Man refused liver transplant dies

[StarsOfCCTV]

Man refused liver transplant dies

A man from east London who began binge-drinking at 13 has died after being denied a life-saving liver transplant.
Gary Reinbach, 22, from Dagenham, was given only a few weeks to live after developing cirrhosis of the liver.
He was admitted to University College Hospital London (UCL) with alcohol damage for the first time 10 weeks ago.
But health chiefs ruled he should not be exempt from strict organ donation criteria which require an alcohol-free period of at least six months.
Mr Reinbach was too ill to be sent home after his admission to hospital.

A spokeswoman for UCL said: "We would like to extend our sympathies to the family at this difficult time."
Campaign group Alcohol Concern called for more research into the way alcohol can affect young people's health.
The group said it was worried that a rise in teenage drinking would lead to more people suffering alcohol-related illnesses at younger ages.
Speaking about Mr Reinbach's case, a spokeswoman said: "This doesn't surprise us at all, sadly.
"Statistics show that more people are getting liver disease in their 30s and, if more teenagers are drinking, people will become seriously ill at a younger age."

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8159813.stm

[Bryan]

no one made him drink. its like i dont believe smokers should get preferential treatement for smoking related illnesses, as it's their own fault.

this man digged his own grave, by drinking excessive amounts of drink from such a young age.

[Abigail]

I completely agree Bry. His cirrhosis was self inflicted and wouldn't have happened at such a young age (if at all) if he hadn't have drunk so much.

Would he have become teetotal after he had the transplant? He was a chronic drinker for nine years. Leopards don't change their spots.

[Meh]

Does the NHS have the right to play God? Once you start denying treatment you set a dangerous precedent.

Problem with livers is that they are not readily available i.e. someone has to die in order for a liver to be available. The rules are you need to be teetotal for six months before you become eligible which is fair enough. Its not clear if the person in question was aiming for the six month period or not. Had he been teetotal during the ten weeks and then his condition deteriorated, I would say there's a good argument for a liver transplant.

The problem is even after a transplant a person can relapse. That's when I say they should be made to pay for all costs (liver, surgery, etc) and have to pay for their ongoing treatment (drugs, check-ups, etc).

[Abigail]

Does the NHS have the right to play God? Once you start denying treatment you set a dangerous precedent.

Problem with livers is that they are not readily available i.e. someone has to die in order for a liver to be available.
.

I think in the case of transplants, the NHS have every right to refuse somebody who isn't taking care of their body and isn't likely to look after the new organ.

Donor organs aren't ten a penny. Why should someone who is dying of liver or lung failure through no fault of their own be denied a life saving transplant because an alcoholic or smoker is above them on the list?

It's not just the organ that's involved. There's several large teams of people involved in retrieving and transplanting the organ. Then there's the thousands of pounds on intensive care and anti rejection drugs that have to be taken for the rest of the recipients life.

I don't object to alcoholics receiving NHS treatment, we all have an equal right to free healthcare. If they won't help themselves quit in order to have a transplant then that's not the NHS's problem. They shouldn't be obligated to provide new organs for those who won't take care of them.

This guy must have been having problems for a long time to be told he had a few weeks to live and die at 22. I imagine he would have been teetotal in those ten weeks as he wouldn't have been allowed to drink in hospital. That doesn't mean he wanted to quit, just that he couldn't drink.

Therefore I have no sympathy for him. He made his bed.

[Chloe O'brien]

What is tragic about this case is someone so young dying of this terrible disease. Why wasn't something done to stop his excessive drinking before it got to the stage of him needing a new liver. If he had been hospitailsed they could have detoxed him and put him on a programme to help him, then perhaps he wouldn't have needed the liver.

[Meh]

People that have heart attacks, cancer etc make radical changes in their behaviour once faced with their mortality. No one can say absolutely whether this person would or wouldn't have.

FWIW, I think the decision was correct as alcoholism is an addiction and not a disease.

What also needs to be understood that not all donated livers are the same. Livers are graded on the olour and texture of the liver as well as the age and BMI of the donor. So it may have been possible that the person in question could have had a liver transplant had a lower grade liver been available and would still have given them a reasonable life expectancy.

[Siobhan]

The way I look at this.. if it was my family member who had died and their liver was given to someone who just pissed it away, I would be disgusted that it was given to someone so irresponsible.

As Rimmer said:it is an addiction and not a disease. The addiction should be treated 1st and foremost

[di marco]

although its not nice to ever hear that someone has died after being refused treatment, i think that alcoholics shouldnt really be accepted for a transplant unless they have kept off the alcohol before they realised they were ill, ie if theyve been an alcoholic for years then wanted to stop then say 5yrs later they find out they have liver failure as although it was their fault, they have tried to do something about it and not just cos they realised they were dying. other people need new livers for reasons that arent their fault and so i think these people should get them first. although its sad that someone died cos he was refused a new liver, wouldnt it have seemed worse that someone who had liver failure through no fault of their own died cos this man got given the liver instead? the nhs were right not to give this man a liver as there arent enough for everyone and non-alcoholics deserve them more imo

[Abbie]

They were right not to give him a transplant, there are loads of people who need organs for various diseases that they have no blame in