An achoholic in the UK..

I think what's really sad is that he had been binge drinking from the age of 13 and either his family didn't realise or didn't do anything about it sooner, he was only admitted to hospital with liver problems 10 weeks ago.

It is a big shame this man died. I think, given a second chance he may have turned his life around. Alcoholism is an illness in it's self that's hard to beat. But this may have given him the strength.

However in this system, cases arn't treated individually, and he did not meet the NHS's strict rules so did not qualify for a liver donation. The reason these guildlines are in place is because there is not a limitless supply of donated organs, here or anywhere. Therefore I think there are other's who should be treated first.

I did see this and it is very sad. Of course, even here in the US he might not have gotten a liver in time, because even if approved there could be a long wait.

I saw a case not too long ago that pointed out the insanity of NHS rules as regards who is and is not eligible for care. A fellow had broken an ankle, and even though it had been set, it had not healed properly because they only casted it, when it really required surgery to insert pins. He is unable to work because of this ankle that healed improperly, but he is unable to get the surgery on his ankle because he smokes.

That's right. According to the NHS, certain services and surgery can be denied to people who smoke or who are overweight. They are punishing people basically for personal habits they dislike. Now, smoking has very little to do with a broken ankle, but no matter. Rules are rules.

So this guy can't work and can't have surgery unless he stops smoking. In the meantime, he is collecting benefits due to his disability and they can't stop paying him unless they make him well which they won't do because he smokes which he doesn't really need to stop doing because he's still getting paid for not working.

Welcome to the wonderful world of nationalized health care.

Actually many hospitals here also prioritize transplants the same way. They go through the list of recipiants and choose the best candidates for the transplant.

That is pretty bad though if he already ruined his liver by age 22 just from drinking alone. If he had other liver problems that caused this, he should still be on the transplant list. I've gotta say, I don't agree with socialized health care (mostly because I don't want to get stuck paying for the health care of a bunch of other people), but I don't think people who brought problems on themselves should be entitled to transplants more than others. A 22 year old alcoholic should have to wait on the transplant list just like everyone else, despite his age. He shouldn't be flat out refused a liver, but I do think multiple offenders shouldn't get liver after liver. I would think a transplant should be enough of a wake up call. If not, tough luck next time for that guy.

I read the article and feel very bad for the young man but you have to realize that he exhibited out of control addictive behaviour for almost ten years. I saw nothing to indicate that his parents had tried to get help for him prior to his hospitalization so I'm more angry at them then I am at the health care system. A binge drinker is the most obvious kind of alcoholic...you're drunk for days...so what were his parents doing while he way laying around drunk at 14, 15, 16 & 17? This entire situation could have been avoided if he hadn't been surrounded by enablers who helped him drink to the extent that he did for as long as he did.

It would have been nice if he had been given the opportunity to show that he could stay sober but it's not the hospital's fault that he was too sick by the time he decided to seek medical care. Transplant organs are precious and the number of sick patients waiting for them is long. Hospitals, both in the UK and in the US, evaluate potential transplant patients based on many factors, including lifestyle, and I saw nothing in this boy's history to indicate that he had the support system an alcoholic needs in order to stay sober. Would it have been less unfair to another patient who hadn't intentionally abused his liver for him/her to be forced to continue to wait (and possibly die) while this young man received a new liver?

What gives the government the right? The hospital had/has the right to determine which patients have the greatest need, the best chance for a successful outcome and long term health.

National guidelines dictate that to qualify for a donor organ,a potential recipient must prove he has the determination to stop drinking by remaining abstinent for six months. This is to make sure there are no more cases like that of George Best the football legend who received a liver transplant and later continued to drink and then ended up dying shortly after. This is a sad story and I feel desperately sorry for the parents who have had to sit helpless,and watch their boy die.Patients' clinicians have some discretion to override the rules but this rarely happens. These rules are really unfair. I'm not saying you should give a transplant to someone who is in and out of hospital all the time and keeps damaging themselves, but just for people like this 22 year old man,who made a mistake and never got a second chance.

I have a lot of sympathy with your view. The guy had been drinking non stop since he was 13 so you can imagine the state his brain was in as well as his liver. By th etime he was 15 or 16 he wouldn't have had much of a clue about what he was doing to himself. My understanding is that he was refused a transplant because he was unable to demonstrate that he was alcohol free for six months. Those are the rules and no one was prepared to make an exception.

hello foursox,

it's sad that such a young man has destroyed himself in this way. alcoholism is much more common than a lot of people would believe, getting the victims to admit it is the biggest obstacle.
i think when several patients are awaiting a liver or any other organ transplant the organ should be given to the person who will benefit most from the transplant. if that man has a severe drinking habit he will just waste the chance of a fresh start. it's sad and it's a harsh fact but the medical services do not wish to simply prolong the life of an alcoholic when they could save the life of a naturally ill patient.

This may come off a little harsh but I do agree that why should he get a liver transplant when he damaged it by drinking in the first place. I am sure most of us know that drinking causes liver damage over time. However I do feel for this guy because he is so young. But the government can't bend over backwards for this guy as there are many others that need a liver and they never drank in their life. I know here in Canada we have a huge guideline and stipulations that they have to follow as well. But I am saddened because he is such a young guy.

I think if they are assuming he won't stay sober then if they do give a transplant they should force them to stay sober somewhere like a clinic. It would use a lot of money though to look after people in clinics though.

I understand the need to not waste organs, you have to be sure it won't be wasted.