[Closed] Man refused Liver transplant dies

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?

So what happens if you are an only child, your parents are dead and you have no means of identification on you? Do they just assume (I love that word) its ok to slice and dice Mr Jon Doe?

Pretty extreme case I know but how much effort would be put into finding out who you are, if you have any family and more importantly, what your wishes were?

The presumption should always be that you don't fancy being stripped like a stolen car by the NHS version of a cut and shut gang.

If you have no next of kin then I have no idea. Perhaps they would toss a coin?

But anyway, surely the responsibility would lie with the deceased? If they couldn't be bothered to opt out in life, then surely they couldn't have been that bothered?

(Of course this is just conjuncture as it isn't law)

make it opt out and I will.

From the NHS website:

Large disparities in organ donation rates exist throughout the world, despite the laws governing organ donation.

Some European countries with opt-out systems have higher donation rates than the UK. However there is no clear evidence that opt-out is the sole factor. The fact that Sweden has an opt-out law does not seem to influence the donation rate per million of population, which is lower than that of the UK, which does not. Within almost all countries, large local variations exist in donation rates, despite a common legislative background.

Opt-out systems can be "hard", as in Austria, where the views of close relatives are not taken into account, or "soft", as in Spain, where relatives' views are sought.

Different cultural attitudes to the disposal of bodies, greater provision of intensive care beds, more pro-active donation programmes and the numbers of road deaths, each play their part. However, the single most important factor so far identified is ensuring that the relatives of potential organ donors are always approached, and approached by someone specifically trained for the purpose, as happens in Spain.

In fact, while Spain is recognised as having a higher number of donors than the UK, it is acknowledged by the director of national transplant organisation in Spain himself that the increase in organ donation during the 1990s could not be attributed to a change in legislation which had remained the same since 1979. The improvements in donor rates in Spain followed the implementation of a comprehensive national procurement system.

Personally, I have no issues with an Opt Out system, as once you are dead, you are dead and have no use for them, you are not exactly going to miss them are you.

However, I can understand people opting out on religious grounds etc and that is the perogative. Again, pros and cons for both systems. Increasing awareness does help however, so with that in mind........

[url= http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/how_to_become_a_donor/registration/consent.jsp ]Organ Donation[/url]

and for altruistic donation and live donors.....

[url= http://www.hta.gov.uk/donations/organdonations/altruisticdonations.cfm ]Altruistic[/url]

[url= http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/how_to_become_a_donor/living_kidney_donation/living_kidney_donation.jsp ]Living donor[/url]

Thing is.....if you were a donor, would you want to give your precious liver to someone who had totally abused theirs, despite years of warnings and therefore run a high risk of abusing yours.......or give it to someone who has a high chance of keeping it intact? 🙄

Once it has left my body it is nothing to do with me, similarly if I was dead. The 'clean' person could turn out to be a paedo or a murderer while the Alchoholic may end up cleaning his act up and be fine, you just don't know.

Should Paedos and murderers be given organs? Theres another box of frogs to open....

I think I heard a comment on a radio show once that went along the lines of "anyone not carrying a Donor card should not have the option of being able to have a transplant by default" - food for thought maybe.
I have had a Donor card for the past 12 years.

[i]food for thought maybe.[/i]

Not really no, some people don't carry them because they can't donate.

There is a central computer register for organ donation
http://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/ukt/how_to_become_a_donor/registration/consent.jsp

There are problems with an opt in system. Firstly the relatives have to be asked at a very traumatic time. Some docters find this very hard to do and some circumstances mean it is not practical.

Secondly is the timing issue. By SOs nephew died wanting to leave his organs for transplant. He took a few days to die while on a ventilator - so his organs had failed and the transplant team had gone off duty as he finally died at 3 am. The transplant team had been waiting on standby for him for 60 hrs -so nothing except his corneas could be harvested.

Perhaps his death could have been managed so his organs could have been harvested.

Are you purely trolling TJ, or is this kind of chat common among nurses?

There are plenty of people who would happily see any number of underproductive proles being harvested before they had a chance to ruin their own livers. Presumably that would be a step too far?