• HelixDab2@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I’ve known entirely too many alcoholics that have had too many wake-up and come-to-Jesus moments, only to go back to drinking as soon as the immediate crisis is over. Change only comes when the alcoholic wants to change for their own reasons, not due to external factors.

    Livers are a limited resource. Wasting a donor’s liver on a person that us is unlikely to stop drinking–despite their protestations–means that another person doesn’t get one. It may seem like a cruel calculus, but it’s the only reasonable way to ration a scarce resource. It doesn’t matter if alcoholism is a disease, or you think that it’s a moral failing; the end result is the same.

    • chryan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      This was my initial opinion until I read the whole article.

      “I got my blood tested, I had MRI scans, I had a CT scan, I had ultrasound and blood compatibility test with her. I was a match,” said Allan.

      Transplant guidelines in Ontario and much of Canada require patients with ALD to first qualify for a deceased donor liver. If they don’t meet that criteria, they aren’t considered for a living liver transplant, even if one is available.

      Her partner was a willing, compatible donor, wanted to give her his liver and was prevented from doing so. So yes, this is a cruel take.

      • idunnololz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        If you keep reading it gives a reason why this is a requirement. Now whether you agree with the doctors or not is up to you but there is at least a reason for this.

        But doctors say that people with severe liver disease from alcohol use may need more than just a partial living liver donation to thrive.

        “The sicker someone is, the more they benefit from getting an entire liver from a deceased donor, as opposed to part of the liver from a living donor,” said Dr. Saumya Jayakumar, a liver specialist in Edmonton and an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry at the University of Alberta.

        “On the off chance their (living) liver doesn’t work, they urgently get listed for a deceased donor,” said Jayakumar. "We need to make sure that everyone who is a candidate for a living donor is also a candidate for a donor graft as well, " she added.

        From this, the reasoning appear to be this: there is a high risk that the living liver transplant will not take. In this case the patient may be at risk of dying instantly and thus need another liver transplant. Since the candidate doesn’t not qualify for this other transplant, in the case where the transplant does not take, the patient will die instantly. This is in contrast with the patient being terminally ill however given time to live out the remainder of their life.

        • LordGimp@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          This is a bunch of CYA from the hospital that got a woman killed. The article talks about how transfer success rates are up around 80-85%. That’s just for the 6% of people who magically fit through all the “qualifications” the hospital has decided determine whether you get to live. This lady had a doner tested and lined up, but was rejected on the “off chance” (read: low probability) that IF the transplant failed, she would almost certainly die without an immediate whole liver transplant. So the fuck what? Her options were to maybe die from surgery or absolutely 100% die an agonizing slow death from liver failure. The hospital took away her ONLY chance at life. This is murder by committee and I hope the estate sues the entire hospital into the ground.

            • LordGimp@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              Is a 15% chance of death during the surgery lower than the 100% chance of death if she doesn’t get the surgery?

              Yes. Yes it is. It is THE lowest possible chance of death she had among her remaining options.

  • Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Selkirk said she and Allan are both discussing a legal challenge to the liver transplant guidelines for those with alcohol use disorder “with people who have their own living donor.” “It’s not fair and it’s not right, and hopefully we’ll change that policy,” Selkirk said.

    Even if her partner could donate his own liver, it should still go to a better recipient. If anything he should be donating anyways to honor her and save a life

    • Skates@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      You (or the committee of doctors) don’t decide who is a better recipient for my goddamn organs. You can make whatever the fuck ethical decision you want when I’m dead, but not until then. And I’ve gotta say, it’s shit like this - treating patients & donors like you know better - that make me not want to be a donor anymore. If I wanna donate my lungs to Hitler because he’s my grandpa and I love him, that’s not something you get to have a decision on.

      • andrewta@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        The fact that people are down voting you for saying in essence “my body, my choice”, is ironic for lemmy.

        • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          my body, my choice

          It’s a bit more complicated than that with transplants. Should people for example be able to sell their kidney to the highest bidder? That’s also “my body, my choice”. And should doctors be forced to participate in such a scheme?

          A transplant system should consider fairness, equality and possible abuse. Obviously I think it should be possible to donate to a loved one, but we should also be careful not to create a system where the rich get priority, because they can pay more, and where poor people could be financially pressured to give up their bodily integrity by having to sell an organ.

    • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Even if her partner could donate his own liver, it should still go to a better recipient

      That’s nonsense, because the partner would not donate his liver if it went to someone else.

      • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Right? Like I would donate my liver to my kid, or my spouse, without even questioning it.

        But if the doctor told me they can’t have it (for some reason other than incompatibility), and they died? Fuck them. I’d de-register as an organ donor out of spite.

        • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Donating an organ is a pretty invasive operation that can have a lot of complications, doctors aren’t only taking the recipient health, but the donor too, in the equation.

          • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            We’re explicitly talking about a situation where the donor is suitable. So I don’t know what kind of information you’re trying to add here.

  • ThirdWorldOrder@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Jesus Christ that’s fucked up. Only 36 too and stopped drinking… and had a willing living donor. What do you do in this situation when they won’t help you? Go down to Mexico?

      • DerisionConsulting@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        It’s taxed the way it is, because the only drug that kills more than booze are cigarettes.

        Those taxes also go to help innocent people who are harmed in crimes that are often related to alcohol, like domestic violence, assault, and auto-incidents, also things like uttering threats and mischief.

        • Nik282000@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          domestic violence, assault, and auto-incidents, also things like uttering threats and mischief.

          Crimes most committed by the police?

          • DerisionConsulting@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            I agree with the general vibe of police are bad, in Winnipeg they recently killed a woman because they were driving off-road in a park at night, but the idea behind “sin taxes” are generally as a deterrent, as well as a way to try to mitigate damage to others.

            I’ve been to places that are “cop bars” unknowingly, so the porcine populace may have have a DV-juice problem.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    As an alcoholic, I initially agreed. Don’t waste a liver on me. Then this:

    Even pleas for a living liver transplant, with Allan offering to be her donor, were not entertained.

    What the actual fuck.

    • evulhotdog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      It’s not like giving away part of your liver is a zero sum game, now that person is at risk of infection, has lesser liver performance, and for what? Someone who has showed they will just continue to harm themselves, and others (the person they’re getting the liver from,) if you allow it?

      I don’t know any other surgeons who would do that.

      • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        If a surgeon refused to let me save the life of the one person in the world i love then they wouldn’t be able to save any more lives after that so add that to your heartless calculations…

        • evulhotdog@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          There are very few transplant surgeons who would take the risk of a partial liver transplant which they have high likelihood of being a death sentence for the patient (not sure if you read but they need a full liver, from a cadaver, not partial,) and want to willingly throw their name in with another patient to discuss during M&M.

          This is coming directly from familiarity with the procedure, comorbidities, and other factors from a general surgeon at a top 10 hospital in the US.