Liver transplant teen leaves hospital bed for boozer

Tea_Bag

unbelievable is the only word i can think of. thanks OP///

Stark

bug wrote: »

Jesus boards just swings from right to left.

I feel sorry for his family too.

But I'm not going to make or comment on a decision of whether he gets the chance to live or die based on what most people in this day and age consider to be an illness.

Jesus he is only a kid, even his dad, who I can assume knows him well, states he may have mental problems.

If I was a teen, thought I'd done this to myself as invincible as teens think they are, (or got an incling of it), thought possibly that doctors were going to deny me a liver, and well I might die...
And theres me, all over the news, being pasted like a tosser.
I'd walk out of a hospital and get a f**king drink possibly???
Who knows, maybe he's suicidal???

Pity he didn't come accross an addiction that would do less physical harm in the long term or cost the NHS to have to revisit administrative decisions.

Maybe socially, heroin isnt the thing in Newtownards, but alcohol is more acceptable.

Unfortunately for the doctors involved, it's not a simple choice between "A) We allow you to live. we let you die and throw the liver in the bin just to spite you", it's a choice between "Letting Patient A live or letting Patient B live". Now if Patient A happens to be an alcoholic, suicidal, has mental problems or is otherwise likely to destroy the liver that patient B could have used, then the doctors have to make the uneasy decision to give it to the next person on the waiting list. Thus allowing patient B to have a lifetime's use out of the liver, rather than letting patient A have it for a few months and ending up with two dead patients.

An Fear Aniar

stovelid wrote: »

He obviously an alcoholic.

I'm personally dealing with someone at the minute who is in the same boat and that's what they do. I can see how stupid and infuriating it is though.

Yeah, kinda like OCD or bulimia, saying to someone "cop yourself on" doesn't work.

.

Smart Bug

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

Yeah, kinda like OCD or bulimia, saying to someone "cop yourself on" doesn't work.

.

You don't know that. I personally am gonna hang around PI waiting for the first bulimic person to post so I can tell 'em to go eat a cop-on pie.

Long Onion

Anyone who can prove that they have offered a partial liver donation to this idiot can continue with the sanctimonious preaching, anyone else should stop.

That's all really.

Overheal

Smart Bug wrote: »

You don't know that. I personally am gonna hang around PI waiting for the first bulimic person to post so I can tell 'em to go eat a cop-on pie.

yeah, that wont get you banned.

tatabubbly

TBH it just looks like a desperate cry for attention.

He doesn't really deserve a liver, if he carries on in that sort of careless manner. How can someone who has been told they can't drink, be expected to continue not to drink and be able to take all the immunosuppressent drugs that your required to take.

Long Onion

tatabubbly wrote: »

How can someone who has been told they can't drink, be expected to continue not to drink and be able to take all the immunosuppressent drugs that your required to take.

Que

Stark

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=immunosuppressant+drugs

superconor

Did anyone see the article in today's Belfast Telegraph? 'How are we supposed to continue drinking when this happens' etc. I would have expected that from the Daily Mail, was surprised to read it in the Telegraph.

Stark

bug wrote: »

Jesus boards just swings from right to left.

Actually, thinking about this, it's thanks to left-wing thinking that we have an opt-in rather than an opt-out organ donation system. The kid in question's plight is one of supply and demand. If we had a greater supply of viable organs, then we could afford to loosen the rules regarding transplant recipients. Being right-wing isn't always a bad thing...

scooby man

nice 1

lisbon_lions

Livers should be handed out to people who need them on a first come first served basis. The medical profession dont have the moral right to judge who deserves one first. Nor do you.

Four-Percent

Turd Ferguson wrote: »

Second chances should only be given to people who deserve them. He left his hospital bed looking for drink, how can you justify giving someone like that another chance?

Heh heh, look who's complaining about second chances :pac:

Stark

lisbon_lions wrote: »

Livers should be handed out to people who need them on a first come first served basis. The medical profession dont have the moral right to judge who deserves one first. Nor do you.

In your first come first served system, people with immediately life-threatening liver failure would die at the back of the waiting lists. It's all well and good pontificating when you're not the one with the obligation to make the tough decisions.

ShooterSF

lisbon_lions wrote: »

Livers should be handed out to people who need them on a first come first served basis. The medical profession dont have the moral right to judge who deserves one first. Nor do you.

So do you limit how many someone can have?

Turd Ferguson

ShooterSF wrote: »

So do you limit how many someone can have?

Larry Hagman has 19 kidneys!!!

stovelid

Four-Percent wrote: »

Heh heh, look who's complaining about second chances :pac:

Wait until a third person makes the joke. He might get it then.

Euro_Kraut

God what a sad story. I argued on the other thread against the 6 month rule. I still think that it is arbitrary and ultimately the medical profession should be trusted to exercise discretion.

As things emerge (originally we were working off the word of his Dad) its becomes clearer that this boy is an alcoholic. It is impossible to argue that an alcoholic who appears not to be undergoing treatment should get a liver over someone who is a) not an alcoholic or b) in recovery and showing signs of progress.

This lad is going to die from the drink. At 19. The poor Dad comes across as a bit deluded too. It must be hard to accept that your son has turned into an alcoholic and could die soon from liver failure.

I feel really sorry for the kid too (unlike some here) addiction cause people to act totally irrationally. His mind does not operate like everyone else’s. Hopefully he can get the proper treatment for his apparent addiction and possible his life can be saved.

c0rk3r

Smart Bug wrote: »

You don't know that. I personally am gonna hang around PI waiting for the first bulimic person to post so I can tell 'em to go eat a cop-on pie.

Well they'll certainly eat the cop-on pie alright. The problem is they just throw it back up again

Four-Percent

stovelid wrote: »

Wait until a third person makes the joke. He might get it then.

That's what I get for not reading the thread...

Sorry Turd

edit: wait a minute that was the first smartarse joke about Turdie in this thread!

Stark

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

God what a sad story. I argued on the other thread against the 6 month rule. I still think that it is arbitrary and ultimately the medical profession should be trusted to exercise discretion.

Well it's a guideline rather than a rule so there is a certain amount of discretion allowed.

Euro_Kraut

Stark wrote: »

Well it's a guideline rather than a rule so there is a certain amount of discretion allowed.

Ah. I understood it was a hard and fast rule in the UK. That is how its was presented last week. His Dad was saying their was absolutly no way the kid could get the transplant in the next 6 months on account of drinking.

Fair enough if its just a guidline.

bug

Stark wrote: »

Unfortunately for the doctors involved, it's not a simple choice between "A) We allow you to live. we let you die and throw the liver in the bin just to spite you", it's a choice between "Letting Patient A live or letting Patient B live". Now if Patient A happens to be an alcoholic, suicidal, has mental problems or is otherwise likely to destroy the liver that patient B could have used, then the doctors have to make the uneasy decision to give it to the next person on the waiting list. Thus allowing patient B to have a lifetime's use out of the liver, rather than letting patient A have it for a few months and ending up with two dead patients.

I gathered that.

My post was rather about general public opinion, not the doctors'.

Overheal

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Ah. I understood it was a hard and fast rule in the UK. That is how its was presented last week. His Dad was saying their was absolutly no way the kid could get the transplant in the next 6 months on account of drinking.

Fair enough if its just a guidline.

Of course. Granted, they have to review healthcare with a sense of objectivity. However that doesnt mean they dont review the merits. But we'd probably be talking about physical and psychological merits not "This is my son and he loves football" merits.

For instance if he wasn't an alcoholic, and just had an adverse reaction to a few drinks because of a pre-existing condition, that would be taken into account, sure. But at the same time, you cant overlook the 30 odd drinks some of these articles are claiming. Thats not a few drinks. Thats well over the lethal limit for a healthy adult, if he did in fact have so many.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content