Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As someone who watched his sister die from a failing liver this story really pisses me off. She was continually jacked around on the transplant list and suffered for years before she died. I read stories like this and about Dave Crosby, who drank and did drugs on the way to destroying his liver and I don't feel a damn bit bad about giving the finger to people that tell me I should be an organ donar.


http://topnews.co.uk/29880-murderer-gets-liver-transplant

"The system is designed to save as many people as possible."

How bout they redesign it to save the people that deserve it? This POS shouldn't even have been considered for a transplant.

It is kind of like prisoners getting vaccines etc as a priority ahead of members of the public because they are under the care of the state, even though they are... well... bad people.

I understand that some people are harder to match for transplants than others, but no matter how easy it is to find an organ you would accept, prisoners should be right at the bottom of the list.

Edit: Especially those who have damaged their organs through suicide attempts. I was pretty sure that a major condition for organ transplant is that you have proven capable of looking after it (and yourself) to give the best possible chance of integration. Being suicidal should get you chucked off the list faster than anything I would have thought.

Just to play devil's advocate here but why should you, or anyone else for that matter, be the arbiter of who 'deserves' a transplant?

I was under the impression that transplants were given out according to a queue (and organ match of course) so that value judgements about who should/shouldn't get one are avoided.

That being said, it's certainly an emotive subject.

SilverMK2 wrote:
I understand that some people are harder to match for transplants than others, but no matter how easy it is to find an organ you would accept, prisoners should be right at the bottom of the list.

I can't exactly agree with all of that. What if someone is a petty theif, or in for minor offenses?

Does the system discriminate based upon special conditions, such as prisoners and inmates, or if there has been rulings such that they found that minorities and/or those found to be discriminated against need a proportional amount of donations sent to them?

Golden Eyed Scout wrote:I can't exactly agree with all of that. What if someone is a petty theif, or in for minor offenses?

Given that all other factors between potiential recipients are the same (or close enough to make no appreciable difference), I would give the organ to the person who is not in prison every time.

@ Filbert - As far as I am aware, organs are given out based on suitability of match, length of time on the waiting list, general health condition, as well as the person getting the organ filling a long list of social and other criteria.

But sometimes it can come down to who can get into hospital the fastest, how far they can transport the organ before it has been "on ice" too long and cannot be implanted, etc as well.

Golden Eyed Scout wrote:"The system is designed to save as many people as possible."

How bout they redesign it to save the people that deserve it? This POS shouldn't even have been considered for a transplant.

You mean, death panels?

That's a good idea. You should send that to someone in charge.

I know a little about the process, and let me tell its a long, drawn out, convoluted process...

First you get diagnosed with something that requires a transplant to live.

Then your case is presented to a board of doctors who decide if your a good candidate for the transplant (why you need the transplant is usually irrelevant).

If you are approved you are put on the list, and there are numerous factors that can move you up or down that list.

Thats the short abridged version.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Golden Eyed Scout wrote:I can't exactly agree with all of that. What if someone is a petty theif, or in for minor offenses?

Given that all other factors between potiential recipients are the same (or close enough to make no appreciable difference), I would give the organ to the person who is not in prison every time.

@ Filbert - As far as I am aware, organs are given out based on suitability of match, length of time on the waiting list, as well as the person getting the organ filling a long list of social and other criteria.

But sometimes it can come down to who can get into hospital the fastest, how far they can transport the organ before it has been "on ice" too long and cannot be implanted, etc as well.

What about if your choice is between someone in prison and no-one? All organs aren't suitable for any recipient, because of the rejection factors.

filbert wrote:Just to play devil's advocate here but why should you, or anyone else for that matter, be the arbiter of who 'deserves' a transplant?

I was under the impression that transplants were given out according to a queue (and organ match of course) so that value judgements about who should/shouldn't get one are avoided.

That being said, it's certainly an emotive subject.

It's a fair statement you make, but for years I watched my sister being told she was at the top of the list, only to be later told that she wasn't that bad and slid back down the list. This took quite a toll on both her and her children.
Seeing this guy and others like him get jumped to the top spot is a real pisser. Out all the people out there waiting on transplants, I can be pretty sure with what I learned from my sister's experience that he wasn't the only match.

