If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
19 year old denied liver transplant after weekend binge
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
because he hasnt been alcohol free for 6mths
what do you think?
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0820/andersong.html
what do you think?
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0820/andersong.html
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
That's odd. My brother had a liver transplant 3-4 weeks ago, and he wasn't told to completely stop drinking, although it was ill advised. Saying that, the article is slightly misleading. My brother wasn't suffering liver failure due to alcohol, which is probably the difference. They don't stop ALL liver transplants for this reason.
Not all the others had liver problems though did they daddy?
Getting a new organ is a gift, you need to be lucky to find a match and it takes a huge amount of expertise and concentration on the part of the nurses, doctors, surgeons and all that - asking someone to either curb or stop their drinking is not unreasonable.
None at all? For a 19 year old -boy- to be dying through his own misdemeanours which our society and peers actively encourage? This realistically could have happened to a lot of teenagers, should they be left to die as well?
The rule does seem fairly arbitrary, which makes sense as it would be impossible to fairly allocate livers without firm rules, but in this case I don't see why an exception couldn't be made.
He went out on a night out, drank too much, liver failed, went to hospital, they said he has to wait until he is 'alcohol free' for 6 months before he can have a liver, by which point he might be dead. I'm not saying at all that he should be bumped to the top of the list, but if there is a good match there we shouldn't throw this kids life away owing to some arbitrary rule which probably isn't for medical reasons but for social reasons i.e. not giving livers to alcoholics.
I don't know though, I might have read the story wrong, but it seems quite tragic to have a night out - being stupid or not - and OD on any kind of substance and then be refused help by the NHS because you've not been alcohol free for 6 months. It seems such a technicality in this case - which could cost Gareth Anderson his life.
I do have sympathy, not for the obvious genetic defect he has that made his liver fail but the way that hes a victim of hospital arse covering and politics - obviously they dont have a liver to transplant so are giving out that rule and the press have grabbed it.
I do think the whole binge drinking thing is blown so hugely out of proportion its unreal. The limit is so stupidly low its almost impossible to stay under it and be out for more than 3 hours.
Agreed.
We only have his dad's word to say he only went out a few times. He really must have had a very weak liver for this to be the case.
Hopefully this will be a lesson to others about the dangers of alcohol, and the realisation that the NHS is there for people who need it, not just for those who continually punish their bodies and think it'll be ok to carry on.
Do you think it makes ok to let someone die if it's a "lesson to others"? I'm sorry, I know that's not what you said exactly, but don't you see the tragedy here?
We don't know whether his dad was lying or not or whether he has a weak liver and speculating about that is really going down a different path about whether the article is not reporting the right things - and really none of us are in a good position to know the details better than those provided in the article.
The one thing we could do, is imagine if the person lying in a hospital bed waiting to die, unable to get the treatment they need because of an arbitrary rule - was one of our family or friends. Looking at it from the other side it seems insane to leave an ill person there to die.
Just my 2p though.
I'm not saying it isn't a tragedy, it most certainly is. But if one person sees this story, and it stops them drinking themselves to death then it can only be a good thing surely.
As others have said, there is an acute shortage of transplant organs in this country. There needs to be a line drawn as to who should get what. The NHS learnt the hard way with George Best that giving a liver to someone who abuses alcohol isn't a wise use of resources. The rules were changed because of people like him, and I remember at the time they were blasted for giving him one in the first place.
Now the same thing is happening because they are doing what they didn't do all those years ago.
The father says he doesn't drink heavy, but this lad may be drinking in private (again, his choice). Patients can lie about how much they drink, just like obese patients will lie about how much they eat. I am not accusing him of lying, I'm just saying there are possibilities other than what the article states.
Harsh I know, as has been said, there is a shortage of liver transplants. I agree with the rule for six months, as people who have drinking habits may go and ruin it again, whereas somebody else who needs the transplant for another reason can take it.
But at the end of the day, he did this to himself. Why should somebody else not get a transplant because a young man binge drinks?
The thing is several people have said "well.. maybe the article is wrong or doesn't state this", but if you have to make that qualification to justify the NHS stance then doesn't that mean that there are grey areas? What if this was the first time this person had ever touched a drink? That they didn't even binge drink, but their liver just failed?
They would still be excluded from the list. And perhaps some 80 year old with terminal cancer gets the next liver which from a clinical perspective is the wrong choice. What if there was no shortage? What if there was an organ waiting to go, but the person wouldn't be allowed on the list because of the rule, and the organ isnt used.
The only way we can justify this is by saying, this boy must be binge drinking, and he will do it again. So basically this boy, if the facts stipulated in the article are true, is a victim of social policy dictating who will receive what, because he has consumed alcohol in the last 6 months. Shall we start refusing help to smokers, to over-eaters, to those who don't do enough exercise, to those who engage in criminality, to those who don't pay enough taxes? Where is the line? You start with those who don't cater for their health properly, then those who aren't 'good' members of society, and you end up making the NHS an exclusive service.
