Questions are being raised about the case of a 36-year-old Ontario woman who died of liver failure after she was rejected for a life-saving liver transplant after a medical review highlighted her prior alcohol use.
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
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.
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.
Maybe he should, but maybe he is thinking “Fuck them, we tried to participate in the system. We had a living donor to go. What? Oh you have a ‘better’ recipient? Well, guess who doesn’t want to donate to a system that failed my loved one.”
The system didn’t fail, it worked as intended. If but mid 30s you’ve destroyed your liver with your alcohol addiction, it’s almost guaranteed you’ll slide back.
Recipients can’t drink ever, and have to take meds for life. She was not a good candidate for a transplant.
I agree. I understand the rules and it makes sense to me. The people going through it don’t care. The husband going through this loss doesn’t care about other people needing his living donor liver, or there being better recipients. He would view it (I imagine) as “why should I donate when they didn’t help my wife?”
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.
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.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
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
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.
Doctors are cops. Pass it along
The fact that people are down voting you for saying in essence “my body, my choice”, is ironic for lemmy.
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.
Not really. All political factions try to sound like they are about principles when in reality they are about tribes.
My apartment only bring me debts.
Maybe he should, but maybe he is thinking “Fuck them, we tried to participate in the system. We had a living donor to go. What? Oh you have a ‘better’ recipient? Well, guess who doesn’t want to donate to a system that failed my loved one.”
The system didn’t fail, it worked as intended. If but mid 30s you’ve destroyed your liver with your alcohol addiction, it’s almost guaranteed you’ll slide back.
Recipients can’t drink ever, and have to take meds for life. She was not a good candidate for a transplant.
I agree. I understand the rules and it makes sense to me. The people going through it don’t care. The husband going through this loss doesn’t care about other people needing his living donor liver, or there being better recipients. He would view it (I imagine) as “why should I donate when they didn’t help my wife?”
That’s nonsense, because the partner would not donate his liver if it went to someone else.
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.
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.
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.
Even if the donor is suitable, the operation to extract the donor organ is invasive and can have complications.
All true, yet it has nothing to do with what we are discussing, so why are you muddying the water with it?