[Closed] Man refused Liver transplant dies

Sad, but hard to say without knowing all the facts. It's possible the liver (if there was one available) went to a more "deserving" case, though obviously "more deserving" is very subjective.

But health chiefs ruled he should not be exempt from strict organ donation criteria which require an alcohol-free period of at least six months.

Sad for him obviously, and running the risk of appearing unsympathetic, but I agree with that policy. And that's as someone who's father died in the same circumstances as this man did.

If I remember correctly though, wasn't George Best exempt from it?

Best gave up alcohol before the op

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3064167.stm

I would rather any liver went to someone who was addressing the reason that gave them the Liver damage in the first place.
Why bother giving it someone who will then go on to wreck that one?

Anyway, its a sensationalist headline meant to sell newspapers. I bet its not got a grain of truth to it.

Ah fair enough.

Indeed you do appear very unsympathetic greatape. No 13 year old is personally responsible for an environment which allows him to binge drink. That is why we have laws to protect 13 year olds.

And no 13 year old can be trusted to make sensible decisions concerning their health anyway. Presumably he was already an alcoholic by the time he became an adult. He was only 22 when he died ffs 🙁

I bet its not got a grain of truth to it.

[img] [/img]

You could be right, that looks like yellow paint to me 🙄

Not really, maybe someone who wouldn't abuse it and who didn't destroy their own might live.

It would be great if replacment organs grew on trees, but they don't. Therefore you DO have to make choices, and those choices HAVE to be based on something.

What would be a fairer way of deciding between person A and person B? Suggestions?

How does anyone know he wouldn't have grabbed the chance and turned his life around. He's obviously been failed by the authorities at every level of his life

On the other hand our transplant rules are a shambles, presumed consent should be the norm, imo

I think the real tragedy of the story is the very short and sad life that this bloke led, not the refusal of treatment to prolong it. I don't think people start binge drinking/drug abusing at 13 unless there are pretty sinister circumstances involved.
Very sad.

It's not up to the authorites to sort his life out. It's up to him. I had a few friends that binge drunk heavily at the age of 13 but grew out of it.

I agree it is sad but I really cannot see how people don't help themselves before it gets to this point.

help themselves for what ? the alcoholism or the reasons behind it ?

How does anyone know he wouldn't have grabbed the chance and turned his life around.

Exactly. As this quote from the Times says :

[i]"His condition is so severe that he cannot be discharged to prove he can remain sober."[/i]

He didn't have 6 months left to live, so couldn't prove anything. And this was the first time he had ever been to hospital with an alcohol-related problem. So they simply never gave him a chance - shame on them 😐

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6719226.ece

[i]He's obviously been failed by the authorities at every level of his life[/i]
how on earth do you reach that conclusion?

Lanesra. i don't doubt he died. I don't doubt he died of alcohol related liver damage.

I don't believe that during his 9 years of binge drinking that he had not had the opportunity to stop drinking at any point.
Did he never come across any services to assist him with not drinking?
did he ever experience any other symptoms?

Did he ever stop to think, "i'm killing myself with all this boozing?" . I bet he bloody did.

So for that article to suggest he only found out he was poorly 10 weeks ago is conkers. its not true. but hey ho its sold some newspapers today

how on earth do you reach that conclusion?

Because there are laws to protect 13 year olds.

he only found out he was poorly 10 weeks ago is conkers. its not true.

Are you calling his doctors liars ?

Surely his mother must have had some inkling?

Nope he's calling the newspapers liars.

[i]Because there are laws to protect 13 year olds. [/i]
yes, it's clearly all the fault of the authorities. Jesus.

Sounds like he's been failed by his parents to me.

Nope he's calling the newspapers liars.

In that case Professor Rajiv Jalan should sue the Times. Because according to the Times Professor Rajiv Jalan said, quote :

"[i]He has been drinking for eight or nine years and [u]did not see what was coming to him[/u]. We feel this boy deserves a transplant because it is the first time he has come to the hospital with an alcohol-related problem.[/i]"

He's obviously been failed by the authorities at every level of his life

including his parent.

