1 in 4 livers go to binge drinkers

A liver transplant is slightly different though.
For one there aren't enough to go round.
Therefore there has to be some sort of criteria for selection. For example likelihood of re-doing the damage with continued behaviour.
 
Luckely for all invovled in the case of the liver the HLA matching drops the numbers of possible recepiants massively and so there are only a few people if that, who could recieve the organ.
 
I don't see how it can be justifiable for a doctor to deny an alcoholic a liver transplant. If a self-harmer was bleeding to death from the wrists would you refuse to stitch their wounds? Same difference in my view.
 
The ironic thing is exacaly that. Most doctors have no problems with treating everyone, its the managers and people in charge who make these decisions. However the doctors would get the stick if they were told they couldnt operate.
 
the only thing i can think of is that MA does carry risk but its different. the nhs would be helping you heal bones not replacing organs you've poisoned. also ma injury tends to be accidents but the health warnings about smoking, booze and drugs are all over the place
 
Or supporting you on ITU if you damage your neck during a breakfall...
Your place on ITU could kill more than a single liver could save
 
The problem with smoking drinking and obesity is the justification. All of these things although harmful are Legal, and so if the government are the ones who set the limits and the specificities of things like the NI contributions to the NHS there is no way they can subjectively choose who should or should not be treated.

But what about obese people who need somethign like knee or hip replacements. Should there be an upper weight limit for these, as the reduction in weight would not only decrease the risks involved during surgery, but would also increase thelongevity of the replacement.

There is already a certain prejudice towards sporting injuries. many people injured playing cricekt now get changed if they can before they go to A and E as turning up in cricket whites pretty much guarantees a long wait.
 
Your common sense does you proud. We need you to go and have a chat with that guy earlier in the week who announced that "Horse Riding was more dangerous than taking some drugs"

Whenever discussion around here turns to 'what should be on the NHS and what should not' I keep finding myself in situations of "How could you understand? You're happy in your body... You can't have a baby..." (Referencing gender modification / fertility treatment / and a few others..).

Lots of slippery slopes around, but we're a long way away from sensible goals of preventing deterioration or death caused by accidents and illness - which would be my 'one-line' job description for the NHS.

[Large row now starts as to 'what is an illness'?
 
I would like to think however they would have public support on their side if they ignored management and operated regardless?
 
The interesting point about the original article is that it is not actually referring to 'alcoholics' in the traditional sense. It is referring to the binge drinkers who go out a couple of times a week and get completely trashed. Although there has been a huge amount of publicity recently about the dangers of doing this, most of these people would never think they had an alcohol problem as they don't drink regularly, so trying to deny them a transplant would be very difficult as they could claim (as do martial artists when they get injured) it was a result of leisure activities.

The problem is cultural, with a large number of people going out at the weekend with the sole purpose of getting extremely drunk.
 
Organ transplantation is not simple. Many of the posts on this thread have raised very valid concerns about an organ potentially being 'wasted' or being given to a person 'that does not deserve it'.

There are large numbers of people waiting for organs at any one time, but it is not a simple matter of just making a list based upon how long you have been waiting.

To be considered for transplantation (in the UK) - ie to go on the list - you have to have a medical reason for needing the transplant. You have to be HIV free. Given the shortage of organs there has to be a certainty that receiving the organ would make a difference to your quality of life and that the procedure would not be wasted.

Then other factors start to come into play. Blood type and tissue type for example. I actually have a different blood type to other members of my family ( We are Ao, Oo, AB and Bo respectively - and no, I'm not the last one).

When an organ becomes available, the first decision made is which health authority and transplant team is it going to. This will be influenced by factors of time, distance, and previous distribution of organs. The next thing that happens is that a selection will be made of people waiting assigned to that hospital's lists who have the appropriate tissue and blood type. The highest people on the list will be called in. Where you stand on the list is not just determined by how long you have been waiting, but how great a difference a transplant would make to your quality of life, your ability to work, and to other people.

I've been called in for transplant twice. Both times, I've been lucky, both times I received the organ. Both times I've had blood taken and been asked many questions on arrival to determine whether I or the other candidate(s) was in a better state of health to receive the transplant and survive the operation. On one occasion that process took an entire night. It's not pleasant.

Given that alcohol consumption is often a cause of liver deterioration, this statistic is not surprising.
 
Right I will be honest that I have not read this thread at all except the first post but I can pretty much guess what I have passed.

First everyone is going to get whiny and opinionated and say 'oh that is wrong'. Then of course inevitably someone will toss the ball in the scrum and everyone is going to start on how terrible the NHS management structure is and how it should all be run by them because they know better.

