Alcoholic dies after being refused transplant

[BroomJockey]

Though that begs the question of how much time sober after which they would have accepted him. Two weeks prior to being bedridden? Two months? How much, and who gave them the right to decide addiction questions like that? It seems a little out of their purview.

He was to the point where he was too ill to be sent home. I don't think he would have lasted 6 months even in the hospital. And technically, it's *exactly* in their purview. They have a line for how long people need to be sober. Six months. Who gave them the right? Legislation. Why? Because they need to be reasonably certain that someone means what they say, but still make sure that someone won't usually die in that time frame.

[Flyndaran]

He was to the point where he was too ill to be sent home. I don't think he would have lasted 6 months even in the hospital. And technically, it's *exactly* in their purview. They have a line for how long people need to be sober. Six months. Who gave them the right? Legislation. Why? Because they need to be reasonably certain that someone means what they say, but still make sure that someone won't usually die in that time frame.

See? That's actually helpful though overly snarky. I doubted they would have it on the web, and I didn't want to call an agency just for that fact.

[BroomJockey]

See? That's actually helpful though overly snarky.

Sorry, wasn't actually trying to be snarky.

[Pedersen]

See? That's actually helpful though overly snarky. I doubted they would have it on the web, and I didn't want to call an agency just for that fact.

I will be snarky, though. The very first post in the thread posted a link to the article. The fourth paragraph of the article discusses the facts. Quoted for your benefit:

National guidelines dictate that to qualify for a donor organ, a potential recipient must prove he has the determination to stop drinking by remaining abstinent for six months.

I mean, really, come on. You don't have to exercise the research skills that you have called poor. You don't have to make a phone call. You just have to do the unthinkable, and actually read the article that's linked to that sparked the whole discussion. Hell, pretty well all the facts that have been mentioned in this thread came right from that article.

Try it out. You might be surprised by how much better informed you will sound when people don't have to regurgitate the facts at you that have already been given to everybody else.

[Nyoibo]

I guess the rest of your posts agree with that.
I don't think moral choices should have such an effect in a secular governmental institution.
Would you have a problem if I joined a transplant organization and chose to allow atheists to get higher priority than the religious because the seond are more likely to make irrational decisions?

Bad analogy, unless their religion actually caused the need for the transplant.

[Flyndaran]

Bad analogy, unless their religion actually caused the need for the transplant.

Or if I had a study showing that atheists make fewer self-destructive choices.
But what about missionaries? They surely put themselves in dangerous situations.

[BroomJockey]

Or if I had a study showing that atheists make fewer self-destructive choices.

You'd need a study with a conclusion showing a direct correlation between an act a religious person takes and risks to whatever organs were at issue. Drinkers damage livers. Smokers damage lungs. People unwilling to give up these activities would damage new organs as well. So unless a link is discovered between religious behaviour and failing kidneys, I don't think it would be found relevant. It's the direct behaviour they're interested in, not any causitive factors. If they were interested in the factors involved, then they'd have staggered tiers based on how many alcoholics in your family.

[Flyndaran]

...Drinkers damage livers. Smokers damage lungs. People unwilling to give up these activities would damage new organs as well. So unless a link is discovered between religious behaviour and failing kidneys, I don't think it would be found relevant. It's the direct behaviour they're interested in, not any causitive factors. If they were interested in the factors involved, then they'd have staggered tiers based on how many alcoholics in your family.

Actually, excessive use of toxincs damage most organs. My girlfriend knew a woman that suffered brain damage from alcoholism but still had a perfectly healthy heart. Smoking tobacco damages the heart and arteries through hypertension, etc. Stupid decisions will affect the whole body.
I don't think it would be relevant either, but I don't like determining who gets to live and die because of diseases like addiction or mental illness. I just would like the boards to be consistent in their supposedly logical rules.

[BroomJockey]

I just would like the boards to be consistent in their supposedly logical rules.

They are.

I don't like determining who gets to live and die because of diseases like addiction or mental illness.

Fine. You gonna tell someone he doesn't get a liver because the guy down the hall is getting his 3rd, since he's addicted to alcohol, and we don't wanna judge him based on that?

It's allocation of scarce resources. We put it where it's likely to be used the longest. There needs to be *some* way to pick who gets what organ when more than one person is a match. And I'd rather it's based on something medical rather than going "He's a father of 3, and young, and that guy's an ex-con. Give it to the dad."

[Flyndaran]

...
It's allocation of scarce resources. We put it where it's likely to be used the longest. There needs to be *some* way to pick who gets what organ when more than one person is a match. And I'd rather it's based on something medical rather than going "He's a father of 3, and young, and that guy's an ex-con. Give it to the dad."

I wouldn't be surprised if parents aren't being given precedence.
Used the longest? Ich, I don't like reducing a person's value to age. Damnit! My mother is just as valuable as some mewling child.

[crazylegs]

Used the longest? Ich, I don't like reducing a person's value to age. Damnit! My mother is just as valuable as some mewling child.

As I said, livers are scarce. It's not age that determines who gets the organ but who is most likely to survive after. For such a rare resource it just wouldn't make sense to give it to the person who will (for example) live for a week over the person who will live for a projected 5 years.

Those are the decisions that are made, and they are very hard decisions. I know I couldn't make them.

[BroomJockey]

Used the longest? Ich, I don't like reducing a person's value to age.

I didn't say age. You're fixated on that concept. It's completely possible that a 60 year old would get 10+ years out of a liver, and some 20 year old would get maybe 5 due to other concerns.

[Flyndaran]

I didn't say age. You're fixated on that concept. It's completely possible that a 60 year old would get 10+ years out of a liver, and some 20 year old would get maybe 5 due to other concerns.

I may have been conflating this thread and the one about feritlity treatment. Oopsie.

[BroomJockey]

I may have been conflating this thread and the one about feritlity treatment.

Possible. Universe knows, wouldn't be the first time people have mixed up threads.

On topic: Dammit, why can't we grow livers yet! This is 2009! We're supposed to have flying cars and space cities! Geez.

[crazylegs]

On topic: Dammit, why can't we grow livers yet! This is 2009!

We can only just about do bladders, and they're basically a hollow ball. Livers are going to take some considerable time, and a hell of a lot more expertise than we currently have. I don't know if I'll see that in my lifetime to be honest.