Should an Alcoholic be given a Liver Transplant?

franman

Since George Best is in the news alot lately ive been hearing alot of people discuss this. Just wondering what people here thought

Memnoch

nope
in fact i'd favor the three strikes and your out policy for alcoholics.

ie. after your third admission to hospital if you are still continuing to drink yourself to death then you don't deserve to waste that valuable hospital bed.

therecklessone

Christ on a bike...

Alcoholism is a disease, not a lifestyle choice!

MorningStar

It comes down to one thing really alcoholics have a desease that is incompatibable with maintaining a healthy liver. Nobody with a desease that significantly reduces chances should be given the liver as they are rare.

General treatement should not be refused just because it is seen as social problem when it is a medical condition. Otherwise you start telling hemopheliacts to stop coming in and using up the blood products and get over it. It's not a simple case of self control and generally alcoholic have other conditions that have been untreated resulting in them becaoming alcholics.

MrPudding

therecklessone wrote:

Christ on a bike...

Alcoholism is a disease, not a lifestyle choice!

Yes it is a disease, my personal opinion is that an alcoholic should be allowed on the transplant list. While they are on that list they should be tested on a regular basis to ensure they are alcohol free. If they test positive they get dropped.

As for someone that gets a transplant and then proceeds to screw up their spanky new liver? Fcuk 'em. They most certainly do not deserve another. There are plenty of other people that need livers that are either not alcoholics or are but realise the value of the gift they are about to receive and will not fcuk it up.

To receive a new liver and then destroy it with drinking is highly disrespectful to the person that donated it and the people still on the waiting list.

Believe me I know alcoholism is a disease but that is still no exuse.

MrP

Earthhorse

On the one hand you have George Best, an alcoholic, who continued to drink after receiving his new liver and I can understand why this would make people think it's a bad idea. But there have been some statements made by doctors to indicate that the drinking he was doing was not related to his current condition. I don't know if that's true or not but it's worthy bearing in mind.

On the other hand you have Larry Hagman, a man who, if not an alcoholic, did abuse alcohol seriously throughout his life. Then his liver pretty much packed in and he sobered up immediately. He had to adhere to a strict diet and exercise regime in order to be allowed on the transplant list and I imagine something similar applied to Best (though the media have strenuously avoided doing any actual reporting on the matter, leaving the impression that Best was whisked magically to the top of the list and a liver practically garotted from an otherwise healthy person so that he might have a few more beers).

Hagman now spends lots of his time promoting donorship in the US. So you can't make grand statements about not allowing any type of the person on the list. Criteria should be in place. If people meet them they should be put on the list. If not, then no. Speculating about a person's post operative behaviour is a futile endeavour.

Pigman II

Should an Alcoholic be given a Liver Transplant?

Alcoholic = yes.

Convicted criminal = no.

Heinrich

Anyone who needs a liver transplant should be given one if it is available.
Thank God we only have opinions on this one as a judgement from some of the posters, it it were possible, would have Hitlerian solutions.

Let the poor chap rest in peace. The liver was not wasted as it prolonged his life.

MrPudding

Heinrich wrote:

Anyone who needs a liver transplant should be given one if it is available.
Thank God we only have opinions on this one as a judgement from some of the posters, it it were possible, would have Hitlerian solutions.

Let the poor chap rest in peace. The liver was not wasted as it prolonged his life.

Why should you give a liver to someone who will waste it? I have no problems giving a liver to an alcoholic, as long as they show they have the desire to give up the drink.

For every alcoholic on the waiting list who will continue to drink I am sure there are several people who will not drink.

If you put a liver into someone that destroys it by drinking it is a kind of a waste. Sure their life was prolonged, that is rarely a waste. But, if that liver had of been given to someone that would not have abused it it would have probably lasted longer. So, according to some, not a waste but it could have been used in a better way.

To Pigman II, I would prefer livers were given to people who understand the value of what they are receiving and change their lives accordingly. In that respect I would rather see a criminal that was will to look after it get the liver than a alcoholic that would not stop drinking and eventually destroy it.

I do not know the details of the Best case. I know in cases of liver transplants there is normally a requirement for the person receiving the liver not to drink. I do not know if Best's drinking lead to it current problem. I do seem to remember a story months ago that he was told if he continued to drink he would need another liver. Besides this, I am talking in general terms here.

MrP

Vangelis

Pigman II wrote:

Alcoholic = yes.

