From the article
That’s humanity for you, I guess. Are people really so obsessed with punishing drug users that they’re willing to let them die to teach them a lesson?
Somebody enlighten me here. Try to assuage me. Why is a marijuana users life worth less than a non-user, or somebody prescribed more powerful (but more
socially approved) drugs churned out by some pharmaceutical giant? Please, I’m
willing to listen. To what end? But for now, I’m just shaking with rage.
Just curious, how many livers do you think there are? (There are something like 6.5 billion people on Earth. You can’t live without a liver so ALL of them need livers, so for anyone to get a liver, someone else has to die–at least if we’re talking about a full liver transplant and not one of the partial transplants where they just take a chunk of someone else’s liver from a live donor. When you factor in how many people die who have unusable livers, and all the problems that come with matching donor liver to recipient liver, you might see why they are so scarce.)
If there were enough livers for everyone, this man would have a liver. As it is, liver are extremely hard to come by–so hospitals have to use very strict eligibility tests to determine who gets an extremely limited resource.
For example, an unrepentant alcoholic who says he has no desire to buy into abstinence, even if he gets a new liver, shouldn’t be given a new liver over someone who has been sober for years. The logic there isn’t to “punish” the patient that likes to drink, it’s to make the best use of a very limited resource. A liver is better in someone who isn’t going to immediately destroy it with alcohol.
With people who use dope, there’s a fear that that’s someone who is more likely to use other drugs that will have a direct effect on the liver.
The patient in question isn’t just a user of medical marijuana, he was also apparently arrested for growing his own marijuana illegally.
I’m not making any moral judgments on the man, but if it’s between him and a guy who has never done drugs, you have to choose the guy who has never done drugs. It’s not a moral judgment on the decision to use drugs, it’s a practical decision based on who is most likely to not abuse that liver.
I think other factors would have to be huge, too. I hate to say it but this guy is (like myself) in his 50s. Sorry, but he shouldn’t get a liver over a teenager or someone in their 20s, either. Those people have a huge life left to live, this guy has already lived his life.
Just curious, how long did you take to type that post, Martin?
Because at some point your brain should really have kicked in to remind you that marijuana doesn’t damage the liver. It’s even mentioned right there in the article, you know.
He acknowledged that about half way though
I don’t know if I agree with him or not, but he did say in a kind of indirect way he understands that.
No, I saw that… but that’s a really fucking stupid line of argument.
Would you deny a transplant to a patient because he has a lot of sex? He’s more likely to contract hepatitis, therefore less deserving, no?
Like I said, not sure if I agree with him or his reasoning. I was just pointing out that he did, in fact, understand that marijuana doesn’t damage the liver.
My girlfriend got a liver transplant a couple years ago (before we met.) It’s insane how much one has to go through to even get on the list. I can go into all sorts of detail from what she has told me about her experience but I will keep it short.
Only about one in ten people who need a liver to survive ultimately get one. Transplant doctors literally have to decide who gets to live and who will waste away and die.
They keep lists by region and the list is controlled at the Federal level. You are given a score and you move up the list based on your score. There is a separate list in each region for each blood type. Many things go into your score. Obviously how sick you are is one of them. Age is another (younger is better). You get more points if you have minor children and/or have a family to support. Generally, if you are low income and won’t be able to afford the anti-rejection drugs for the rest of your life, you are not going to get an organ because it will “go to waste.”
To the OP, since the list is controlled by the Feds, you are not allowed to take any drugs that are illegal at the Federal level. My girlfriend did, in fact, have this exact problem. She was in severe pain when she was sick and had a medical MJ prescription. When she was going down the transplant path, she had to quit smoking pot and attend NA meetings for six months and get random drug tests before she could get on the waiting list. She had earlier gotten a 'scrip for Marinol but it wasn’t nearly as effective.
My gf’s liver failed due to a blood clotting disorder, not due to abusing drugs or alcohol like most people who need a new liver. She read the article and her comment was that Hep C is very slow acting and that guy should have known very well that this was going to occur. Basically he had plenty of time to quit smoking.
She also said that this article is almost certainly leaving out some critical information. Mainly, a 56 year old who doesn’t have a family to support (assuming that he doesn’t), has a low income and had a failed liver due to drug abuse probably wasn’t going to get one anyway.
Martin Hyde: All potential liver recipients are on drugs. Therefore, they should not receive livers.
People, I know we’re in the Pit, but please.