You can be at the top of the list for 5 years and not get a liver...

Just because you are at the top doesnt mean the next one is yours, there is typing, cross matching, and chance of rejection to consider....

Some other things is quality of life after the transplant, how long they will live after they get it, will they need another one in 5-10 years..

Kilkrazy wrote:What about if your choice is between someone in prison and no-one? All organs aren't suitable for any recipient, because of the rejection factors.

Of course. As I said, they would just be at the bottom of the list, not off the list entirely.

Edit: I can't access the article at work, but as I said, I am pretty sure a major condition of getting an organ is the fact that you will treat it well. Someone who damaged their own liver attempting suicide probably should not be on the transplant list at all. Certainly not until they can be proven to be capable of looking after the organ, etc.

I'm going to be the bad guy here and say why the hell haven't we legalized assisted suicide yet? If someone wants to die they should be able too without having to do something dangerous (in an uncalculated way). Even in states that have said it was legal the government intervenes and strong arms so that any doctors engaging in the practice will lose their license.

Relapse wrote:

filbert wrote:Just to play devil's advocate here but why should you, or anyone else for that matter, be the arbiter of who 'deserves' a transplant?

I was under the impression that transplants were given out according to a queue (and organ match of course) so that value judgements about who should/shouldn't get one are avoided.

That being said, it's certainly an emotive subject.

It's a fair statement you make, but for years I watched my sister being told she was at the top of the list, only to be later told that she wasn't that bad and slid back down the list. This took quite a toll on both her and her children.
Seeing this guy and others like him get jumped to the top spot is a real pisser. Out all the people out there waiting on transplants, I can be pretty sure with what I learned from my sister's experience that he wasn't the only match.

Oh don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you and I would hate to be in your sister's position. All I am saying is, once you start going down the road of making value judgements based on who 'deserves' a transplant over someone else, then it is a slippery slope.

As others have pointed out the process, there is an element of that already; the crucial part is, the judgement is made by a doctor and presumably for sound medical reasons, not through rabid tabloid sensationalism.

ShivanAngel wrote:You can be at the top of the list for 5 years and not get a liver...

Just because you are at the top doesnt mean the next one is yours, there is typing, cross matching, and chance of rejection to consider....

Some other things is quality of life after the transplant, how long they will live after they get it, will they need another one in 5-10 years..

I understand that, but she was told she was across the board good in all areas that qualified her for a transplant, only to see herself knocked back down the list several times. It was like watching a cat and mouse game being played with her. She'd be told there was a suitable match, then told she wasn't bad enough to recieve the new liver. It was pretty sickening to see happen to her.
Also I mentioned Dave Crosby. If that goober wasn't who he was, he would have been disqualified on the quality of life consideration alone, considering the fact he destoyed his own liver with drugs and alcohol.

Relapse wrote:

ShivanAngel wrote:You can be at the top of the list for 5 years and not get a liver...

Just because you are at the top doesnt mean the next one is yours, there is typing, cross matching, and chance of rejection to consider....

Some other things is quality of life after the transplant, how long they will live after they get it, will they need another one in 5-10 years..

I understand that, but she was told she was across the board good in all areas that qualified her for a transplant, only to see herself knocked back down the list several times. It was like watching a cat and mouse game being played with her. She'd be told there was a suitable match, then told she wasn't bad enough to recieve the new liver. It was pretty sickening to see happen to her.

It is and it might not be the best system devised but it works...

Im not saying that i agree with the judgement made in the opening post, just trying to explain what goes on...

I understand where you're coming from. It's always been a very emotional topic with me after watching my sister get jacked around.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Golden Eyed Scout wrote:"The system is designed to save as many people as possible."

How bout they redesign it to save the people that deserve it? This POS shouldn't even have been considered for a transplant.

You mean, death panels?

That's a good idea. You should send that to someone in charge.

I did. Haven't you heard of Obamacare?

