George Best's Liver Transplant

pro_gnostic_8

As of Tuesday, I shall no longer be a consenting affiliate of the organ donor scheme. I have already torn up my organ donor card.

Why? It's a small and maybe ultimately useless protest against the apparent advantage held by the famous and moneyed brigade over the average Joe in the organ recipient stakes.

This prat Best after f'ing up his own liver now gets a chance to demolish another donated one which could have gone to someone more deserving (someone who didn't drown himself/herself in alcohol for the last three decades).

The cutting irony is that George Best, after a lifetime of selfish indulgence, gets his operation on the NHS. Meanwhile, somebody somewhere with less celebrity and with a liver damaged by genuine illness rather than alcohol abuse is still waiting for a replacement organ.

mike65

Hmm difficult one, does everyone deserve a second chance, should the rich jump the queue? or go NHS? George Best
has been a fool but to kill him off for being an alcoholic
(a recognised illness these days) is wrong. Best using the NHS did'nt rob anyone "more deserving" of a liver as there are only
a finite number availible at any one time. He got a liver but he might'nt have. That said if he touches a drop ever again then he should pay for his character weakness. Proberly contradicting myself saying that...

Mike.

Pigman

Sure it's ok.

I'm not going to claim to be a an expert hospital economics but I'm sure Best had to stump up the cash to jump the que to get his liver. He may abuse this acquired gift but the money raised from letting him do this can used to help other people who need medical assistance but can't afford it.

If theres a demand for a service then sell it to he highest bidder and use the funds to help those who can't help themselves.

mike65

Originally posted by Pigman
Sure it's ok.

I'm sure Best had to stump up the cash to jump the que to get his liver.

He did'nt jump the queue Pigman, he used the NHS.

Mike.

Pigman

Originally posted by mike65


He did'nt jump the queue Pigman, he used the NHS.

Mike.

Fair enough, but then why was the thread author moaning about getting preferential treatment because he is rich/famous?

Anyway, if that is the case you have to give him a chance just like everyone else who would be on the scheme. I'm presume there's was 6/12 month sobriety obligation or something similar to prove Best's seriousness and commitment not to go back to his old tricks?

BTW, I still stand by the point of letting the rich jump the que if they are will to pay substantially.

The Gopher

Ive a pal could have got him the liver of an executed chinese prisoner for 50 quid.
But seriously,he did wait his turn im fairly sure.Would you be so annoyed that an alcoholic got an organ for free if he were average joe public from down the road?And arent you ebing hypocritical by saying Best denies a more deserving patient an organ,but you yourself have just denied somebidy an organ by tearing upo your card?
And its the NHS-so why should an irishman tear up his card in protest at a service he doesnt use?

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by The Gopher

And its the NHS-so why should an irishman tear up his card in protest at a service he doesnt use?

Because I suspect that similar double-standards apply in this country. The cult of celebrity worship is endemic here also.

And maybe (I'll stand corrected on this) there is some Ireland/UK agreement to swap organs from one juristiction to another.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by mike65
Best using the NHS did'nt rob anyone "more deserving" of a liver as there are only
a finite number availible at any one time. He got a liver but he might'nt have.

Was Best next in the queue ............ was he hell!!! He was given three weeks to live and, ba-boom, a liver was magicked up.
If he was a faceless wino living in Simon would he have been as lucky?

simon_partridge

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
And maybe (I'll stand corrected on this) there is some Ireland/UK agreement to swap organs from one juristiction to another.

Well it would make sense, wouldn't it - if you need a liver in Derry and have a choice between driving one from Letterkenny or from Canterbury you'd have to choose the former or the thing would congeale.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by The Gopher
And arent you ebing hypocritical by saying Best denies a more deserving patient an organ,but you yourself have just denied somebidy an organ by tearing upo your card?

My objection is that replacement organs should be intended for the genuinely deserving -- those who are needy as a result of non self-inflicted illness or road accident, etc.
I have no difficulty whatsoever with donating my organs to save the life of a child or an adult with a positive contribution to make to society. But to an over-the-hill celebrity of dubious personal qualities...... Naw.
I'll take mine to the grave with me instead.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by simon_partridge

Well it would make sense, wouldn't it - if you need a liver in Derry and have a choice between driving one from Letterkenny or from Canterbury you'd have to choose the former or the thing would congeale.

