ALL AUSTRALIA BLers READ!!!! YOUR LIFE IS AT STAKE!!

[What was it?]

An acquaintance was at a dinner with a few people high up in the TGA/health industry and overheard some shocking plans.

Here goes:

ALL CITIZENS WITH A HISTORY OF DRUG ABUSE WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR ORGAN DONATIONS IN FUTURE.

Apparently this is being discussed and will be the 'informal' norm (can't be put in law as it is discriminatory, but it IS happening)

What are the implications for us? Well, those who have been in therapy or detox are fucked. You will not get a transplant and will eb left to die if one is needed. But for all the others, think twice before detoxing, owning up to your shrink/GP about addiction, seeking counselling etc. If you ever need a transplant those kind of confessions might well cost you your life.

I for one will tread carefully and keep my mouth shut from now on.

 

[Mr Blonde]

This is already de facto practice isn't it? Though they usually restrict it to those with current substance abuse problems.

I almost never got to meet my godfather, due to the fact that he was an alcoholic and had such severe liver damage and cirrhosis that he was going to die. Because of how he had damaged his liver, he was at the very bottom of the transplant list and would likely have never gotten one before he died. Luckily, he managed to get on to a trial for an experimental immunosuppressant, which got him a liver transplant and I now have a loving and generous relative who I otherwise would never have even known.

He has of course given up the booze now.

 

[What was it?]

I see, but where do they draw the line I wonder? So if I went to the hospital and said I overdid it on benzos and feel fucked/withdrawing, would that already exclude me? That's about as much of an official record that I have, and I want to surely leave it at that.

 

[Divine Moments]

Surely they would take into account whether your drug abuse would actually affect the organ in question? Unless it's some blanket 'drug abusers die earlier' kind of thing...

I 100% support current alcoholics being put at the bottom of the list for liver transplants (no offence) because the facts are that they are more likely to damage the new liver through their own actions and will thus (statistically) receive less benefit than others. I don't really see how benzo abuse would come into it, but given the way these matters tend to go I wouldn't be at all surprised if the law has little/no grounding in logic or fairness

 

[mcwally]

^I agree in theory and I deteste the idea of drug abusers or any group for that matter being excluded from something so vital and lifesaving. But as opposed to say overeating/lack of exercise causing problems that isn't as tangible as a drug abuse record unfortunately. I would have to agree that if someone was still addicted to a drug that destroyed/damaged a certain organ they were on a list for it they should have to wait longer and unfortunately probably would never get it. That wouldn't be punishment or prejudice just the reality that the person who passed away would be giving their organ to a body that wouldn't be damaging it at a higher rate and therefore probably get more use, it just makes sense and I honestly don't think the justification would be hey they did it too themselves. If I was an alcoholic and required a new liver and deep down knew I was going to keep drinking and probably blow another liver that would be bullshit to take that liver from a passed person and deny it to someone who wasn't so hard on their liver.

BUT if they were not taking it NOW then they should absolutely have the same right and not wait longer.

 

[What was it?]

Unfortunately this might be the case - I will have a look into this as I want to get the facts. I'll probably call whatever organ donor association there is and see what the current guidelines are.

 

[What was it?]

BUT if they were not taking it NOW then they should absolutely have the same right and not wait longer.[/QUOTE]

This is what I want to find out.

 

[Mr Blonde]

Surely they would take into account whether your drug abuse would actually affect the organ in question? Unless it's some blanket 'drug abusers die earlier' kind of thing...

I 100% support current alcoholics being put at the bottom of the list for liver transplants (no offence) because the facts are that they are more likely to damage the new liver through their own actions and will thus (statistically) receive less benefit than others. I don't really see how benzo abuse would come into it, but given the way these matters tend to go I wouldn't be at all surprised if the law has little/no grounding in logic or fairness

No offense taken.

Look up regulations already, smokers and current heavy drinkers and drug users are excluded from or placed at the bottom of the list for transfers (at least in US and probably here) simply because they are considered groups more likely to be at risk of an earlier death anyway or be putting the success of the transplant at risk. The same goes for certain medical conditions as well.

 

[What was it?]

How do they prove one is a heavy drug user?

 

[Divine Moments]

Look up regulations already, smokers and current heavy drinkers and drug users are excluded from or placed at the bottom of the list for transfers (at least in US and probably here) simply because they are considered groups more likely to be at risk of an earlier death anyway or be putting the success of the transplant at risk. The same goes for certain medical conditions as well.

Yeah, not really what the OP is talking about though.. this is about whether a history of drug abuse will permanently exclude one from receiving organ donations, even after years/decades of abstinence. I suspect almost everyone on here would agree that is not desirable

 

[footscrazy]

Surely they would take into account whether your drug abuse would actually affect the organ in question? Unless it's some blanket 'drug abusers die earlier' kind of thing...

I 100% support current alcoholics being put at the bottom of the list for liver transplants (no offence) because the facts are that they are more likely to damage the new liver through their own actions and will thus (statistically) receive less benefit than others. I don't really see how benzo abuse would come into it, but given the way these matters tend to go I wouldn't be at all surprised if the law has little/no grounding in logic or fairness

Actually the statistics show that the outcomes of liver transplants are actually worse for certain kinds of liver diseases (I think it was hep c) than they are for alcoholics, even if they keep drinking. But I can see the difference, in that an alcoholic had more of a choice in damaging their liver.

 

[Sameria]

I completely see the logic in that argument, but my personal experiences also show me the other side of the coin.