Golden Eyed Scout wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Golden Eyed Scout wrote:"The system is designed to save as many people as possible."

How bout they redesign it to save the people that deserve it? This POS shouldn't even have been considered for a transplant.

You mean, death panels?

That's a good idea. You should send that to someone in charge.

I did. Haven't you heard of Obamacare?

speaking of something thats going to get a lot of people killed....

SilverMK2 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:What about if your choice is between someone in prison and no-one? All organs aren't suitable for any recipient, because of the rejection factors.

Of course. As I said, they would just be at the bottom of the list, not off the list entirely.

Edit: I can't access the article at work, but as I said, I am pretty sure a major condition of getting an organ is the fact that you will treat it well. Someone who damaged their own liver attempting suicide probably should not be on the transplant list at all. Certainly not until they can be proven to be capable of looking after the organ, etc.

The article is very sketchy though it provides a springboard for discussion.

People in the UK have been refused a liver transplant because they knacked their first liver through excessive drinking and the consultants thought they would just knack their second liver too. This seems to me to be a valid medical judgement.

The case of the attempted suicide accused murderer is somewhat more complex.

There's no certainty a failed suicide will try to kill themself again. From that perspective, the failed suicide is probably as deserving of a new liver as anyone else. If he wants to commit suicide he could do it by refusing consent for the operation. The transplant issue should be examined by a psychiatrist.

The second point is about him being an alleged murderer. The article says he confessed to police. This means he has not been convicted, so from a legal viewpoint he is as deserving of medical aid as anyone else. In fact, without the liver transplant he probably wouldn't be well enough to stand trial.

Some people no doubt feel that the person should be refused a transplant because he confessed to murder and then knacked his own liver. I can understand that feeling. It is a rare enough situation that there probably isn't any relevant case law, so it would be best to allow the justice system to take its course and perhaps new case law will be developed through that process.

Yeah the attempted suicide thing is a whole different matter. If the person attempted suicide, has been rehabilitated, and is now in need of a liver, whats the issue. People that commit suicide are sick, and need help. Who are you to judge that they are undeserving of a liver transplant. I know the murderer thing is a different argument entirely. However saying that someone who attempted suicide and has been rehabilitated should be denied the same medical care as someone who hasnt is just wrong...

BTW at least in the states even "normal" people have to have a psych eval to be put on the list!

I'm just saying the option of assisted suicide might have been one the guy would have taken after his confession. For all we know he could have been an organ donor himself after his assisted suicide and instead of the world being -1 liver we'd be +1 instead and the guy wouldn't have to live with what he's done as well as costing lots of money for jail/medical care. The only thing that makes a suicidal person "crazy" or "different" is that a majority of the people aren't saying the same thing. If 60% of people woke up tomorrow and said the sun was blue, we'd probably start calling the sun blue.

I am shocked at the lack of sympathy for this poor man's plight. Society has a duty to protect this man, no matter the cost. All you naysayers are just evil. Won't someone think of the children?

Honestly they should have just put a bullet in his head. Why people have sympathy for people who have a complete disregard for life is beyond me. He doesn't deserve sympathy.

They should'v taken extra organs from him.

Soladrin wrote:They should'v taken extra organs from him.

+1
That would be a good idea.

when we start playing favorite for who deserves what when we start to get a corrupted and unfair system. When we start saying things like "murderers dont derserve medical care" we start to lose our ability to feel compassion for anything. Humans are humans you are no less or no more becuase of what choices you made in life

garret wrote:when we start playing favorite for who deserves what when we start to get a corrupted and unfair system. When we start saying things like "murderers dont derserve medical care" we start to lose our ability to feel compassion for anything. Humans are humans you are no less or no more becuase of what choices you made in life

I feel no inclination to save someone just because they are human if they also happen to be a horrible, horrible person who has gone to such lengths to hurt innocent people. This has no bearing on how I feel about people who don't commit murder, except that I feel it is unjust to force them to carry the costs of keeping such a person alive and in good health.

Well Alex i respectfully disagree. No one should be denied anything required to live based on past choices. I will always beleive people are all the equal not matter what they did.