Should drug addicts receive transplant organs?

[Pesty]

cwis said:

Pesty said:

Too much of a slippery slope.

Quite. How about the NHS deny treatment to people with a BMI over 28?

fking food addicts, costing me money in my taxes...

And then motorcyclists, rugby players....

Why should a motorcyclist who damages a kidney get one over somebody who lives a clean life and is just ill...


Not sure you can damage a kidney on a motorcycle but you get my drift

[Yazar]

Pesty said:

cwis said:

Pesty said:

Too much of a slippery slope.

Quite. How about the NHS deny treatment to people with a BMI over 28?

fking food addicts, costing me money in my taxes...

And then motorcyclists, rugby players....

Why should a motorcyclist who damages a kidney get one over somebody who lives a clean life and is just ill...


Not sure you can damage a kidney on a motorcycle but you get my drift

That is a different question i.e. should legal activities which carry more risk require compulsory health insurance. Like having Skiing cover added on to travel insurance.

[cwis]

Yazar said:

That is a different question i.e. should legal activities which carry more risk require compulsory health insurance. Like having Skiing cover added on to travel insurance.

Or being a fatty? Legal at the moment I believe...

[anonymous-user]

Martin4x4 said:

Am I being unreasonable thinking this heart should have gone to a more deserving person.

http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Heart-transplant-he...

Absolutely all patients should be screened for things they might do many years in the future.

"He had that surgery many years ago and that was because of a genetic heart defect, nothing to do with drug-taking."

[Pesty]

Yazar said:

That is a different question i.e. should legal activities which carry more risk require compulsory health insurance. Like having Skiing cover added on to travel insurance.

Not really. In the context of the original question if somebody decides not to give it to the biker because his injury was a life choice.

Paying more money for insurance puts you up the list for a transplant? That's a whole new can of worms right there.

[Jasandjules]

I would say it is dependent upon the circumstances.

For example, I'd be reluctant to give an alcoholic a liver transplant unless they seriously prove they won't abuse it i.e. perhaps a period of time without any booze..

[wolves_wanderer]

fblm said:

Absolutely all patients should be screened for things they might do many years in the future.

"He had that surgery many years ago and that was because of a genetic heart defect, nothing to do with drug-taking."

Sssh, don't tell them, they're mid-froth.

[ADM06]

All of this ultimately points to how ridiculous the NHS and indeed the entire public sector is.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

DeanR32 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

DeanR32 said:

I'm not sure the NHS is allowed to discriminate on who it treats. Do some of you want it to?

Yes it does. It places do not resuscitate orders on patients who won't recover. It constantly makes judgement calls on the treatment levels it hands out to individuals.

Bloody hell! Come on.

That's right off track from the reason and opinion the OP started the thread.

You said "I'm not sure the NHS is allowed to discriminate on who it treats". I'm saying they are allowed to, and they do so every day. So banning drug addicts from getting organs wouldn't be a new policy, it would be a change of emphasis / interpretation of an existing policy.

[Pesty]

ADM06 said:

All of this ultimately points to how ridiculous the NHS and indeed the entire public sector is.

How does treating people who are I'll do that?

[zygalski]

If drug addicts should be denied organ transplants then people with a BMI of 30+ should not get heart transplants.
After all, nobody forced food down their throats. Same as drug use... a lifestyle choice

[Jasandjules]

zygalski said:

If drug addicts should be denied organ transplants then people with a BMI of 30+ should not get heart transplants.
After all, nobody forced food down their throats. Same as drug use... a lifestyle choice

I may be mistaken but I believe that absolutely happens. There is a requirement to get down to a certain weight (not least due to the table!) and if they don't within X period of time the operation is cancelled.

[zygalski]

So how about a driver of a fast car involved in a speed related crash? No other people involved. Should they be denied organ transplants because of their lifestyle decisions?

[Thorodin]

The term 'life choices' is a misnomer. It smacks of over enthusiastic social services dogma and confuses the issues.