Yeah, that's what I thought probably happens too.
Theres a chance George Best might have been given an Oirish liver.

simon_partridge

Actually, if the truth be told, I'm a bit on the fence with the whole organ transplant thing anyway - the problem is that to get the body to accept the new liver or whatever requires huge amounts of antibiotics, and as we all know, diseases are rapidly becoming more and more resistant to all known antibiotics. Therefore while saving lives now is great, it may be costing many more in the future.

I don't know what the answer to this problem is but I don't think people are taking it nearly seriously enough at present.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by mike65
That said if he touches a drop ever again then he should pay for his character weakness.

I'm not trying to be smart here, honstly I'm not. But, how are the doctors going to sanction him if he drinks again........ by taking back the liver?
The chances of Best never ever again taking a drink ......... Stuart Kenny of Paddy Powers would give ya long-odds on that one. Georgie Boy now has a spanking new, ready-to-go- liver that he's just "dying" to test drive.

mike65

I'm not trying to be smart here, honstly I'm not. But, how are the doctors going to sanction him if he drinks again........ by taking back the liver?

He he! I just meant that he should'nt be given a second liver,
not that they'd open him up to retrive the first! Although...

Mike.

cujimmy

This prat Best after f'ing up his own liver now gets a chance to demolish another donated one which could have gone to someone more deserving (someone who didn't drown himself/herself in alcohol for the last three decades).

and

Meanwhile, somebody somewhere with less celebrity and with a liver damaged by genuine illness rather than alcohol abuse is still waiting for a replacement organ.

The most common reason for liver transplantation in adults is cirrhosis, a disease in which healthy liver cells are killed and replaced with scar tissue and which is in the main caused by alcohol abuse. (the most common reason for transplantation in children is biliary atresia, a disease in which the ducts that carry bile out of the liver are missing or damaged but thats another story). Most folk waiting for a transplant would therefore be similar to Best, so how do you decide who is more deserving.

Livers like most organ transplants dont go to who ever is first in the list but to whoever matches the criteria set for that particular organ donation programme, so presumably Best matched the criteria.

The cutting irony is that George Best, after a lifetime of selfish indulgence, gets his operation on the NHS.

Best as someone who has paid UK tax and national Insurance all his life is entitled to use the NHS, (ya dont need VHI/BUPA over here)

Lastly think about transplants in general. Most heart transplants go to people who have damaged their own heart by bad diet, smoking, little exercise etc. Lung transplants to people with cancer caused by smoking. So most transplantees cause or contribute to their illness which is excactly what Best did with his alcohol abuse which as pointed out already is an illness.

cujimmy

Actually, if the truth be told, I'm a bit on the fence with the whole organ transplant thing anyway - the problem is that to get the body to accept the new liver or whatever requires huge amounts of antibiotics, and as we all know, diseases are rapidly becoming more and more resistant to all known antibiotics. .

Liver transplantation is usually done when other medical treatment cannot keep a damaged liver functioning. About 80 to 90 percent of people survive liver transplantation. Survival rates have improved over the past several years because of drugs like cyclosporine and tacrolimus that suppress the immune system and keep it from attacking and damaging the new liver

Therefore while saving lives now is great, it may be costing many more in the future

Hows that?

simon_partridge

Originally posted by cujimmy
Hows that?

Because, if bugs all evolve into antibiotic resistant strains, then we're going to be back to the dark pre-penicillin days of medicine when not only could you not transplant a liver, but all sorts of relatively commonplace illnesses like pneumonia and even flu could kill you. If you want to know what inability to treat common illness is like then look at the third world - they have average life expectancies of 40 or 50, and that could so easily be us in 40 years time if we're not careful....

The Sweeper

You shouldn't tear up your organ donor card. Just because one large-living prat gets a liver transplant necessitated by self-abuse and over indulgence, that doesn't mean you should deprive the donor waiting list of your own organs if you should be unfortunate enough to meet an untimely end.

