How dare any of you ignorant people say that an Addict should not receive medical help or organs.
You make me sick. I think that ignorant uneducated people such as yourself need to be forced to donate your body parts. We have enough stupid people in the world and starting to get rid of some of you would help a lot of people that need organs. Shame on you when it's you or one of your family members struggling to stay alive waiting on a new organ your views will undoubtedly change. I hope that day never comes for any of you but if it should I hope that you or your family member be denied. Nobody has any right to play god with anybody's life and no matter how or why one needs a organ. They should receive it when I see such disgraceful people with ignorant comments it makes me cringe shame on you! Maybe you need to go to church and find God because for low lives such as yourselves that is your only savior. Never say never because it will happen to your loved ones!
Organ matching is based on size and blood type. The sicker you are determines how high you are on the list. The only case where time spent on the list matters is when 2 people have the same blood type, size of organ needed, and level of sickness. It does not matter how rich you are, or how old you are. Certain organs fit with certain people and not others. It is sad to see how ignorant people are these days. Thank God there are laws in place to protect sick people. Alcoholism is a hard habit to break, and if someone can prove the can quit they deserve a fair shot at health. Do you know how strict the guidelines? You have to go six months without alcohol just to be considered. It is no secret that doctors will extend this to a full year to track your progress. Have you ever wrecked a car? Did you mean to do it? Eventually did you get your car fixed or replaced? If you don't think sick people deserve a chance at good health, and starting over it it is possible then you have succeeded in showing that you have zero compassion for other humans. Do some research, talk to people who have turned their lives around after organ transplantation, before you make an harsh judgement based on a bad stigma.
An alcoholic doesn't chose to be an alcoholic as much as an anorexic doesn't chose to be an anorexic, they both do what they do knowing it will harm them but not on purpose! I'm sure if it was THAT easy to stop they would have long before it had gotten to the point of needing a new liver... Obviously!! But would you begrudge an anorexic a kidney? Probably not.. so why an alcoholic a liver?
I know a child is young and hasn't lived their lives yet, but we are all people and an adult is loved by their family just as much as a child is by theirs. Organs should just be given to the person most in need despite of wether they are an alcoholic, a child, or anything else
A child has a life in front of him/her, and had no choice in needing a new liver. Any adult knows about the effects of alcohol on the body. If he chose to destroy his liver what makes you think he would not do it again? Then the liver would go to waste, when it could have saved a child's life.
If the child can survive longer without the transplant and the alcoholic adult is on the verge of death, then the transplant should go to the more immediately needy patient. Alcoholism is a disease, and even if it weren't, decisions like this shouldn't be made on the basis of moral evaluation of the patient. If the situations were equal, though, the transplant should go to the child.
Many people can interpret only what they see. An alcoholic drinks to the point where he/she destroys his/her health. What we don't see is what is going on in the alcoholic's brain. We also don't see what is going on inside the body, metabolically . Alcoholics do not process alcohol normally. People argue that even if an alcoholic quits drinking, there's a chance of relapse, so we should deny the alcoholic a liver transplant. There's a chance of cancer recurring in a cancer patient, but we don't deny them chemotherapy or radiation. There's a chance a heart by-pass patient will still have cardiac problems, but we don't deny them the surgery or follow-up cardiac care. There's a chance an elderly person will fall, but we don't deny the elderly person surgery if they fall and break a bone. There's a chance a psychiatric patient will mismanage their medication, but we don't deny them the medication. Alcoholism is a disease, not a choice. Nobody would choose a life of having alcohol control everything they do, to the point of making the person critically ill. Please consider the physical and psychiatric aspects of alcoholism you cannot see.
It doesn't matter who is older, younger, the drinker or non drinker. Both need livers. It's about who needs it more-who will die without it. Alcoholics started out as social drinkers and the disease developed due to a number of factors. You would not hold it against the alcoholic because the person became addicted. Would you deny a heart disease patient a heart because they didn't adhere to a perfect diet and exercise regimen? How about the melanoma patient who stayed out in the sun too long occasionally. Same principle.
It would depend on who is in greater need. It should not matter who is the alcoholic and who is the child. What matters is the urgency and the health necessity. Alcoholism is a very serious disease and any disease should be treated. But a child also has rights to good care, too. Age or disease isn't the major issue-the one who could die sooner should get the liver. The alcoholic doesn't want to die and isn't committing suicide by drinking. The alcoholic is compelled to drink due to the disease. Yes, the alcoholic drank heavily which caused the liver damage, but the disease (which is a mental disorder, too) is responsible for the alcoholic's actions. Thousands of people die each year from excessive alcohol consumption. Alcoholics deserve your compassion just as much as children.