The reason for the NHS adopting a first-comer attitude is valid whatever the opposing arguments may be. Healthy organs are obviously extremely expensive on the open market, let alone the possibility of death being a result of illegal harvesting, and the NHS is understandably very keen to avoid any challenges to the discipline presently adopted. Having the NHS subjected to public suspicion as politicians are would finish it completely. Having said that, maybe a 'priority' list for recipients would work. Who represents the highest 'value', a baby or a firefighter?

[Bill]

ADM06 said:

All of this ultimately points to how ridiculous the NHS and indeed the entire public sector is.

Them and their inability to see into the future.

[KFC]

andr3w said:

Serious drug addicts are usually not just reckless hedonist that deserve all the misery they get. The vast majority of junkies have suffered traumatic abuse of some sort and society should pity and sympathise with them, rather than treat with disdaim.

To some extent I agree. But if you've only got one lung in a box to transplant into someone in the next 3 days and you've got a junkie with 40 criminal convictions and a family man and a tax payer who's never been in trouble in his life, surely the latter is more deserving? He's going to appreciate the chance. It would be horrid to give it to the junkie who ends up going back on drugs and dying anyway, and the nice guy is already dead too.

[Derek Smith]

zygalski said:

If drug addicts should be denied organ transplants then people with a BMI of 30+ should not get heart transplants.
After all, nobody forced food down their throats. Same as drug use... a lifestyle choice

As a non-smoking tee-total chap who enjoys a walk and does not take drugs, I'm all for ensuring that all the facets of the NHS are reserved for people who conform to my concept of a sensible lifestyle. I don't think that there should be any taint attached to those who cycle or those who drive powerful cars.

[MrBrightSi]

Yazar said:

Pesty said:

cwis said:

Pesty said:

Too much of a slippery slope.

Quite. How about the NHS deny treatment to people with a BMI over 28?

fking food addicts, costing me money in my taxes...

And then motorcyclists, rugby players....

Why should a motorcyclist who damages a kidney get one over somebody who lives a clean life and is just ill...


Not sure you can damage a kidney on a motorcycle but you get my drift

That is a different question i.e. should legal activities which carry more risk require compulsory health insurance. Like having Skiing cover added on to travel insurance.

Nah that isn't a different question, as someone posted, what if they were a speeding motorcyclist, or the speed/behaviour leading up to the damaging accident couldn't be identified. Another "illegal" activity which warrants a transplant.

100% slippy slope.

[gruffalo]

MrBrightSi said:

Yazar said:

Pesty said:

cwis said:

Pesty said:

Too much of a slippery slope.

Quite. How about the NHS deny treatment to people with a BMI over 28?

fking food addicts, costing me money in my taxes...

And then motorcyclists, rugby players....

Why should a motorcyclist who damages a kidney get one over somebody who lives a clean life and is just ill...


Not sure you can damage a kidney on a motorcycle but you get my drift

That is a different question i.e. should legal activities which carry more risk require compulsory health insurance. Like having Skiing cover added on to travel insurance.

Nah that isn't a different question, as someone posted, what if they were a speeding motorcyclist, or the speed/behaviour leading up to the damaging accident couldn't be identified. Another "illegal" activity which warrants a transplant.

100% slippy slope.

What if the motorcyclist was one of those nice sorts who give up their free time to use there own bike to transport donor organs between hospitals?

In my mind if someone damages an organ through historical drink or drug abuse but have been clean from before their organ started failing then they should be treated, if still addicted or only stopped the self abuse when they became ill then they go to the bottom of the pile.

[KFC]

gruffalo said:

What if the motorcyclist was one of those nice sorts who give up their free time to use there own bike to transport donor organs between hospitals?

In my mind if someone damages an organ through historical drink or drug abuse but have been clean from before their organ started failing then they should be treated, if still addicted or only stopped the self abuse when they became ill then they go to the bottom of the pile.

Even if they are clean now, I would rather the lung went to someone who didn't have a self inflicted condition. If you caused your own need of a transplant by drink or drugs then you should be at the bottom of the pile, and only get one if nobody else needs it.