I would agree with Mike 65 though on the notion that if he touches a drop again he should have further treatment withdrawn.

There's a difference between prolonging the life of someone who didn't love their life enough in the first place to live it with some self respect, and prolonging the life of someone with a birth defect for instance. Same reason I don't think smokers should get lung transplants (and I'm a smoker).

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by cujimmy

and


The most common reason for liver transplantation in adults is cirrhosis which is in the main caused by alcohol abuse. the most common reason for transplantation in children is biliary atresia. how do you decide who is more deserving.

It's easy to decide............ there's no debate!! THE KID GETS THE LIVER. Or am I really going senile and missing something here?

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by Minesajackdaniels
You shouldn't tear up your organ donor card. Just because one large-living prat gets a liver transplant necessitated by self-abuse and over indulgence, that doesn't mean you should deprive the donor waiting list of your own organs if you should be unfortunate enough to meet an untimely end.

Thing is, JackD, I don't believe anymore after the George B case that my organs will benefit the truly deserving. Those unfortunates are still gonna die as they wait while the celebrity "patients" get the transplants.

cujimmy

It's easy to decide............ there's no debate!! THE KID GETS THE LIVER. Or am I really going senile and missing something here?

Its a size thing adult liver far too big for a little kid

cujimmy

If you want to know what inability to treat common illness is like then look at the third world - they have average life expectancies of 40 or 50, and that could so easily be us in 40 years time if we're not careful....

Mortality rates in third world countries are due to a lack of access to suitable antibiotic therapy, cause its too expensive. As things progress we will have found new and more powerfull ways of treating all sorts of illness.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by cujimmy


Its a size thing adult liver far too big for a little kid

Oh yeah, you're right, of course. Feck it, I hadn't thought of that. Sorry.

bonkey

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
Thing is, JackD, I don't believe anymore after the George B case that my organs will benefit the truly deserving. Those unfortunates are still gonna die as they wait while the celebrity "patients" get the transplants.

Actually, given the prevalent reasons for liver failure, I would guess that it is highly likely that the "unfortunate" you feel has been "cheated" is getting a liver replacement for exactly the same reasons as Best.

Secondly, I would point out that nowhere has anyone shown that Best did receive preferential treatment. For all we know, he has had his name on a list for 10 years and his turn finally came. Or, perhaps he suddenly became acute case, and an available liver was forutnately available, for which he was the most eligible case. Maybe the other possible recipients were alcoholics of an even greater magnitude?

What I find as disturbing as the "rich and famous getting preference" idea is the assumption being held here that because Best is one of the rich and famous that he must be getting preferential treatment.

I guess the rich and famous are supposed to be discriminated against just to keep you bemoaners happy?

No-one has shown anything to suggest that Best received preferential treatment. You've all just assumed it, and got on your high horses from there.

And you are the people complaining about a lack of fairness?

jc

Venom

There has been no outcry in any media format of Best been given any sort of special treatment in getting this liver.He had been on the waiting list a long time and his turn came up.

Yes he was a booze hound most of his his and this probley is the cause of his liver failure but thats no right to refush some one treatment.

The majority of people in this country dont lead the sort of lives the medical profession would consider healthy so does this mean most of us should be denied medical treatment.

And as for the complete crap about some kid getting the liver over Best,it should go to the most needy.

Sure I think most of us are happy it went to Best instead of some punk assed kid,who would probley only get into drugs and thieving if he wasnt stuck in a hospital bed :)Like its George Best were taking about here ffs.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by bonkey



I guess the rich and famous are supposed to be discriminated against just to keep you bemoaners happy?


jc

No, not discriminated against......... just that they do not get more than an equal level of treatment as the rest of us.

I can't offer any cast-iron evidence that Best jumped the queue. However, there is ample circumstantial evidence to support this assertion. Best had been given three weeks to live and suddenly a liver was allocated for him. And, I cannot think of any celebrity that died from liver failure as a consequence of NOT getting a transplant., can you? Conversely, many celebrities/luminaries have received donated livers, Rory Gallagher, Brian Lenihan etc., while thousands of equally needy lesser mortals are ignored. It doesn't require a cynic to know that wealth and fame is a passport to preferential healthcare treatment. All I'm saying is that I refuse to allow my organs to be a part of this unfair lottery.