Martin Hyde may have given you an unpleasant truth, but it’s the truth which is and not a comforting falsehood. With a resource this rare, you can’t afford to essentially take the slightest chance. It may not be nice, but there would appear to be little choice. More to the point, Martin Hyde didn’t say it was either pleasing or nice, just that is was so. So let’s be mature enough not to blame the messenger and use the brains sitting atop our spinal columns now.
You think it’s possible that the transplant folks don’t really believe this?
I’m a recovering addict, and I know a lot of recovering addicts with Hep C. I know one that got a new liver. It’s known in our circles that getting a new liver is an uphill battle because we are generally considered to be less than perfect candidates for liver transplants.
Not really sure why, other than possibly relapse rates.
I don’t necessarily agree with this decision, especially since the marijuana was prescribed. But, marijuana is considered a gateway drug, so Martin Hyde does have a valid point.
hajario, what about people with a chronic disease like diabetes, are they automatically ruled out? Does insurance pay for the necessary life long drugs? It must get complicated if people change insurance companies.
We get various folks up here in Canada advocating the same thing regarding transplants , any of the _____________ bad behaviours and you are automatically rejected from the transplant list. So far this has not gone through and its only talk at some levels, but depending on the political climate at the time its a possible.
A lot of the other posters here have given good enough reasons why and on the dispassionate side I would have to agree with them, however regardless of what the doctors say , I would rather the organ donated go on a lottery list with no strings attached.
For the moment , the only thing you can do is to bring political factors into deciding who gets a transplant, by contacting your repersentatives and get them involved. Failing that , advocate that organ donor cards be marked not for donation.
Declan
Arrested, not convicted. And the medical marijuana has to come from somewhere, now doesn’t it?
But marijuana doesn’t affect the liver. It’s a bullshit criteria to use. If he were using other prescription drugs (the marijuana was prescribed) that were legal on the federal level, this wouldn’t be an issue. Even if they were stronger and more addictive and had more side effects than marijuana.
I concur that age is an appropriate factor (because younger patients will get more years of life out of a liver than older ones). But come on, marijuana is one of the safest drugs out there. How many people die from marijuana use? Is there any evidence whatsoever that marijuana use, even habitual use, will shorten ones lifespan?
From the OP’s cite -
and
IOW, the patient has used intravenous drugs in the past. That’s essentially why he needs a liver transplant. And he seems to be at higher risk for persisting in his use of marijuana even post-transplant.
Frankly, I suspect that his current marijuana use may not have been the major factor in refusing him a transplant, but that the article focussed on that to maximize the outrage potential. If it were 'Former Junkie Refused Transplant Based on Past History of IV Drug Abuse", I doubt it would have gotten the same reaction as “Innocent Pothead Will Die Because of Inflexible Bureaucracy”.
Regards,
Shodan
Some other things:
We’re not talking about risky behavior in normal people and how risky that behavior is, we’re talking about risky behavior in a group of people, all of whom we’d like to see live, but only a small percentage of whom we can actually save. I think you have to make the hard decisions based on some pretty strict criteria, and for example, someone who isn’t going to even try to live healthily probably should be disqualified.
What a mess; trying to make fair rules that decide this one lives and this one dies. Just sit down with pencil and paper and it is a very daunting task. So you and I sit down and make some rules, fair rules, humane rules, then some fella gets in the paper because he is going to die because of our rules. What heartless people we are!
Whatever the rules are, they must be applied with rigor and to the letter. And that means some nice people die. But then again, it make sure nobody plays favorites or plays on the public’s heartstrings.
I’m in a position to decide which patients to refer for liver transplants at times.
Given his history of past drug abuse, including IV drug abuse, combined with his continued use of a schedule I narcotic (which has NOT been shown to be safe or effective for his disease) which is contra-indicated for transplant patients, I have no problem with the decision.
Hell, we won’t transplant tobacco smokers if they’re still smoking.
An organ is a precious resource and noble gift, folks. We need to choose very wisely who is to get a liver. There are many folks who are more likely to have a better outcome from the transplant than this fellow. That’s the bottom line.
A past history of substance abuse is not a bar to getting a transplant, if continuing abstinence is documented. As it should be.
I know one fellow who’s survived 10 years on his new liver. He’s been clean and sober for 14 years.
I didn’t see anything in the article, but I was wondering, is it a funding issue?
Is it possible that the transplant operations rely partially on Federal money, which gets denied if there is any drugs in the patients past?