[i]He has been drinking for eight or nine years and did not see what was coming to him[/i]
Sounds like no great loss, not much of a brain there clearly.

Sounds like he's been failed by his parents to me.

The parents don't have a choice on whether or not a 13 year old binge drinks. It is against the law.

Do you think that the authorities are not responsible if they don't bother tracking down a killer ?
After all, they didn't commit the murder.

[i]The parents don't have a choice on whether or not a 13 year old binge drinks. It is against the law.[/i]
you don't have children, do you?

Sounds like no great loss, not much of a brain there clearly.

The right to life is not based on intelligence. Even a fu*kwit like you has basic rights.

That's sad, of course. But I'm prejudiced against the conclusion that someone who drinks enough in their teens to be dying of liver collapse in their 20s is an innocent victim who simply had no idea what they were doing to themselves. It's not like there is a conspiracy of silence about the harmful effects of alcohol in British society, and it's not like someone in their teens is completely incapable of understanding the point. People know perfectly well that doctors think drinking too much screws up your health. Then they do it anyway. That's fine, and generally the doctors can be seen to be exaggerating how dangerous the practice of drinking a bit too much alcohol is. But if you push it that far it's not the lack of medical warnings that's to blame for where you end up.

And, in the absence of a limitless supply of spare livers I am content with the idea that he doesn't get one so that someone else can. If your first strike kills you straight off that's too bad, you don't get a spare liver. 😕

[i]The right to life is not based on intelligence. Even a fu*kwit like you has basic rights. [/i]
...and I questioned his right to life where, exactly, cumgullet?

If you had to choose between a man like that or a young child that had was born with a liver problem, who would you pick?

This is the choice they have to make and that is why people like him are not just handed out livers.

In the ideal world there would be enough for everyone, it's all good saying it's sad but are you an organ donor?

you don't have children, do you?

LOL - you have completely missed the point ! !

Of course it is very difficult for parents to keep tabs on their children. That is [u]why we have laws[/u] ! Laws which state that 13 year olds must not be sold alcohol, for example. And they must attend school etc. We have laws and protocols to protect children in our society, they clearly failed Gary Reinbach.

I questioned his right to life where, exactly, cumgullet?

Where you mention "no great loss", arsewipe.

[i]LOL - you have completely missed the point ! ![/i]
It would appear not.

First line of responsibility lies with the parents. How can they not notice their child is drinking himself to death?
Yes, he shouldn't be being sold alcohol. Agreed. But to say the fault lies with the authorities is clearly bonkers.

[i]Where you mention "no great loss", arsewipe. [/i]
no, still not getting it. Show me where 'no great loss' equates to 'no right to life'?
jesus, you're not too bright either, are you? Are YOU aware that alcohol can be dangerous to you? Maybe not. Not many brain cells left there to wipe out with a few beers by the sound of things.

Show me where 'no great loss' equates to 'no right to life'?

The loss of a human life is always a tragedy. Unless of course you feel that they have no right to life.

[i]" jesus, you're not too bright either, are you? "[/i]

Not particularly - no. But I can still wade through the bollox which you post.

I don't drink btw. And I have never had a problem with alcohol. Although I have seen it destroy people - including young people.

The problem I've got with what you're saying ernie is that you're intimating that he is the innocent victim in this tragedy and it is the state and those round him who are responsible. I can't except that this is the case as by 13 children will have to start the process of taking responsibility for the decisions they make; the process of making responsible well judged desisions is not some switch that gets triggered when a child reaches 18.

:edit: yes I meant to put innocent 😳

[i]The loss of a human life is always a tragedy. Unless of course you feel that they have no right to life. [/i]
agreed entirely. And I didn't at any point feel or say that he had no right to life, did I?