Best was not in any queue due to his notorious and well-publicised alcoholic binges over the years.

SheroN

All I'm saying is that I refuse to allow my organs to be a part of this unfair lottery.

and suppose some worthy cause dies that you're liver could have helped?....what do you think of that?

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
As of Tuesday, I shall no longer be a consenting affiliate of the organ donor scheme. I have already torn up my organ donor card.

Why? It's a small and maybe ultimately useless protest against the apparent advantage held by the famous and moneyed brigade over the average Joe in the organ recipient stakes.

This prat Best after f'ing up his own liver now gets a chance to demolish another donated one which could have gone to someone more deserving (someone who didn't drown himself/herself in alcohol for the last three decades).

The cutting irony is that George Best, after a lifetime of selfish indulgence, gets his operation on the NHS. Meanwhile, somebody somewhere with less celebrity and with a liver damaged by genuine illness rather than alcohol abuse is still waiting for a replacement organ.

havent read the rest of the replies, but as you know, he got his liver on the NHS, he waited over a year for it, and he did all the same things that any joe-blow would do to get a liver on the NHS.
there was no special treatment, there were no back-handers or anything.
why shouldnt he get a liver?
alcoholism is a disease, not a social choice.

if someone had a burst lung, would you say dont give it to them becuase they cycle and obviously abuse their lungs doing all that cycling?
or would you perfere to only give your organs away to those who you deem as worthy?

perhaps you could give the criteria for a 'worthy' reciever.

perhaps they have to be white with red curly hair and aged between 5 and 9 and female?

or do they just not have to drink?

or drive too fast?

or smoke?

or do what the want with their life?

im interested.

darthmise

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
As of Tuesday, I shall no longer be a consenting affiliate of the organ donor scheme. I have already torn up my organ donor card.

Why? It's a small and maybe ultimately useless protest against the apparent advantage held by the famous and moneyed brigade over the average Joe in the organ recipient stakes.

The logic of it baffles me.

Just think about what you're saying there pro_gnostic_8.

A life is a life.
A sick person in need of a liver is a sick person in need of a liver.
Don't wage a class war with your organs.

seamus

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
I can't offer any cast-iron evidence that Best jumped the queue. However, there is ample circumstantial evidence to support this assertion. Best had been given three weeks to live and suddenly a liver was allocated for him.

Well, in fact the transplant queue is a priority queue. If a patient suddenly becomes critical, they jump to the top of queue, or behind the person who is ever-so-slightly more critical than them. Plus, you don't just take any old liver and jam it in there. Tests have to be carried out on tissue types, blood types, etc etc, so someone who may be 50th in the queue will get it before anyone else if none of the 50 in front of him are compatible. At the front of the queue, there's no 'I'm getting it first', it's given to the most critical case that is least likely to reject it.

And, I cannot think of any celebrity that died from liver failure as a consequence of NOT getting a transplant., can you?

Personally, George Best is the only celebrity I've ever heard of getting a transplant. Transplants are quite rare. So are celebrities. Statistics boy, statistics.

Conversely, many celebrities/luminaries have received donated livers, Rory Gallagher, Brian Lenihan etc., while thousands of equally needy lesser mortals are ignored.

OK, this doesn't make any sense. Effectively you're now saying that celebrities should be made wait for all the other thousands of people to be cured first. Show me even the slightest shred of evidence that someone else was overlooked to give these two individuals transplants.

Best was not in any queue due to his notorious and well-publicised alcoholic binges over the years.

Proof? Someone said he was in the queue for a year. When he became critical, he was moved up. He is a recovering alcoholic. His case was assessed, and a doctor decided it was worthwhile giving him another liver, ie he wouldn't mess this one up. I can't see any solidity in your argument whatsoever.

Lemming

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8

I don't believe anymore after the George B case that my organs will benefit the truly deserving.

