- cross-posted to:
- california
- cross-posted to:
- california
About 15 years ago, research out of France and Belgium showed that survival rates improved dramatically for people with severe alcohol-related liver disease when they were transplanted earlier than the standard six-month sobriety waiting period.
You must log in or register to comment.
An ex-girlfriend of mine died from liver failure after decades of drinking.
This was about 20 years ago.
She was 40 something at the time.
The onset of serious symptoms to her death was a few weeks.
Could she have gotten a transplant, if this rule had been in place then, I wonder?
At the time, I heard the SF Bay Area is a great place to be if you need a liver transplant because our medical facilities are set up for it.
Good for him but there is a limited number of livers available and if it has to go between two people, one alchohol related and one non-alcohol related the non-alchohol should get it 10/10 times.
Liver failure doesn’t instantly happen, you would have a few years after getting sick to keep the drinking up to kill off your liver, it can heal and is reversible if you stop drinking when told.
Glad it worked out for him, but shouldn’t become the norm when plenty of people need livers who didn’t drink themselves to deaths door.
That was the old way of thinking, and what drove the old policy.
That by “punishing” alcoholics by denying them liver transplants somehow results in improved behavior.
Decades of the failed War On Drugs punishing addicts for all kinds of things, says otherwise.
Just prioritize available livers to those who are the sickest, but have the best chance of recovery and a long productive life.
If you read the article, it says studies have shown that few alcoholics relapse after a transplant, that they might indeed appreciate their health more with a second chance at life.