[i]Although I have seen it destroy people - including young people. [/i]
you're clearly brighter than I thought. Still waiting for you to point out the 'bollocks which I post' though.

you're intimating that he is the victim in this tragedy

Well I can't think who else might be "the victim in this tragedy" 😕

Yes he made the wrong decision when he was 13. But society has in place mechanisms to help to protect 13 year olds from making mistakes.

guss, you ar wrong and shouldn't call people fuc&w!ts. and don't come back saying you are defending this guy beyond he grave as he's now unable to do so after being failed by the authorities for te last 9 years.

laws are all well and good but they are not in place to play the role of parent.

i know some 13 yr olds can be little shits. i started smoking weed at 14 and haven't stopped, smoking one now, but everyone knows at that age know what damage 'drugs' do. i would be surprised if he hadn't had the lessons at school about the 'dangers' of drugs and alcohol. i would not be surprised however, if he and his mates didn't shrug off the warnings, sit down the park and all revel in the stupidity of what they were doing. jeering each other on.

as stated above. he had 9 years to think about what he was doing. his parents, relatves and friends all had a chance to interrupt what he was doing.
niether party took any action.

i'm sure if you met him personally on the street you'd have thought he was a ****.

i very much doubt that the british isles or even dagenham have really lost anything of any substance.

local offy is probably gutted though.

I can't except that this is the case as by 13 children will have to start the process of taking responsibility for the decisions they make

what if there are underlying reasons preventing what might be seen as responsible behaviour ? reasons such as abuse or neglect for instance.

Well, i think its a shame that he has wasted his life... I'm 22 myself, and there is no way that he wouldnt have known what the alchohol was doing to him... We had talks at school about the dangers of drugs and alchohol, and whilst this may not have been the case for him, it's hardly a little known fact. I know people who at the age of 13, 14 15, etc drank alot, an ex of mine admitted she was starting to rely on alchohol at the age of 14. But all of those people had the sense to realise they were slowly poisoning themselves, and stopped, whilst this guy didnt.

So in my opinion, if you are foolish enough to drink to the extent that this guy did, then you are going to get what is coming to you. It would be nice as someone else said if organs grew on trees. But then there would be a whole new problem of people living far beyond their natural lives...

I think what bugs me is the spin on this to highlight NHS rules around handing out new livers. What went wrong in 9 long years, is it really as simple as portrayed ??

“These rules are really unfair. I'm not saying you should give a transplant to someone who is in and out of hospital all the time and keeps damaging themselves, but just for people like Gary, who made a mistake and never got a second chance.

“It never occurred to him what would happen. He was just a sweet, normal boy with a heart of gold, who never hurt anyone. And now he's gone."

This young guy has obviously had a very sad life, but ultimately there aren't enough livers to go round, and as none of us are as informed as the doctors involved in the case it's therefore difficult to say they made the wrong decision. I'm pretty certain they didn't take the decision lightly and I'm sure there will be a few doctors having sleepless nights tonight wondering if they made the right call.

If this guy was allowed to live then quite possibly someone else would have had to die.

If anything this story says that we should all be carrying doner cards.

There is a nation of people who begin binge drinking at 13 and I live there. I suspect he would have been genetically predisposed to liver disease and would have screwed his liver anyway.....

guss, you ar wrong and shouldn't call people fuc&w!ts.

No, I am right. And yes, there are times when it is absolutely fine to call someone a ****wit - whether or not it precipitates a ban. There only two things which are ever likely to wind me up on here. One is a callous attitude towards animals, and the other is a callous attitude towards children. Everything else I'm cool about - however strongly I might feel.

And for all of those who comment that he would have been told as a child about the dangers of alcohol, you have absolutely no idea about the circumstances of this individual. He might not have heeded the warnings as he might have been on a 'self-destruct'. The only person who appears to have picked up on this is trailmonkey. You are all aware that a 13 year old can suffer from clinical depression, aren't you ?

Very sad tale of a short and sad life, but we are going to have to face up to the fact that medical science - and society as a whole - cannot afford to cure every person of every ailment. Public spending restraint in the next 10 years may make this even more harsh.

And while I have every sympathy for him and his family, it's not that many years ago that liver transplants didn't even exist.

All you can do is hope and pray those you know and love make the right choices in life and get lucky in the roulette of serious disease.

society as a whole - cannot afford to cure every person of every ailment.

LOL - if it is just a question of money, of course we can !

