Obviously a bit more complicated than title. Still a bit harsh on the lad though.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8159813.stm
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?
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.....
