• Swordgeek@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    3 months ago

    There are more people who need transplants than there are organs, so the medical profession has to make decisions about who to deny. This was a reasonable decision, in my opinion.

    • i_love_FFT@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      3 months ago

      In Canada, drinking more than 3 drinks per week is medically considered “high alcohol use” for a woman… (6 for a man). This limit keeps getting lower year after year

      If this can prevent you from getting organ transplants, then it encourages lying to your medical doctor about your current habits… That lady was not considered alcoholic, she just used alcohol in greater amount than the limit considered acceptable by doctors.

      Latest stats show that almost 4 out of 5 people has exceeds that limit at some point in their life. This woman died only because she was honest with her doctor about her alcohol use. (Note that the article says her partner was a compatible donor but the system refused to accept him because she used alcohol. It’s not about lacking donors.)

      • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        This woman died only because she was honest with her doctor about her alcohol use

        No, and it even says so in the article

        She quit about 5 months before her death when transplants require 6-12 months of sobriety. She was drinking regularly with the fucked up liver before that diagnosis, and liver damage isn’t something that just suddenly appears.

        She kept drinking despite what would have been intense cramping pain and a slow death, thats why she was denied (addiction) and ultimately died

        Note that the article says her partner was a compatible donor but the system refused to accept him because she used alcohol

        And as the article also says it’s incredibly dangerous for someone to get a live-donor transplant when they’re in bad shape like she was, as failure of that means they’ll need to let her die on-table or transplant a good dead one into her (which she was denied for, due to her drinking)

        It’s sad, but this woman died to alcohol abuse, pure and simple

        • Cataphract@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          3 months ago

          That’s a lot of vague statements you’ve repeated from the article. What’s drinking “regularly” (this was before the diagnosis as you’ve stated)? “She kept drinking”, what does that mean? How much alcohol was she consuming? Did she have a sip of her friends wine and was honest about it so was rejected?

          as the article also says it’s incredibly dangerous for someone to get a live-donor transplant when they’re in bad shape like she was, as failure of that means they’ll need to let her die on-table or transplant a good dead one into her

          Where does it say that? You’ve completely twisted the statements.

          “On the off chance their (living) liver doesn’t work, they urgently get listed for a deceased donor,” said Jayakumar. "We need to make sure that everyone who is a candidate for a living donor is also a candidate for a donor graft as well, " she added.

          Huska’s time at the Oakville hospital likely cost over $450,000 - ($3,592 per day for ICU care) with an additional 61 days in a ward bed which likely cost about $1,200 a day, A liver transplant in Ontario is pegged at about $71,000 to $100,000 in Ontario based on data from 2019.

          In 2021, 15.6 per cent of Canadians over 12 engaged in heavy drinking – a term defined as five or more drinks for males, or over four for females, on one occasion at least once per month in the past year.

          Heavy drinking is drinking ONCE per month in the past year. If this is based off of before her diagnosis, you’re gonna exclude like 80% of the working population who actually does go out for drinks or private occasions (unless they just lie which I guess they should’ve in this situation). Between the price of keeping them alive but not fixing the problem and there being no “review” process for decisions, I would categorize this as a bad system that allowed a preventable death from an alcohol related disease to continue.

      • Landless2029@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        That’s total bullshit. As a IT professional I have a nightly drink after work for self medication. Never two. Just one.

        • kofe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          I’m guessing you can stop at any time if you want to? I’ve known older healthcare professionals that have approved and even encouraged one drink a night, but our understanding of the effects of drinking has evolved. I doubt doctors keeping up with the science would encourage it at this point. It would be like having someone come in that’s overweight. It doesn’t mean you’re unhealthy now, but it may be a factor that needs to be kept in check and working on it could prevent issues in the future.

          • Landless2029@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Yes I can and have stopped. I drink 2-5 times a week and it’s one 40 proof 1oz (not a shot 1.5oz) over rocks with a bit of soda. Same or less than a beer.

            This isn’t two shots neat daily or a six pack of beer. Sometimes I go a week without. Other times it’s 5 times a week.

        • Wahots@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          Just do what I do and put it in that deep cupboard above the fridge. Then forget about it for literal years by mistake. It’s doing wonders for my health. Just wish I could do a version of that for my bad sleep schedule.

        • VirtualOdour
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          3 months ago

          Just remember if a doctor ever asks then lie and say only on friday, there’s a few things in life you absolutely have to lie about because the system is not designed to care about people.

          Here in the uk never admit to smoking weed to a medical professional, never admit to even so much as thinking about any form of self harm, delusions, emotional regulation issues… it can come back decades later and fuck you over.

          • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            This is generally pretty bad advice.

            I mean I get where you’re coming from, and I cannot speak to what it is like in the UK (I can only speak as a man in the US), but you should not lie to your doctor.

            If you see a doctor, and they start treating you differently after finding out that you smoke weed, then you find another doctor.

            • BreathingUnderWater@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Unless you’re in Canada and there’s a doctor shortage and you can’t just shop around for a different family doctor if you don’t like your current one. If you’re lucky enough to even have a doctor here…

          • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            Wait what happens if you admit to smoking weed? I thought we had doctor patient confidentiality. I’ve had some mental issues in the past, though not to the point of self harm. What happens if I admit these? I also live in the UK and this is concerning.

      • z00s@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        The only genuine hint to the real reason of the refusal was “minimal abstinence outside of hospital”.

        Let me ask you bud, if you needed a liver transplant to continue living, would you have even one drink per week, or would you just quit completely?

        Very biased article.

        Plus, regardless of her husband being compatible, it still costs the state tens of thousands for the operation. In no way would it be ethical to put a new liver in someone who refuses to completely abstain from alcohol.

        • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          That’s absurd. Refusing someone a transplant because they used to drink more than 3 drinks a week before they knew they even had liver problems is completely absurd. Calling her an alcoholic for that is even more absurd. What in the world are these people or you thinking?

          • racemaniac@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Are you on purpose missing the point?

            The point the person you replied to made is that she didn’t completely stop drinking alcohol once she was diagnosed to have a terminal liver disease due to alcohol use.

            So first of all, she must have drank a lot more than 3 drinks a week to have terminal liver disease in her 30s that’s due to alcohol (yes, all of that is in the article)

            But the issue is she didn’t stop drinking after being diagnosed, she reduced her consumption but didn’t stop it.

            If any of the above is incorrect, feel free to correct us, but making a point that’s completely missing the facts that are being talked about here doesn’t add anything to the discussion.

            • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              The first point is correct. The second one is shown to be wrong in the second paragraph.

              The issue here is you need to have stopped 6 months or more before, and she was only diagnosed 5 months before she died.

          • z00s@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            “minimal abstinence outside of hospital”. That means she was still drinking.