Ernie - with (some) respect how old are you?
Offhand about 12.
Having a law will not protect a child from the fact in this case the young Gary was failed by his parents/carers.
Perhaps he could also have been better served by the authorities but do you expect the authorities/state to be responsible for everything?
Maybe you're right and there should be a law against dangerous sports...for our own protection.
You stated earlier that you had seen lives destroyed by alchohol, given your views why didn't you call the police - or better still extend some help of your own. If you did perhaps you will have seen that not everyone can be helped.

society as a whole - cannot afford to cure every person of every ailment.

LOL - if it is just a question of money, of course we can !

In this case we are not just talking money but resources, in this case the availability or otherwise of a liver - but either way there is not a bottomless pit of resources either in money or spare organs, sometimes a decision has to be made take from Peter to save Paul.

So in short sorry but GrowTFU!

And if you're moved to reply - kindly keep the gratuitous insults to yourself.

"society as a whole - cannot afford to cure every person of every ailment."
LOL - if it is just a question of money, of course we can !

Are you on something tonight - surely even with all your preconceived views which aren't going to change, you don't believe we can really afford as a society to pay for every possible treatment, no matter how expensive?

I've read this thread right the way through and am still mostly moved by the new-to-me word 'cumgullet'. 😯

We spend less on healthcare than any comparable nation - less than half what the USA does and we still cover the whole population.

Of course our health service would be better if we spent more money on it.

Availability of organs is a different issue - and the whole ethics of transplants are debatable

Maybe you're right and there should be a law against dangerous sports...for our own protection.
You stated earlier that you had seen lives destroyed by alchohol, given your views why didn't you call the police - or better still extend some help of your own. If you did perhaps you will have seen that not everyone can be helped.

You come with silly, childish, and ridiculous, comments like that - and you ask me how old I am !

As I have already said, there are mechanisms to protect children in our society. It is prohibited to sell alcohol to a 13 year old. A 13 year old must attend school - if he doesn't, then the authorities should investigate. Teachers should act if they are suspicious of a child's behaviour - possibly pick up signs of an alcohol dependency, such as the strong smell of alcohol on the breath. A child with difficulties such as emotional problems and depression should receive treatment.

I don't know what Gary Reinbach went through when he was 13 - but nor do you. But I do know that if a child is an alcoholic at 13, it would suggest some very serious problems - even adult alcoholics tend to have serious problems/root causes.

I agree with Lanesra - it would appear that Gary Reinbach was failed by the authorities. Whether he was also failed by his parents, does not change that fact one iota.

The above comments do not suggest in any way that I believe 'there should be a law against dangerous sports'. A ludicrous and puerile comment - perhaps [i][b]you[/b][/i] need to grow up.

And btw, if you wish me to keep my insults to myself, then I would suggest that you too, don't refer to this tragic death of a young man as "no great loss".

Of course our health service would be better if we spent more money on it.

you don't believe we can really afford as a society to pay for every possible treatment, no matter how expensive?

Next you'll be telling me that we can't all afford to live in a house/flat.

Or eat ......

.......or fight off a foreign invasion

[i]Yes he made the wrong decision when he was 13. But society has in place mechanisms to help to protect 13 year olds from making mistakes. [/i]

Yep, agreed. If I understand correctly and it was not my immediate judgement but what ernie is saying is right in that the state should have in place the mechanisms to prevent Gary from purchasing alcohol (it is after all illegal below 18) and, failing that, the support and medical help to prevent a child from destroying his liver. Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world and these services/mechanisms are nowhere near full proof. The particular tradegy here is that from reading the story, he required no previous medical assistance in the past therefore he may not have come up on the radar as somebody requiring assistance to prevent his alcoholism. Did his parents raise concern about his behaviour? Did his school?

How was the pub then, GG?

Having recently seen one of my school friends bury his brother after he died of massive liver failure, I found this thread fascinating. Lots of opinions and some good points.
Many people failed this young chap parents/carers/school/social services - but some people are just self destructive. Many people tried to save John - he came from a good home, great parents, he had a good career, but he had an addictive personality. Whatever he did he did to excess, and when he hit the bottle he did so with some vigour.
He died at 41, after 12 years of putting everyone who tried to help him through absolute hell.
It was not anyone's fault that John died, he killed himself, he was intelligent and knew what the alcohol was doing to him.
Perhaps this chap had a similar issue?

ernie - I did not state the tautological opinion 'this tragic death of a young man as "no great loss".', I think someone else did.

