Crankinit
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2007
- Messages
- 6,175
Ahh - there's the rub. You are confusing correlation and causation. She used drugs after her transplant, and her transplanted liver is still failing. That doesn't mean that the drug use caused that failure - you are just assuming that. Liver transplants just don't last that long, as I said above. Even if she becomes a complete abstainer such as yourself, she will still need another 5-10 transplants over the course of her life.
And of course - even if her drug use is affecting her liver adversely - really how very human of her. We all do things that are less than ideal for our health. It's very easy to say how we would do things differently if we were in someone else's shoes - but really that's bollocks.
Finally - be very careful entering into calculations of "worthiness" to receive health care. That is a very slippery slope my friends!!!
It's reasonable to assume that drug use contributed to the failure, if that wasn't the case, well, there'd be nothing to debate about would there? But if the drug use was a significant factor in her first transplant, then it's quite likely to be a factor in her need for a second.
As for calculations of 'worthiness,' obviously one has to be careful, but here, I think , the answer is obvious. If you have two potential recipients, one of whom takes every care of their body in an attempt to gain the most benefit of the liver, and one of whom doesn't, then why on earth would you give the liver to the second? You're wasting it. This isn't about moralizing, or about refusing her treatment because 'she's a druggie,' it's about giving the liver to the person who stands to gain the most benefit from it by a significant margin.
I understand this issue is a little close to home, since we're all drug users here ourselves, but the reality is that when you have a resource as limitted as donor organs, then they have to be used where they'll make the most difference. Giving the addict this liver isn't doing that.