I would wonder, too, if the NHS would apply this in cases whereby someone suffers liver failure for some other reason, and refuses to put the patient on the waiting list because of alcohol consumption.
Just doing some reading up on this, the 6 month rule was brought in to 'test' alcoholics. If they could survive without drink for 6 months, then there was a good chance they could abstain from alcohol in the future, and so they could be put on the list. This lad doesn't seem like an alcoholic, and like I have said a few times - this could be any one of millions of teenagers or students across the country. It's almost as if he is being made an example of, and he will pay the ultimate price.
At the least, they could put him on the list, but put a note on his file *LIVER FAILED DUE TO MISUSE OF ALCOHOL* and so if there is another apparently similar candidate, the other candidate gets the organ. But in this system, the boy will not even be given a look in for no medical reason but for a social one.
His Dad said he's just like any other teenager, but a lot of people with drink problems hide the fact they are drinking and do so alone.
I don't know the guy personally, none of us do. A lot of people probably die on transplant waiting lists.
I agree we don't know, but the doctors or the transplants committee or whatever doesn't get to decide because of a social policy imposed by the NHS or some politician somewhere IDK... that's my objection.
Yes, but that policy basically says that if the liver has failed because of self-infliction then you have to prove that you will treat your new liver with a bit more respect. Hence the 6 month wait.
I've got no qualms denying treatment such as this to people who are only going to need it again in a few years time because they've abused their bodies, especially if that denial means someone else who has treated their body with a bit more respect gets one instead.
But that's such a subjective thing though isn't it - what counts as abusing your body and therefore not letting you have a transplant? As such it should be down to the practitioners to decide on a case by case basis which I am sure they already do - rather than a policy with no exceptions. If it was a guideline, fair enough, it makes plenty of sense, but there is always an exception and medical opinion should be able to override that.
I can't think of any exception that would warrant bending the rules.
What's subjective is "they chose to abuse their bodies ... and will continue to do so in the future".
Saving someones life?
Journal of Medical Ethics
Also, the 6 month rule isn't a hard and fast rule, it's applied differently by different hospital. It's supposed to be a guideline.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/fatherrsquos-battle-to-save-life-of-liver-transplant-son-reaches-the-court-14465408.html
It is strange that his liver's failed after 'normal drinking', but there isn't enough background information to make any comments on that.
It's not a hard-and-fast rule and it shouldn't be treated as such, but excessive alcohol consumption does need to be a factor when making a clinical decision.
I don't like the "he did it to himself" attitude though. Plenty of alcoholics have had new livers- look at George Best- and there's no information he did "do it to himself". Also, I really don't like the attitude behind that, and the precedent it sets. If you eat a Big Mac should you be off the list?
Waiting for people with alcohol dependency difficulties to stop drinking before providing treatment is not unusual. You need to show a willingness to get on the wagon to get help from social services or the NHS for alcohol dependency.
In which case this conversation is irrelevant!
Of course, but then half the time when there are news stories it makes you wonder about things that aren't stipulated, and no doubt there are other things going on we don't know about - but based on the story I don't think it's fair to completely exclude him from the transplant process.
Wasn't really mentioned in any of the articles as someone else said there may be more going on than we know... but nowhere has it been revealed he has alcohol dependency issues. Just an average teen (unfortunately) going out and binge drinking. You ask an average teenager how much they drink and they probably think the limits for binge drinking are just stupid.
I don't drink very much any more personally on a side note, after reading some worrying research that hasn't had much light shed on it indicating even moderate consumption is linked to alzheimers and dementia. Nicht gut. Mind you, some other well publicised research indicates moderate drinking REDUCES the chance of alzheimers.
wooooooooah - my issue is with the bureaucracy. It seems this rule has come in for one reason or another and I'm not saying it's a bad rule or guideline, but rather it's application should be measured by common sense and/or a doctor's professional medical opinion on clinical criteria. They should assess the boy for alcoholism however that is done, they should weigh up the risk of the organ failing (both due to bad matching and potential future misuse), and then weight this accordingly to how critical a patient he is. Perhaps they have done that and don't feel it's professional to publicly comment on the case... but then it's in the public eye and there is a public interest in this case.
ninja edit: also with it being irrelevent - i am just incensed about leaving someone to die, it's something that has got my back up, but perhaps i dont know all the details.
Everyone should be allowed in the process, but clinical decisions have to be made. They're not always pleasant, not unless people start agreeing to be donors if they die.
If he had a congenital or hereditary liver problem I would expect the journalist to mention it. "Disabled kid left to die" is a much better headline, especially if the liver problem was due to a childhood accident or congenital defect.
Given that the journalist doesn't mention this, I take it to mean that the boy has problems with his levels of alcohol consumption. Hospitals don't make clinical decisions lightly, certainly not on this scale. The boy has liver damage equivalent to ten years' prolonged excessive alcohol consumption, and he is 19. It's an assumption, but I bet it's not an unfair one.
Even if he is an alcoholic, he should still get treatment. But there's no point giving him a new liver if he can't control his alcohol consumption. George Best proved that one.