If I am honest, to me personally he is no great loss but I am sure he is to those close to him.

I don't expect to change your opinions and unless you justify your arguements rather than indulging in selective and inaccurate quotation and forum grandstanding you won't be changing mine so...

Buenas noches - that is all.

Having watched a friend drink herself to death I can not believe that no one in this chaps family knew he had a problem until 10 weeks before his death. It's more a family failure than an authority one. If a parent decides to hide a child away from sanction by school and social services there is not a lot that can be done. (Unless we spend more on social services provision, which is currently woefully supported as shown by recent child abuse cases).
Society prefers to pay less tax, unless it can see the long-term benefit of health and social welfare schemes being well funded at the sharp end noting will change.

All this crap about everyone failing him, once he got a little older and had the capability to look after himself, who then becomes responsible?

He drank, to excess, he kept drinking, he will have known it would make him ill\kill him, he died, they were his choises, he wasn't force fed drink, no one made him go out and do it, sh1t happens.

Lanesra, you have made some pretty nasty comments on here about what you percieved to be drunks, so maybe you need to think before defending this chap

People really need to take responsibility for their own actions, you know, how we used to, instead of expecting authorities etc to help them out all of the time.

obviously it's not just a case of money, you need the donated organs and they are in short supply, simply not enough to go around. So, choices have to be made as to in which body the donated organ will stand the best chance of survival and success.

The body of someone who, quite honestly, didn't look after his own liver, can surely not be a better bet than somebody who did what they could to look after their own liver?

Or if I'm wrong - tell me a better way of deciding? But bear in mind - the decision HAS to be made, due to the shortage of organs.

EDIT - not going to get involved...

It's quite interesting that we won't give a liver to someone on the basis that they don't deserve it or they'll abuse it, yet we continue to dish out dole money, benefits etc to millions that don't deserve it or will abuse the money they're given.

(Note: plenty of people do need/ deserve benefits, but plenty have no intention of ever working or getting off their ar$e)

Something I deal with regular is alcoholics, very sad situation for people to end up in. And I'm going to leave it at that as too many stupid comments posted on here, that and it's a public forum.

BoardinBob - we have plenty of money to pay the unemployed, but a very limited number organs (comparativly speaking)

Why did this topic decend into insults, some people on here really need to take a deep breath and count to 10.

we have plenty of money to pay the unemployed

I'm glad you think so

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/display.var.2521188.0.billions_lost_in_benefits_fraud.php

There are loads of factors involved in this that we do not know about. I know for one thing that I had a bit of an 'invincibility' shield up until I was about 25. You know, that old 'it won't happen to me syndrome. Combine that with alchoholism/depression/easy access to alchohol/lack of intervention and it is a recipe for disaster.

Was he point blank refused a transplant or was a liver given to a more deserving cause?

If somehow he did 'slip through the net' then I think it is a bit harsh that those rules were imposed on him and he wasn't given a chance.

For those who say he is no great loss and seem to think that he didn't deserve a kidney - put yourself in his shoes for a minute and think about how you would feel if you were told that you were not allowed life saving treatment.

There may well have been more deserving cases for the liver, it is a shame it was picked up so late as he may have been able to have a live donation from a family member. Although if indeed they did fail him growing up his chances of finding a live donor in his family may have been slim.

Personally I am waiting for a kidney transplant with no live donors for me so I know kind of what it feels like to be told you have a life threatening condition, although Dialysis keeps the symptoms at bay.

You would be amazed at the shit people have to put up with throughout their lives and secondary condistions that peple have.

If you have your health, count your blessings and don't judge people who don't, even if you think you know the full story because most of the time you won't.

/applauds Badblood.

Hope you get sorted soon.

Okay, so I am going to get involved.

If there were enough usable livers for every person that needed one, and enough money in the leaking bucket which is the NHS budget, then this wouldn't be a story - he would get the treatment.

But there isn't and there isn't.