If an alcoholic adult is deemed higher risk than a child, then, yes, they should receive the transplant first. Everyone has the right to be treated with dignity and respect, in accordance with their human rights. Alcoholism is a disease, and as such should be treated as one. Following a transplant operation, an alcoholic needs to receive follow up care and behavioral therapy to work through issues and look to change feelings
An alcoholic should be granted a liver transplant over a child because the alcoholic did not choose to be an alcoholic. We live in a society that encourages drinking. Some people become addicted and it usually has a genetic basis. Don't blame the alcoholic for being an alcoholic. Society is very cruel to people who became addicted, as though they are superior to them because they themselves did not become addicted. La-de-da--good for you. You ain't got that gene, so pat yourself on the back for lucky genes.
Potential transplant recipients are assessed for their immediate need. If an alcoholic adult is deemed higher risk than a child, then, yes, they should receive the transplant first. Everyone has the right to be treated with dignity and respect, in accordance with their human rights. Alcoholism is a disease, and as such should be treated as one. Following a transplant operation, an alcoholic needs to receive follow up care and behavioral therapy to work through issues and look to change feelings of low self-worth that come from the prejudice attitudes of the general public.
Why? Because I am a young person who never drank (I wasn't even a social drinker) and I have non-alcoholic auto-immune Cirrhosis of the liver. I am severely ill with portal hypertension and splenomegaly. It boils my blood when I went into hospital after vomiting blood due to a liver deterioration and sometimes I'm sharing an endoscopy unit with a man who was a heavy drinker and says to the nurse 'I don't know what happened, it's so awful.' Well, you do know what happened. You drank yourself into a position like that. I also have a friend who I have correspondence with who has stage 4 Cirrhosis due to Hepatitis and when I see she is still waiting on a liver yet a drinker gets a liver replacement just blows my mind.
When it comes to livers, alcoholics had a good one and ruined it. Why should they get a new good one when a child has a bad liver through no fault of their own? Besides, children are inherently younger and will likely get more use out of the liver. Alcoholics should be given a chance at the list, but not above children, and only if they are recovered.
Obviously, this only applies if you manage to have a liver that can fit both an adult alcoholic and a child, which seems unlikely. Maybe teenagers? Still, I think the reason that someone needs a liver transplant (bad luck/genetics vs. abuse) should be taken into account.
The children would benefit more to an adult who is an alcoholic because the adult could go back to alcoholism and a child needs it more, since they need a chance to actually live. Children who need livers would need them because of illnesses and diseases whereas an alcoholic adult had a choice to drink until they were as sick as a child with a disease was.
Alcoholics receive a million warnings from doctors about the damage they are doing before reaching this point. My dad is a long term alcoholic. He's been in and out of hospital with alcohol related illnesses for years, and has been told that he will kill himself... He continues to drink, therefore can't care that much about living. If my child needed a liver through no fault of his own and was refused because it was given to my Dad - who will undoubtdly continue to abuse it, I would be devastated
Larry hagman was an alcoholic/drug abuser. He ended up getting a liver transplant in in life. Even after his transplant he continued to drink/abuse his body. This current example just proves that individuals that have been through therapy and have abused their bodies are not deserving of any organs of individuals that don't abuse their their bodies of any age. Sandra Levy
WOW! just read the individuals comment on the "yes" side of this debate and I'm unclear of why they chose to write anonymous. Evidentally this indiviual has some history with alcoholism or drug abuse or has a family member who received a transplant and was a prior abuser of their body.
I can understand their position on allocation of organs,based on thier personal experience,although since organs are so scarce hospitals need a more systematic way of deciding who gets and who doesn't make the list. I worked for IU health in indianapolis years ago and had the priviledge of working with the liver transplant team as a resident student...although my experience was a good experience for me as a future doctor I was never in agreement on how the team made decisions when determining which patients got on the list and who didn't. Pretty much most of the liver specialist during the time I was working there was afraid to voice their opinion and really fight for the "most deserving" individuals of the organs. they are extremely afraid of a Dr. Tector whom basically made the ultimate decisions and they just couldn't say anything in fear of losing their jobs. To avoid the "subjective" decision making at for example IUHealth in indianapolis there needs to be a universal country wide rubic "checklist" to determine who gets on the list and the organ. In addition I do agree with the individuals who stated that people who have failing organs due to being a prior "abuser" of their body should take a back seat to individuals regardless of age who are the most deserving.
An alcoholic or prior alcoholic should never receive a transplant before any child or any person who "never" abused their bodies with things their bodies didn't need... ie: drugs, alcohol, cigarettes etc. I just lost my dad due to Nash "cryptogenic cirrosis" on July 9th and my dad didn't have any underlining disorders.. example diabetes, hepatitis or even overweight.
My dad was denied being placed on the transplant list even though his kidney function wasn't that high yet. He had a paracentisis in April of 2012 in which he received a bacterial infection from it and he survived it, but it worsened his condition from his liver being the problem to now his liver and kidneys. He was 69 and IUhealth in Indianapolis and Dr. Tector denied him the dual transplant. What's interesting is a man from CAlifornia who was a prior alcoholic and had to attend AA classes moved to Indianapolis and was able to get his dual transplant in June.. a few weeks before my dad died. Someone needs to inquire about that, my entire family is "outraged" and can't believe my dad who was a "perfect" candidate for the dual took a back seat to a prior alcoholic who did abuse his body and wasn't even from Indiana. Dr. Tector from IU transplant needs to do alot of thinking and currently he has provided my family information that didn't apply to my dad. It's as if he had the wrong person. Hmmmm...
