithread instead if you want.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That doesn't equate to denying them the help they need when they need it. And the OP is incredibly sweeping and absolutist. It's foolish to make such statements, the world doesn't work that way

by Anonymous 11 years ago

They don't, though. There really is a thorough investigation before ranking candidates on the transplant list. Alcoholism is right up there with a history of attempted suicide.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You answered my question.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I wondered if alcoholics had a difficult time getting on the transplant list.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

What TheLycanChick said. They go through your history, and if you're an alcoholic chances are you won't even be put on the list. If somehow you are, then you can't drink while on the list at all. So even if the alcoholic was miraculously put on the list, and actually got to the top, chances are they would have been drinking while they were waiting. Therefore get denied, and it moves onto the next person on the list.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Alcoholics have a disease. They don't just love alcohol or something.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I feel like your entire rant did nothing for you.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You pointed out that it's easy for alcoholics to stop drinking.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Someone decides to give into the compulsion? It's a disease where your body is dependent on it and you can't control yourself. It's not the same as someone giving into a slice of cake while they're on a diet. Have some empathy..

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It usually takes some professional help though.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No disease is okay..

by Anonymous 11 years ago