So the doctors have decisions to make. Under what criteria could they possibly be expected to make a decision that wouldn't have a negative impact on another worthy patient for the available liver? For example, if they decide that the 22 year old with chronic alcoholism is a more worthy cause than, say, a 60 year old otherwise healthy patient as they have more potential to lead a longer life, then the 60 year old and their family lose out. Then there would be a similar outcry because the unfairness of the system has not negated, it has simply found another target.

As the underlying problem is primarily a lack of organs, there is no way of making a decision that benefits all patients and all of their families.

BTW - who here has a donor card? (I have carried one for over 20 years and all my family know of my wishes)

I don't.

As the underlying problem is primarily a lack of organs ...
BTW - who here has a donor card?

..and the simple solution would be to change to an opt-out scheme where you carry a card if you [b]don't[/b] want to be harvested on death ?

I would be happy for that to be the case. Of course, there will be a great deal of people who wouldn't be happy.

good point mastiles_fanylion, I keep thinking about carrying a load of donor cqards with me and handing them out to riders without helmets when I am on the trail. Don't think they would take it too well though.

Thanks for the good wishes Drac

The Transplant list is literally a lottery as seen below:

Donated kidneys are allocated to patients according to a number of factors including their waiting time for a transplant and the degree of tissue type match with the donor.

Tissue matching involves analysing blood and cell samples from the patient and the donor to identify the extent to which there are similarities between special classes of protein.

Tissue matching is particularly important in children as they may require more than one kidney transplant during their lifetime and a good match the first time will mean less difficulty in finding a suitable donor in the future. Children are therefore given high priority for well-matched kidneys.

All kidneys from deceased heartbeating donors are allocated according to a national system. This is based on five tiers:

1. complete matches for children - difficult to match patients
2. complete matches for children - others
3. complete matches for adults - difficult to match patients
4. complete matches for adults - others and well-matched children
5. All other eligible patients (adults and children)

Within Tiers A and B, children are prioritised according to their waiting time. In the remaining Tiers, patients are prioritised according to a points score, whereby organs are allocated to the patients with the highest number of points. The score for an individual patient is based on a number of factors:

* Time on the waiting list (favouring patients who have waited longest).
* Tissue match and age combined (favouring well-matched transplants for younger patients).
* The age difference between donor and patient (favouring closer age matches).
* Location of patient relative to the donor (favouring patients who are closer in order to minimise the transportation time of the kidney).
* Three other factors relating to blood group match and rareness of the patient’s tissue type.

They always call 2 patients up and the best match on the day (or night) gets the organ.

.and the simple solution would be to change to an opt-out scheme where you carry a card if you don't want to be harvested on death ?

What happens on the day you get hit by a bus and you've managed to leave your wallet at home?

A hospital full of cutters just dying to butcher your still warm corpse and no one really that fussed about finding out if you've left your 'don't slice me up' card at home?

BTW, do you reckon any organs in the poor, unfortunate, Super Tennants drinker were suitable for harvesting or had he completely wrecked every part of his body with his addiction to that nice, taxable drug known as alcohol?

Oh and {engage Guardian mode} "for shame the system" and "won't somebody think of the alkies".{/Guardian mode off}

Out of interest, are there any countries out there that already have an opt-out scheme?

It's another case of failed parenting I'm afraid, nothing more. Any half decent parent would have spotted the problem and corrected it, or sought help correcting it, LONG before this point if they had any interest in their child. Anyone saying its difficult to keep track of kids - of course it is, but you should have brought them up well enough that they wouldnt be binge drinking continiuosly (sufficient to kill them in 9 years), and if you couldnt do that the very least you could do is see that they're coming in wasted regularly. There is no excuse, while some parents will roll out the "you dont have kids" comments and use that to assume we have no knowledge of kids or how to raise them, it is indesputable that well brought up child with capable parents will not go this far off the rails. By DEFINITION you're not a good parent if this happens to your child.

Sure he was let down by the authorities who didn't stop him drinking aged 13, but they are the SECOND line of defence, not the first.

no one really that fussed about finding out if you've left your 'don't slice me up' card at home?