An alcoholic may not appreciate the gift that they have been given, and continue to drink excessively with their new liver. Even if they do appreciate it, alcoholism is a disease and they may not be able to stop themselves from drinking and damaging their new liver, like they did their old one. A child is innocent and deserves the chance to live a longer life. They need to experience growing up, and everything that comes with it. The alcoholic has already had their chance.
I do not think that an alcoholic, or anyone with severe, ongoing health problems, should go before otherwise healthy people that are waiting for transplants. As long as there is a limit to the number of organs available, doctors should consider the lifestyle and number of "good" years that the patient is likely to live.
I believe that, even though alcoholism is a disease, it is still, in some part, a choice. Not all cases of alcoholism can be cured by AA or rehabilitation facilities. I believe that any person who is already old enough to have become ill enough to require the transplant in the first place has lived a significant amount of time. The child should be given a chance to live out that amount of time, as well.
An alcoholic makes a deliberate choice repeatedly to abuse alcohol, resulting in the destruction of his or her liver. Thus, the alcoholic is responsible for his/her condition. A child is not. Furthermore, a child has a full life ahead, and has every reason to be given the opportunity to live it. Therefore, a child should always be given first priority for a liver transplant over any alcoholic.
I feel that when someone has brought on their ailment through actions of their own choosing, like drinking too much, they should be put on the bottom of the waiting list for donor organs. A child should get preferential treatment since they are young and innocent and have, hopefully, a long life ahead of them.
An alcoholic should not be granted a liver transplant before a child, regardless of the length of the wait. Children should always be moved to the top of the list. Age should be a major consideration, as should lifestyle. Someone who has a history of alcoholism should be allowed a transplant, but first should undergo intense therapy to make sure that any future transplant wouldn't be wasted. The recipient should have to live alcohol-free for at least 3 years.
An alcoholic has already proven that they do not necessarily make the best choices. Plus, they have lived a longer life. And if they revert back to the same behavior as they did with their original liver, then they are basically just throwing the second liver away. The child, on the other hand, may need a new liver from a disease that they could not help, as well as the fact that they are most likely younger then the alcoholic and still have a long life ahead of them.
Alcoholism may be a disease, but it is a self-inflicted one. Anyone who abuses his life with addiction does not deserve to get a chance at a new one, at the expense of an innocent child suffering from a genetic problem or birth defect.
An alcoholic may have my pity but not so much that I would wish an innocent child to have to suffer through unnecessary pain that he/she has done nothing to deserve. I say, help those who have done the least harm to their own cause first, before we help the other.
If you have made the conscious decision to drink, then you should not get a new liver ahead of someone who needs one for a reason that they had no control over. If you want to become an alcoholic that is your decision but you need to be willing to live with the consequences. If there are other people waiting for a liver transplant who had no hand in their condition, they definitely should be prioritized higher.
When an alcoholic is in need of a transplant it is more often than not because they ruined their own due to their over consumption of alcohol. A child on the other hand is most likely to be having health problems due to no fault of their own. Also, an alcoholic ruined their liver in the first place because they didn't have the self control to take a hold of their problem. What's to keep them from ruining the new one that they get?
As I said that the alcoholic is solely responsible for his behavior and condition. And, for the child, it may be because of his birth problem or some hereditary problem. But, the child may not be responsible his action or his or her present condition. Here the question of length of the wait.
Any sane people will always side the child because he has not yet seen the beautiful world, so I would really recommend to go ahead with the child. Give him a liver transplant.
Even though one would hope the alcoholic would remain sober for the remainder of their days, that is a doubtful outcome. It is unacceptable to offer to someone who has willfully damaged their own health something that can save the life of an innocent child. The child, moreover, will have many more years to be a productive, positive member of society.
This is a very touchy subject. We tend to blame the alcoholic and deny them help because of the moral issues that our society sees concerning drinking. But, the life of a child should definitely be considered before that of an adult, isn't that the way it is already done? I would be quite surprised to find out that an alcoholic would get a liver transplant before a child needing one would.
Common sense tells us that we reap what we sow. A person who has engaged in actions that he knew would adversely affect his body should not be rewarded with a new liver, especially if a child needs that organ. Why should an alcoholic be rewarded when it is probable that he will continue to engage in more reckless behavior that got him in trouble the first time?
An adult alcoholic has lived a significant part of their life. A child, on the other hand, has the potential to become anything. While I believe that alcoholism is a disease which is to some degree uncontrollable, I still think that the potential that a child's life may hold is a more worthy gamble than a choice to save someone who has already shown the world what they will do with their life. The child whose life is sacrificed may be the person who makes significant steps towards a cure for the very disease they suffer from.