Who are you to decide who is "truly deserving"?

What meets your criteria? What if its some guy who was an absolute scumbag, killed lots of people, etc, etc. yet looked after his body?

He didn't abuse his body, so he must be "truly deserving", eh?

Or must you have lived the life of a saint first?

Transplants are NOT done on a first come first serve basis alone. You have to have "favourable" conditions to be for a transplant (ANY transplant). Ity's not a simple case of turning up at a hospital and demanding a transplant and throwing lot sof money of them.

If Joe Bloggs is deemed suitable, yet you are FAR from suitable for a particular organ, then he's still going to get it.

bonkey

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
No, not discriminated against......... just that they do not get more than an equal level of treatment as the rest of us.

And so far, your entire argument based on him having gotten more than "equal treatment" appears to boil down to nothing more than you refuse to accept that he may not have been treated differently to anyone else.

Your entire argument is "I dont believe he was treated equally". Thats very compelling. Honestly.

Best had been given three weeks to live

And yet you go talking about "more needy causes".
What constitutes more needy than someone who will die in the next three weeks without a transplant?

And, I cannot think of any celebrity that died from liver failure as a consequence of NOT getting a transplant., can you?

Robert Buck, founder of 10,000 Maniacs,
Spike Milligan, comedian
Walter Payton, NFL

Need I continue? There are plenty more which you can turn up from a quick google search. It took me less than 2 minutes to find those three. They all died from liver failure of one form or another.

Taking a quote from a celeb who did survive :

The bad news was that I was sick enough to be on the waiting list and you move up as you get sicker and sicker"

Gosh - even when you're on private care, and are a celeb, you still end up on a waiting list. And you move up as you get sicker. And Best only had 3 weeks to live....so I guess he must have been....oooooh....pretty close to the top of the list.

And just as a matter of interest, I'd like to know exactly what Brian Lenihane has done which makes him undeserving of a liver transplant? Or, as I suggested, are you just including him because he is a celebrity.

Best was not in any queue due to his notorious and well-publicised alcoholic binges over the years.

Again, this is nothing but supposition on your part. You can rephrase it as much as you want, but at the end of the day you are refusing to believe that Best was treated equally without a shred of evidence to show otherwise.

This is your perogative, as is your choice not to donate. However, I fail to see the logic.

IF you die and donate your organs, they might give someone a new life. In fact, using bone, organs, etc, it is possible that multiple people get a new life from you.

Allowing for the small number of celebs relative to the rest of the world, it is highly probable that most, if not all, of those donations will go to non-famous people.

By not donating, you ensure there is no chance of any celeb getting any benefit from you, sure, but you are also ensuring that all the other deserving cases cant get any benefit either.

Sounds a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face to me.

But, like I said, its your perogative.

jc

jc

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan



if someone had a burst lung, would you say dont give it to them becuase they cycle and obviously abuse their lungs doing all that cycling?
or would you perfere to only give your organs away to those who you deem as worthy?

perhaps you could give the criteria for a 'worthy' reciever.

Taking your lung analogy, I would deem a cystic fibrosis sufferer more deserving of a heart/lung transplant than a 60-a-day man. Its a moot point tho', I guess, since an active smoker won't be even entertained for surgery in a hospital. The medical profession deem a smoker undeserving of treatment unless he kicks the habit.

And therein lies my argument, a similar sanction should apply to a chronic alcoholic like Best............ there are more worthy recipients of donor organs. However, Best being Best, he gets the preferential treatment that a wino in Simon wouldn't get. The rules get bended for the priviledged.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by bonkey





Robert Buck, founder of 10,000 Maniacs,
Spike Milligan, comedian
Walter Payton, NFL

Need I continue? There are plenty more which you can turn up from a quick google search. It took me less than 2 minutes to find those three. They all died from liver failure of one form or another.






jc

This is a bit peripathetic to the issue , however your statement needs to be addressed.

