this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2024
309 points (93.3% liked)

Canada

7236 readers
496 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
309
Woman who was denied a liver transplant, after review highlighted alcohol use, has died (www.ctvnews.ca)
submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
273 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 75 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

If you keep reading it gives a reason why this is a requirement. Now whether you agree with the doctors or not is up to you but there is at least a reason for this.

But doctors say that people with severe liver disease from alcohol use may need more than just a partial living liver donation to thrive.

"The sicker someone is, the more they benefit from getting an entire liver from a deceased donor, as opposed to part of the liver from a living donor," said Dr. Saumya Jayakumar, a liver specialist in Edmonton and an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry at the University of Alberta.

"On the off chance their (living) liver doesn't work, they urgently get listed for a deceased donor," said Jayakumar. "We need to make sure that everyone who is a candidate for a living donor is also a candidate for a donor graft as well, " she added.

From this, the reasoning appear to be this: there is a high risk that the living liver transplant will not take. In this case the patient may be at risk of dying instantly and thus need another liver transplant. Since the candidate doesn't not qualify for this other transplant, in the case where the transplant does not take, the patient will die instantly. This is in contrast with the patient being terminally ill however given time to live out the remainder of their life.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I guess then the question should be is that worse than definitely dying now, and where does this cross into the patient having the right to request their own treatment?

I will always defer medical guidance to medical professionals, I know nothing in comparison to them.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

It is worse.

If the living partial liver doesn't take hold, it dies off and becomes necrotic, and would need another surgery to take out or it'll become necrotic and they'll die of sepsis. It's also unlikely they'd survive such second surgery, due to the already existing liver failure + first surgery trauma.

In this case, you'd be asking doctors to directly kill the patient in a more painful way for a very tiny chance that it may save them, on top of if they do survive, assuming they don't relapse into alcoholism and die anyway. All while technically injuring someone else (the live donor).

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago

Thank you, that does sound like an awful way to die.

I try to never assume I’m smarter than others for seeing the “obvious” path. I had a coworker in another department once call me out for saying “why don’t you just” and it’s stuck with me since.