Binge drinker dies at 22

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090720...2-d831572.html

the family (obviously) say this is unfair, and that he wasnt given a "2nd chance".

now, not wishing to be mean but from what little knowledge i have - which is often a dangerous thing - in circumstances like this the recipient has to prove he has abstanied from alcohol for 6 months. i personally think thats fair, why give a liver to somebody who's only going to ruin it again with alcohol abuse? somebody who has a damaged liver for reasons non alcohol related wont get the liver because it was given to a person who abused the gift of a healthy liver with drink.

i appreciate alcoholism is a disease, and its an addiction which affects millions of people directly or non directly, but i think harsh as it may seem the right decision was made

discuss if you can be bothered to put your beer down for just one second

Well George Best gave it a good shot!

The article said he's been drinking heavily since the age of 13, that's 9 years, almost half his lifetime. He's unlikely to change. Having said that, if there's a 'spare' liver I don't see why they wouldn't give it to him, but if it was the choice between giving it to him or someone who'd had their's destroyed by cancer or something it should probably go to them.

Just my opinion.

EDIT: If I lived in Dagenham I'd probably need something to get me through the days too.....

[Bri w]

Originally Posted by Von Teese

Well George Best gave it a good shot!

And usually scored!

To give the liver, or not? There are only so many donor organs, clinicians make the choice based on supposed best outcomes. But what's not to say the recipient wouldn't have changed his lifestyle.

I couldn't be the clinician who says sorry but you can't have it, i'd operate a 'taxi rank' system, i.e. first come first served. But in so doing there is a potential that someone would miss out who has a better chance of survival whilst someone else wastes the 2nd chance they were given.

Glad i don't have to make those sort of decisions. Wish there was enough to go round.

In this case, based on a well presented report on R4 this morning, my view is that the right decisionwas reached.

I would possibly think differently were their more donated livers in the system than potential recipients, but this is not the case. Tough decisions, but they have to be made.

I do feel sorry for the family though, and can understand their point of view, too.

Originally Posted by Bri w

i'd operate a 'taxi rank' system, i.e. first come first served. But in so doing there is a potential that someone would miss out who has a better chance of survival whilst someone else wastes the 2nd chance they were given.

And that is why he was refused the liver.

I think everyone deserves a second chance.

Everyone knows what heavy drinking does to your liver...

I personally find it hard to believe that alcoholics can change as my extended family has it's fair share who never manage to stay off it for long.

Originally Posted by Ed

I think everyone deserves a second chance.

Gordon Brown? Nah!

Not the doc's who've let him down its his family who should be ashamed. They knew their 11 year old son was drinking and heavily from 13!?! They should have done more to help him then the whole thing could have been avoided.

I dont often blame parents, as its seen as the easy way out etc but they broke up and obviously didnt take much notice of anyone else after that point. I'd be interested to know how well adjusted the 19yr old is.