Convicted criminal = no.

And in 15 years Pigman goes to jail for having beaten someone, and the week before he found out that he had a lethal liver-disease. :rolleyes:

Vangelis

The only reason for not granting an alcoholic a liver transplantation would be because they are less worth than other people. That goes for criminals too. If somebody thinks that, they probably don't and shouldn't have a job in the health services. For when you're a nurse or a doctor, your duty is to provide the best treatment available for the patient, regardless of your emotions or own judgements of that patient's life and morals.

Socialdarwinists don't belong in the health service.

Pigman II

Vangelis wrote:

And in 15 years Pigman goes to jail for having beaten someone, and the week before he found out that he had a lethal liver-disease. :rolleyes:

There's already a thread open on AH for 'Irish Psychics Live' at the moment. I suggest you consentrate your 'insight' over there since its clearly wasted here. Til then I'll just fret over my future. :rolleyes:

Vangelis

Pigman II wrote:

There's already a thread open on AH for 'Irish Psychics Live' at the moment. I suggest you consentrate your 'insight' over there since its clearly wasted here. Til then I'll just fret over my future. :rolleyes:

Edit: Removed comment. It was too mean and I apologise.

MrPudding

Vangelis wrote:

The only reason for not granting an alcoholic a liver transplantation would be because they are less worth than other people. That goes for criminals too. If somebody thinks that, they probably don't and shouldn't have a job in the health services. For when you're a nurse or a doctor, your duty is to provide the best treatment available for the patient, regardless of your emotions or own judgements of that patient's life and morals.

Socialdarwinists don't belong in the health service.

Have a look at this:

http://um-jmh.org/body.cfm?id=8393

I am sure the requirement will vary from hospital to hospital but I am certain you will have to look long and hard to find one that will be ok with someone continuing to drink after the operation.

Why give a liver to someone that will destroy it? Whether you like it or not sometime judgements have to be made by person or entities other than your god.

MrP

Pigman II

Vangelis wrote:

I'm just glad you're not a doctor.

Why? Are you a convicted criminal?

CathyMoran

I think that anyone should be given the chance of recieving an organ donation - the crux for me would be if two people were equally suitable for a donated organ, then I would go for the non-alcoholic. Alcoholism is a disease and should be treated as such. OK, I am a diabetic but imagine if two people were going for kidneys, one only has kidney disease, the other is a diabetic - would you not give the diabetic a chance just because they have an ongoing medical condition?

Dave!

MrPudding wrote:

Yes it is a disease, my personal opinion is that an alcoholic should be allowed on the transplant list. While they are on that list they should be tested on a regular basis to ensure they are alcohol free. If they test positive they get dropped.

As for someone that gets a transplant and then proceeds to screw up their spanky new liver? Fcuk 'em. They most certainly do not deserve another. There are plenty of other people that need livers that are either not alcoholics or are but realise the value of the gift they are about to receive and will not fcuk it up.

To receive a new liver and then destroy it with drinking is highly disrespectful to the person that donated it and the people still on the waiting list.

Believe me I know alcoholism is a disease but that is still no exuse.

MrP

Yeah I agree

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

netwhizkid

It is a good question, but imo if the particular person, say an alcoholic has already reformed but are still suffering the affects of many a pint, I'd then be in favour of giving them a potential life saving op, but if they are still lusting the juice of the grain I'd say let them do without it and die if they want to. The amount of young people that drink to excess is unbelievable and really something should be done to curtail it. I myself don't drink (although i did have glass of champagne last night my first ever drink! :eek: I was appalled by the way my fellow kin and kith are destroying their health with such excess and then of course the artery clogging "fry up" the next morning. These are choices people make and let them decide whether to live or die. As an old saying says "One man can take a horse to drink, but 101 men couldn't make him drink it"

Vangelis

Pigman II wrote:

Why? Are you a convicted criminal?

No. I have compassion for those who are.

Vangelis

MrPudding wrote:

http://um-jmh.org/body.cfm?id=8393

I am sure the requirement will vary from hospital to hospital but I am certain you will have to look long and hard to find one that will be ok with someone continuing to drink after the operation.

Why give a liver to someone that will destroy it? Whether you like it or not sometime judgements have to be made by person or entities other than your god.

Oh yes, as long as they are made with genuine concern and kindness.
Teating everyone equally, as equally as possible, is at least a good principle.