My old man who has a past history of alcoholism (not terribly bad compared to most) is in pretty dire need of a liver transplant. He has a hereditary blood disease - which the name of escapes me at the moment - that takes a heavy toll on the liver. His liver is now down to less than 10% function and he is now pretty much fucked in need of full time care. In a matter of months he went from (reliteively) healthy to not being able to work or legally drive. The day the doctors diagnosed his liver problems he stopped drinking alcohol and hasn't had a drop in the 9 or so months since. He is slowly dying and after a few months of more tests than I knew existed he has been accepted onto the donar list. The doctors have been extremely hopeful and kept on chiming on about how he's a perfect candidate etc. but I doubt a >55 y.o former alcoholic is going to get a new organ before a 'squeaky clean' 20 year old woman. It's pretty shitty trying to be optimistic even though my old man is probably the least likely to recieve one of the very few viable organ transplant's that will probably keep him alive for quite a few more years.

From my point of view it pisses me off that some rich twat who doesn't know the names on the list nor their life which is summarised by a handful of brief medical notes has the power to decide who lives and who dies based on their own beliefs. Hell, my father could die so a serial rapist (who doesn't have a documented history of substance abuse) can live.

As unfortunate as it is we will always have this human bias, even in the medical profession, simply because we are all human and are controlled by emotion.

</rant>

 

[Divine Moments]

Actually the statistics show that the outcomes of liver transplants are actually worse for certain kinds of liver diseases (I think it was hep c) than they are for alcoholics, even if they keep drinking. But I can see the difference, in that an alcoholic had more of a choice in damaging their liver.

Interesting, I'll have to look it up. Maybe I was just imagining that

 

[What was it?]

Well.....I could imagine 'wealthier' junkies in need of a transplant flying to Thailand/Brazil to get one illegally if they are excluded (poor young Aussie or Pommy Backpacker will lose one for them and wake up in a bathtub full of ice and blasted on roofies...) What a world we live in. And by the way, I believe there are more wealthy addicts than most people imagine.

 

[chugs]

But for all the others, think twice before detoxing, owning up to your shrink/GP about addiction, seeking counselling etc. If you ever need a transplant those kind of confessions might well cost you your life

well if you've ever had the pleasure of being treated for an accidental overdose then you quickly learn your lesson. Don't ever tell the doctors or nurses the truth. Tell them that someone "drugged" your drink or anything. Treatment in the australian medical system is highly discriminatory. Its based on image and lies. In my line of work I have never told or recommended that lies be told, despite millions of dollars being at stake. Yet when it comes down to treatment in the medical system I find there is no possible way to receive just, fair, and proper treatment without lying. It upsets me greatly that in order to stay alive I must lie. I've been to hospital dozens of times over the last twenty years and found that where I told the truth I was judged and given sub-standard treatment. Where I lied the opposite occurred.

I hope the medical profession lurkers read this and understand that there industry is just absolutely fucked. I would love to practice the same bigotry that you assholesdo but you know I can't bring myself down to your disgusting level. I hope those TGA assholes get a royal commission up their ass for that sort of behaviour.

 

[Divine Moments]

^ I assure you not all doctors or nurses are like that. Prejudice may be common, yes, but I don't think any moreso than in the general community. There are certainly excellent, caring, compassionate health professionals around, perhaps just too few and far between (or perhaps you've just been unlucky)

 

[Crankinit]

The sad truth is that those excellent, caring, compassionate health professionals make up a slim minority of the profession at large. For every great doctor or nurse, there are 10 who are arrogant, discriminatory, uncaring and unprofessional or just plain ignorant.

 

[footscrazy]

Maybe I've just been lucky, but I don't feel that I've ever been treated differently because of the drug history on my medical records. There's been a couple of times when I've been bitter about not receiving narcotic painkillers, but that's just because I wanted them, not because I really needed them. I was talking to my doc just recently about the privacy of my medical records - he was saying the real worry is going to be when our records go online, or are electronically linked to medicare cards or whatever it is they're doing - I think it'd be much harder to prevent unauthorised access to them then. Even so, medical records can be, and are accessed now, even though it's illegal. I'm sure I remember reading that the girl in the army cadets who was taped having sex had her medical records illegally accessed - they were probably hoping they'd find 5 previous abortions that they could use in their smear campaign against her.

 

[Crankinit]

My understanding was that there's no all encompassing database of medical records. You have medicare, which I guess tracks which doctors you visit and which medications you're prescribed, and then each practice/hospital will have it's own records, but I didn't think those could be accessed except by someone within that enclosed system. I'm sure it happens (ie, one doctor will call up another on the DL and ask what they can dig up about X patient), but I thought officially they needed consent to do so.

Hell, I was recently told by one doctor that they're not even allowed to check the doctor shoppers list without the permission of their patient (obviously refusing permission would get your scripts cut off pretty fast), and every time one doctor who's treating me has wanted to speak to another, they've asked my permission, even if it's just to speak to the referring physician.

 

[Busty St Clare]

Given that Australia's organ donor rate is pathetically low I really have no problem with this. You are all bitching and moaning that "some rich wanker" will get your precious liver or kidney when reality is those at the top of the list are usually children. Should they be bumped for some junkie who has had a life time of abuse and public education to motivate them to live a healthy life? Why should self inflicted conditions be placed ahead of the innocent young victims who should have a full life ahead of them?

It is not discrimination if statically the success rate for drug abuses are lower. Insurance companies would be just as interested in your health history if given the access. Why? Because the odds are you will have a higher rate of disease and likely to die early. They aren't judging you they are simply crunching the numbers. Why should the number crunchers in hospitals ignore the same statistics?