Questions are being raised about the case of a 36-year-old Ontario woman who died of liver failure after she was rejected for a life-saving liver transplant after a medical review highlighted her prior alcohol use.
Isn’t it about her chance to get one though? “There was no process for a second review or appeal.”
You have a window were you can’t drink any alcohol for biological safety reasons, but in this case the mere rule of not drinking alcohol was enforced. This makes it a punishment instead of some biological requirement.
Some time ago I had to go under general anesthesia to have some teeth pulled. Local anesthesia didn’t work. I wasn’t allowed to eat for 24 hours. But I was so hungry that I ate just enough to not have stomach pain anymore. In the hospital I said I ate a tiny bit, and they said that it wouldn’t be much of a problem if I only ate a bit. Compared to the OP story, I wasn’t punished because I was still within the safe window.
Why should somebody get punished by a hospital? They should be neutral. “Oh you drank alcohol? You’ll have to come back later because of safety reason”. They shouldn’t be the judge. Giving them that power is just stupid.
I assume you were not getting a transplant? The risks of regurgitation during surgery is in no way comparable to the risk of relapse in someone with hx alcohol use disorder in early remission. Addiction is a terrible beast. I am sad that she died too, but we have to blame the systems of addiction, not the medical board.
Transplant guidelines in Ontario and much of Canada require patients with ALD to first qualify for a deceased donor liver. If they don’t meet that criteria, they aren’t considered for a living liver transplant, even if one is available.
It was perfectly possible with her partners liver. This is just “no you didn’t do what we want so we just let you die”, and you’re here trying to justify that.
Isn’t it about her chance to get one though? “There was no process for a second review or appeal.”
You have a window were you can’t drink any alcohol for biological safety reasons, but in this case the mere rule of not drinking alcohol was enforced. This makes it a punishment instead of some biological requirement.
Some time ago I had to go under general anesthesia to have some teeth pulled. Local anesthesia didn’t work. I wasn’t allowed to eat for 24 hours. But I was so hungry that I ate just enough to not have stomach pain anymore. In the hospital I said I ate a tiny bit, and they said that it wouldn’t be much of a problem if I only ate a bit. Compared to the OP story, I wasn’t punished because I was still within the safe window.
Why should somebody get punished by a hospital? They should be neutral. “Oh you drank alcohol? You’ll have to come back later because of safety reason”. They shouldn’t be the judge. Giving them that power is just stupid.
Doctors are cops. Acab.
I assume you were not getting a transplant? The risks of regurgitation during surgery is in no way comparable to the risk of relapse in someone with hx alcohol use disorder in early remission. Addiction is a terrible beast. I am sad that she died too, but we have to blame the systems of addiction, not the medical board.
Nope. This seems like a stupid rule.
It was perfectly possible with her partners liver. This is just “no you didn’t do what we want so we just let you die”, and you’re here trying to justify that.