Should drug addicts receive transplant organs?

[Martin4x4]

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

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

[Baryonyx]

No. They should get nothing.

[Superhoop]

Nope, they decided to take drugs knowing the possible problems it could cause,so tough st.... It should have gone to someone who needed it through no fault of their own

ETA: Although after reading that again, it looks like he had the transplant before his drug abuse and as a result of a genetic defect, so at the time, thoroughly deserving.

Edited by Superhoop on Friday 16th January 22:32

[grumbledoak]

Unpleasantly spiteful and judgemental IMO.

As long as we all have to pay for the 'service' whether we've swallowed the lefty bks it or not I believe it should give universal treatment without prejudice.

[Beati Dogu]

Life doesn't work like that.

[andr3w]

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.

[CountZero23]

Hull 'Daily Mail'. Says it all.

Let's all be angry at people who have had it allot worse than us.

Real question is why more people havn't signed up for donation and why there is such a shortage. If some ones life can be saved, it should be.

[NicD]

CountZero23 said:

Hull 'Daily Mail'. Says it all.

Let's all be angry at people who have had it allot worse than us.

Real question is why more people havn't signed up for donation and why there is such a shortage. If some ones life can be saved, it should be.

you speak for yourself fine, don't presume to speak for others.

[MrBrightSi]

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.

This

If someone feels like a criminal when they are deeply dug into addiction, they're not going to seek help. A lot of the people, no matter how lost they are with addiction, still feel shame and most want to be off it. It's just addiction is pretty nasty, we're not all ultimately disciplined able to make top choices 100% of the time.

Im not saying tollerate the crime that comes with some parts of addiction, im saying there are plenty of functioning addicts who are trapped, but rob no-one but themselves to keep it going.

[waynedear]

Smokers do not receive some treatment unless they stop smoking, some obese people do not receive treatment unless they lose weight, give junkies nothing unless they stop, so NO to the original question....

[Pints]

Transplant organs are generally in desperately short supply. A drug addict who has willingly taken themselves down that route should not receive a transplant when there are children or others in need of a transplant through no fault of their own, save for being dealt a crap hand in the DNA lottery.

And save me the "they had it hard so they took drugs" bullst. So have many others who never felt the need to resort to drugs or alcohol.

[anonymous-user]

Should someone who drinks and drives, or speeds, or uses a mobile phone whilst driving be denied medical care if they have an accident as a result of doing those things?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

swerni said:

Same could be said of alcholics and liver transplants
The one George Best had was wasted on him.

Agreed.

I always remember Mike Parry on the radio, explaining why George Best should get a new kidney.

"Just because he's a hopeless alcoholic, who's to say this won't be a turning point in his life and he will sort himself out?"

Errrr, because that would involve hope, and as you've said, he's a hopeless alcoholic. Next question.

[DeanR32]

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

[TwigtheWonderkid]

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.

[MrBrightSi]

It also refuses certain levels of care to people who use drugs as well.

[Pesty]

Too much of a slippery slope.

[cwis]

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...

[DeanR32]

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.

They'll save/treat anyone who they can. Regardless of someone's poor life choices

A member of my family made poor life choices. They did everything they could for him. Sadly he passed away, but they didn't not treat him because he wasn't a worthy candidate for treatment.

[Yazar]

If the NHS has capacity then yes, but if they are are overun than I would rather they had a system of putting long-term known fkwits last, rather than whoever turned up first.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and...