Firstly the NHS is a national service - it's duty is the serve the public and to attempt to protect/save life. They have an absolutely binding duty to try and save lives through whatever means they have.
I'm not going to start on the way it is run, I don't necessarily agree but it scarcely relevant to the point at hand.

The single biggest knee jerk reaction to a statement like "1 in 4 livers go to binge drinkers" is "What a waste". Firstly you presume there are healthy patients who could use those livers, furthermore you are presuming that their bodies will not reject them. Organ transplantation is not as simple as taking out a cog and replacing it. There is a whole lot of work that goes into a successful transplant and it still does not necessarily work. Many of these 1 in 4 may well go into the only patients left who's bodies have not rejected them.

Also, a healthy living organ can only be maintained so long, unless I am vastly vastly mistaken it is not a simple case of "stick it in the freezer and defrost on low power". Blood is a prime example - blood on it's own within so many weeks actually degrades to the point of being unusable - this is why blood banks are so hard to maintain. New technology has discovered a way to quell this and keep the blood at about 80% quality for a much extended period of time, but still not ideal.

Essentially what I am saying is giving them to binge drinkers may not be a matter of choice but be a matter of there being no potentially healthy patients who could take them. At a base value it is dubios but think mroe into the detials of the problem.
I would also just like to add - whilst it is not meant to be a justification - that I can easily drink enough pints over the course of ONE night out to classify as a binge drinker that week - the benchmark really is not THAT high. Habitual binge drinker? I know people who intake alcohol on a daily basis after work or whatever, pint here pint there... The mental perspective of what a binge drinker is differs really quite heavily from what medicine says a binge drinker is.

If anything I think the failing that should be jumped upon is those who ARE in fact harming their health due to addiction not recieving sufficient help to turn their lives around. There will always be those who don't however I think (and this opinion goes further afield as well) there really is a point where you need to Tell someone how to live their life.
 
You are all still forgeting that drinker and smokers have more than paid for the healthcare they'll recieve in the taxes and duty paid on tobacco and alcohol.
They pay for it their (I'm) entitled to use it.

edit: ......and I don't like liver!
 
problem is you cant get an impartial view. MD you just said you smoke and drink so obviously you want to get the helathcare (although i agree about the tax) whereas cos i dont i can say quite happily that you shouldn't
 
Then you're not paying your way. You're taking healthcare, bought and paid for by good honest smokers and drinkers and not even contibuting. You owe us!
 
I've worked behind a bar off-and-on since I was 16. Possibly because of this I've tried a wide variety of alcohol, and seen the resutls of it (in others), and don't drink! I can have a perfectly good time stone cold sober.

Anyone can make a mistake and get drunk... I've yet to have anyone explain how on earth you can make the same mistake a second time (never mind every weekend). I've got a thousand-and-one worries, but to my mind becoming 'oblivious' due to drugs of any kind would simply be another worry and not fix any of the existing ones.

In other words - I can NOT understand the idea of a definition of a good night as being one you can't remember



You're not paying for ANY 'luxury' items - such as chocolate? Good for you
 
Threads like this fascinate me because they usually just by-pass the most fundamental issue involved. It's like there's an 2 ton elephant in the cornor that everyone is too polite to mention.

As you Brits discuss this, doesn't it occur to you just how wrong it is that anyone other than you has a say in the level of health care you recieve? Aren't you horrified by the idea that your healthcare may be determined by the outcome of a national election? It's like I'm reading dialogue from Huxley's 'Brave New World' listening to you. Doesn't anyone wonder why the gov't gets to have a say in who gets treated in hospital and to what extent? Don't you fear a popular trend, such as the anti-smoking lobby here in America, may someday sway politicians into deciding who does and who does not deserve to be treated? Look at the very point of this thread. I don't know how you can surrender so much of your freedom to the whims of your gov't like this. It's appalling.

Healthcare should be between the patient and the Dr. Our system in the US is far from perfect, but at least I don't have to worry about a gov't bureaucrat deciding when or if my son gets treated for whatever ails him. At least not yet.
 
Interesting DCombatives - I don't think that particular elephant is being ignored (there were a few posts I spotted regarding top-up insurance which may be the slippery slope to full insurance).

I've got personal debt, can't get more credit, but I'm earning a wage. If bits of me started giving out, would I get treatment? My wife has long-term illness, and 'insurance' as I've experienced it works on the idea "If we think we'll need to pay out, we'll charge a fortune for it!" {As money became bad some time ago, insurances were the first things to slide}

Does everyone over there have YOUR assurances that their son would get treatment when required? I'm asking this with NO real-life knowledge of your systems, so don't bite my head off I'm genuinely interested.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top