SPIKE MILLIGAN: Quote from his agent Norma Farnes......... "he died this morning (27/Feb/02) from kidney failure." Spike was 83 years old. http://sg.entertainment.lycosasia.com/arts/seen/seenhg/4488.html


WALTER PAYTON: Quote -- "His physician, Dr. Greg Gores of the Mayo Clinic, said Payton was subsequently diagnosed with cancer of the bile duct, a vessel that carries digestive fluids from the liver to the small intestine.
"The malignancy was very advanced and progressed very rapidly," Gores said at a
news conference. Because the cancer had spread so rapidly outside his liver, a transplant "was not tenable," the doctor said."
www.10kfans.com/articles/wallofsound122000.html

ROBERt BUCK: QUOTE-- "Robert Buck's health, according to Band Manage Blair Woods deteriorated too rapidly to allow a liver transplant. His liver failure was sudden." http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/news/199911/01/payton_obit/

1 kidney failure,
1 bile duct cancer,
1 sudden liver failure.

Clintons Cat

george best had to wait a year for a transplant to prove he could give up booze.Hardly jumping the queue.
But tbh i cant see him staying off the booze for long,there will be too many hangers on and people trading on how they bought the "great man a drink" for him to be able to resist the urge for long after all what harm can one drink do...

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
george best had to wait a year for a transplant to prove he could give up booze.Hardly jumping the queue.

Clint, that Best had to give up the booze for a year is a fallacy that is somehow gaining credence in these boards.
Three months ago he was "langers" above in the Cooley Peninsula in some pub........t'was in the papers. Was barred from the same pub, if memory serves me, for messin'.

You're too right though about the chances of him drinking again. That new, squeaky-clean liver is certain to be given a test run as sure as Christmas falls in December.

Clintons Cat

Clint, that Best had to give up the booze for a year is a fallacy that is somehow gaining credence in these boards.

that is true enough i remember a "george best falls off the wagon" story from around the begining of the year.But i wouldnt blame boards for the mistaken belief Best had to dry out for a year,The BBC were also propogating the story which is where i think the idea came from.Having said that Best has had a failing liver for a couple of years,didnt he get jaundice or some kind of liver disease a couple of years ago that nearly killed him?
It does beg the question that should doctors refuse treatment to alcholics or chain smokers on the grounds that the nature of their addiction makes it unlikely that they will look after themselves?
Its a slippery slope why stop there how about the mentally infirm or the elderly?
Of course a liver transplant is not the same as getting a brand new liver or in other words a blank slate,a transplanted organ is by the trauma suffered going to be significantly weaker than a non transplanted liver of similar age.And sadly many alcholics do not realise how quickly their new liver is suseptible to the kind of damage it took their original livers half a lifetime to sustain.

pro_gnostic_8

UPDATE..............

Medical staff report that the old liver is making an excellent recovery since George Best was removed from It.

bonkey

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
It does beg the question that should doctors refuse treatment to alcholics or chain smokers on the grounds that the nature of their addiction makes it unlikely that they will look after themselves?

The general reason that treatment is refused, as far as I am aware, is because there is a shortage of resources.

From some light browsing of the web, I noticed that something like 70% of all people requiring liver transplants receive them.

Now....taking some wild figures off my head here....

Lets say that 50% of all cases are caused by "self-abuse". That leaves 50% which are "genune" cases. Lets give livers (assuming availability when needed) to all of those 50%. By my maths, that uses 5/7 of the available replacement livers. What about the other 2/7? Do we simply bin them, and also condemn people to die, because they dont look after themselves, or because they are addicts of some sort?

At the end of the day, when you have 2 people in equal and urgent need of a replacement liver, and only one liver is available, then a choice has to be made. In these circumstances, I can understand the logic whereby consistent self-abuse of some sort lowers your chances of being chosen. However, if you have two people, and two livers, denying one person a chance at continued life is nothing short of playing god - arbitrarily deciding whether or not someone deserves to live.

jc

jc

Clintons Cat

thats a perfectly valid point Bonkey,but to clear up any confusion it was something i was alluding to in the next sentence.

Its a slippery slope why stop there how about the mentally infirm or the elderly?

Hope that clears up any confusion about my stance.When does someone become "less deserving?".this is a question I Beleive niether Doctors or the State should be expected to answer.