Hum Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 CHICAGO (AP) ? Some gravely ill alcoholics who need a liver transplant shouldn't have to prove they can stay sober for six months to get one, doctors say in a study that could intensify the debate over whether those who destroy their organs by drinking deserve new ones. In the small French study, the vast majority of the patients who got a liver without the wait stopped drinking after their surgery and were sober years later. The study involved patients who were suffering from alcohol-related hepatitis so severe that they were unlikely to survive a six-month delay. The findings, reported in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine, could boost demand for livers, already in scarce supply, and reopen a bitter dispute over whether alcoholics should even get transplants. The controversy peaked in the 1990s when celebrities with drinking problems ? Larry Hagman, David Crosby and Mickey Mantle ? got liver transplants. More recently, British soccer star George Best received a new liver in 2002, started drinking again and died three years later. Alcohol can cause lethal, liver-destroying diseases such as cirrhosis and hepatitis. Nearly one in five liver transplants in the U.S. go to current or former heavy drinkers. Transplant hospitals commonly require patients waiting for a new liver to give up drinking for six months as a way of assuring doctors they are serious about staying sober after the operation. Drinkers severely ill with hepatitis account for a very small share of patients needing transplants. The French study suggests that dropping the six-month rule for these patients would increase demand for livers by only about 3 percent. The study's lead author, Dr. Philippe Mathurin of Huriez Hospital in Lille, France, said a strict application of the six-month rule may be unfair to such patients. He said they are just as deserving as other liver patients, many of whom have diseases caused by poor lifestyle choices such as drug use or obesity. Mathurin said he favors keeping the rule for other alcoholics with liver disease, noting that some can recover liver function simply by staying sober. full story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovell Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Screw them same with smokers, if you destroy your liver and lungs by been irresponsible it's your own damn fault, give them to people who deserve them. jerzdawg 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerax Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 So what if you can stay clean after, you wreaked it before why should you get a liver before someone who didn't destroy it having fun, but due to a serious illness.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacer Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Why is this even a debate? If you willingly choose to destroy your liver, you do not deserve a new one. I am not someone who considers alcoholism is a "disease", so I guess my opinion stems from that. Yes, there are certainly people who have a physical disposition to the affects of alcohol which causes them to continually seek it out, but they still have willpower and a choice. I do not see the logic behind giving a new liver to someone who is just going to destroy it after they recover from the surgery. Especially when there are other patients with more severe, involuntarily diseases which require transplants. The liver transplant waiting list is long enough as it is. Adding these people to the list is an insult to everyone else on the list who didn't chose to be on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerzdawg Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 interesting debate. but I am going to say that people who intentionally destory their liver by drinkning excessive amounts do not deserve a transplant. I am sure there are plenty of people on the list that are suffering from liver failure from no fault of their own. Granted it does make it difficult to weed out the people who "saw the light" and want to turn thier life around. So as far as the 6 months of giving up drinking.... I am all for it and think it should be a requirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsX Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 if you destroy you're liver Don't destroy are language! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vice Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Don't destroy are language! Don't destroy our language! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovell Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Don't destroy are language! Priceless, a mistake versus been retarded well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charisma Veteran Posted November 10, 2011 Veteran Share Posted November 10, 2011 interesting debate. but I am going to say that people who intentionally destory their liver by drinkning excessive amounts do not deserve a transplant. I am sure there are plenty of people on the list that are suffering from liver failure from no fault of their own. Granted it does make it difficult to weed out the people who "saw the light" and want to turn thier life around. So as far as the 6 months of giving up drinking.... I am all for it and think it should be a requirement. Agreed. 6 months isn't too terribly long, but it is a decent enough time to prove you can stay sober. If you can't make it 6 months? Well... you made the decision to drink that much, you took the risk, it's unfortunate but that's life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Gary7 Subscriber² Posted November 10, 2011 Subscriber² Share Posted November 10, 2011 So do we stop giving heart transplants to people who eat too much red meat, or overweight? Who is to decide this? Will Obama name one of his cronies as The Transplant Czar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacer Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 So do we stop giving heart transplants to people who eat too much red meat, or overweight? Who is to decide this? Will Obama name one of his cronies as The Transplant Czar? In my opinion, yes you stop giving heart transplants to fatties who don't know how to take care of themselves. If you over-eat, don't exercise, and basically ask for heart attacks, you shouldn't get a new one. That's just common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoredBozirini Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 So do we stop giving heart transplants to people who eat too much red meat, or overweight? Who is to decide this? Will Obama name one of his cronies as The Transplant Czar? Where did this come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hum Posted November 10, 2011 Author Share Posted November 10, 2011 Maybe move alcoholics to the bottom of the list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerzdawg Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 So do we stop giving heart transplants to people who eat too much red meat, or overweight? Who is to decide this? snipped stupid comment correct, there are plenty of people waiting for transplants because of a disease or condition at no fault of their own. Why should people who choose to destroy their body (lungs=smoking, liver=drinking/drugs, heart=over weight, etc) be put on the same list of people who had no choice and just got dealt a crappy hand in life... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts