Like Obama keeps telling people, sometimes there are procedures that just don’t make sense. So it’s the job of the government to decide what doctors should do in each particular case. In this case, we have an alcoholic with severe cirrhosis of the liver. He couldn’t prove he would stop drinking, so by government regulations, he was denied a liver and died.
He was 22. Oh yeah, he was so sick he couldn’t leave the hospital to prove he’d stay sober:
Gary Reinbach, who died in hospital on Monday from a severe case of liver cirrhosis, did not qualify for a donor liver under strict NHS rules.
The alcoholic, from Dagenham, Essex, had admitted binge drinking since he was 13 but was only taken to hospital for the first time with liver problems 10 weeks ago.
He was never discharged.
His mother Madeline Hanshaw, 44, said: “These rules are really unfair.”
She told the Evening Standard: “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 Gary, who made a mistake and never got a second chance.”
Welcome to socialized medicine, where treatment is denied for the greater good. Coming soon to America.
It's really difficult to muster up sympathy for someone who did it to themselves. If they had extra livers in stock, then yes, he should get one. But if there was anybody else that needed one, why should this guy get it?
Because he paid into the system, because he was young, because he never got a second chance, because he was really just a kid.
I don't deny that it's a really sad story, and I understand the point you're trying to make. But if there were multiple people waiting for a donor liver and the others hadn't caused the liver damage by drinking too much alcohol, then they should get priority. If they had a spare liver that went to waste and they just didn't give it to him then I also would be outraged.
well why should we then be subsidizing care to the overweight people in this country who have diabetes or heart problems because of it? They have the right to tax payer for treatments that are caused by their own health choices?
It sickens me that our government writes a bill forcing us to be part of any insurance plan and at the same time forces us to contnue to treat such situations. If I don't have the right to refuse to pay for someone elses choices then they should not have the right to be a couch potato or to eat fast food. Id that a country you want to live in?
I think we should treat insurance like car insurance. If a doctor can determine your health problems are caused by your own action then YOUR rates go up and if you can't afford it then tough shit. Those that a doctor can see take their helath seriously get LOWER RATES.
Until people have to pay for their own actions then our healthcare costs will continue to grow and the democrats plan will do exactly the opposite of that giving everyone everything at the cost of others and even further reducing the risk of living unhealthy.
well why should we then be subsidizing care to the overweight people in this country who have diabetes or heart problems because of it? They have the right to tax payer for treatments that are caused by their own health choices?
It sickens me that our government writes a bill forcing us to be part of any insurance plan and at the same time forces us to contnue to treat such situations. If I don't have the right to refuse to pay for someone elses choices then they should not have the right to be a couch potato or to eat fast food. Id that a country you want to live in?
I think we should treat insurance like car insurance. If a doctor can determine your health problems are caused by your own action then YOUR rates go up and if you can't afford it then tough shit. Those that a doctor can see take their helath seriously get LOWER RATES.
Until people have to pay for their own actions then our healthcare costs will continue to grow and the democrats plan will do exactly the opposite of that giving everyone everything at the cost of others and even further reducing the risk of living unhealthy.
It's really difficult to muster up sympathy for someone who did it to themselves. If they had extra livers in stock, then yes, he should get one. But if there was anybody else that needed one, why should this guy get it?
Because he paid into the system, because he was young, because he never got a second chance, because he was really just a kid.
I don't deny that it's a really sad story, and I understand the point you're trying to make. But if there were multiple people waiting for a donor liver and the others hadn't caused the liver damage by drinking too much alcohol, then they should get priority. If they had a spare liver that went to waste and they just didn't give it to him then I also would be outraged.
well why should we then be subsidizing care to the overweight people in this country who have diabetes or heart problems because of it? They have the right to tax payer for treatments that are caused by their own health choices?
It sickens me that our government writes a bill forcing us to be part of any insurance plan and at the same time forces us to contnue to treat such situations. If I don't have the right to refuse to pay for someone elses choices then they should not have the right to be a couch potato or to eat fast food. Id that a country you want to live in?
I think we should treat insurance like car insurance. If a doctor can determine your health problems are caused by your own action then YOUR rates go up and if you can't afford it then tough shit. Those that a doctor can see take their helath seriously get LOWER RATES.
Until people have to pay for their own actions then our healthcare costs will continue to grow and the democrats plan will do exactly the opposite of that giving everyone everything at the cost of others and even further reducing the risk of living unhealthy.
I don't deny that it's a really sad story, and I understand the point you're trying to make. But if there were multiple people waiting for a donor liver and the others hadn't caused the liver damage by drinking too much alcohol, then they should get priority. If they had a spare liver that went to waste and they just didn't give it to him then it's twice as horrible.
Um, aren't you against capital punishment?
Um, aren't you against capital punishment?
I don't deny that it's a really sad story, and I understand the point you're trying to make. But if there were multiple people waiting for a donor liver and the others hadn't caused the liver damage by drinking too much alcohol, then they should get priority. If they had a spare liver that went to waste and they just didn't give it to him then it's twice as horrible.
Um, aren't you against capital punishment?
You think this wouldn't happen here? Note bullets 3 and 5.
http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/liv…
Can anyone with liver problems get a transplant?
You cannot have a transplant if you have
* cancer in another part of your body
* serious heart, lung, or nerve disease
* active alcohol or illegal drug abuse
* an active, severe infection
* inability to follow your doctor's instructions
According to the article, he had signed up for AA weeks prior to the hospitalization, so he at least showed a desire to stop drinking before he was sick. And he never got the chance to leave the hospital after being admitted. How could he show an inability to follow doctor's orders if he never has the chance?
I understand your point, but there are differences here.
According to the article, he had signed up for AA weeks prior to the hospitalization, so he at least showed a desire to stop drinking before he was sick. And he never got the chance to leave the hospital after being admitted. How could he show an inability to follow doctor's orders if he never has the chance?
I understand your point, but there are differences here.
You think this wouldn't happen here? Note bullets 3 and 5.
http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/liv…
Can anyone with liver problems get a transplant?
You cannot have a transplant if you have
* cancer in another part of your body
* serious heart, lung, or nerve disease
* active alcohol or illegal drug abuse
* an active, severe infection
* inability to follow your doctor's instructions
You think this wouldn't happen here? Note bullets 3 and 5.
http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/liv…
Can anyone with liver problems get a transplant?
You cannot have a transplant if you have
* cancer in another part of your body
* serious heart, lung, or nerve disease
* active alcohol or illegal drug abuse
* an active, severe infection
* inability to follow your doctor's instructions
According to the article, he had signed up for AA weeks prior to the hospitalization, so he at least showed a desire to stop drinking before he was sick. And he never got the chance to leave the hospital after being admitted. How could he show an inability to follow doctor's orders if he never has the chance?
I understand your point, but there are differences here.
I have problems with this one myself. Never got a second chance? He had been binge drinking since 13. Are you saying in all that time, no one said anything to him? Where was his mother then to put him right? 13 to 22 is alot of years of second chances that he choose to toss aside.
I have problems with this one myself. Never got a second chance? He had been binge drinking since 13. Are you saying in all that time, no one said anything to him? Where was his mother then to put him right? 13 to 22 is alot of years of second chances that he choose to toss aside.
I have problems with this one myself. Never got a second chance? He had been binge drinking since 13. Are you saying in all that time, no one said anything to him? Where was his mother then to put him right? 13 to 22 is alot of years of second chances that he choose to toss aside.
We can always find problems with any healthcare system. Where is the thread that talks about all the people in the US that were denied coverage by insurance companies when DOCTORS were saying it was necessary? This is right out of the Mitch McConnell playbook.
The system in the US is broke. Now someone wants to fix it like they wanted to in 1993 and suddenly everyone is up for re-election and can't put a stake in the ground on what is right for this country.
We can always find problems with any healthcare system. Where is the thread that talks about all the people in the US that were denied coverage by insurance companies when DOCTORS were saying it was necessary? This is right out of the Mitch McConnell playbook.
The system in the US is broke. Now someone wants to fix it like they wanted to in 1993 and suddenly everyone is up for re-election and can't put a stake in the ground on what is right for this country.
What would be right is for the government to remove itself from areas in which it has no Constitutional authority. Health care is one of those areas.
What would be right is for the government to remove itself from areas in which it has no Constitutional authority. Health care is one of those areas.
We can always find problems with any healthcare system. Where is the thread that talks about all the people in the US that were denied coverage by insurance companies when DOCTORS were saying it was necessary? This is right out of the Mitch McConnell playbook.
The system in the US is broke. Now someone wants to fix it like they wanted to in 1993 and suddenly everyone is up for re-election and can't put a stake in the ground on what is right for this country.
What would be right is for the government to remove itself from areas in which it has no Constitutional authority. Health care is one of those areas.
This really sums it up….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUu-_QOOoO4&fe…
Not really.
Not really.
so because there's only 1 crappy plan, we should jump all over it? Because 1 guy doesn't know the plan doesn't mean there isn't one. look up "Republican Health Care Plan [or proposal]". they suck almost as much as the current democratic plans. they have NO PLAN to fix our healthcare (BOTH PARTIES) without taking control of what we can get insurance wise and procedure wise. do you not understand that both parties care more about themselves than they do us?
Here's a simple way to fix our health care: put people in both houses of Congress on OUR plans, no special ones for them.
so because there's only 1 crappy plan, we should jump all over it? Because 1 guy doesn't know the plan doesn't mean there isn't one. look up "Republican Health Care Plan [or proposal]". they suck almost as much as the current democratic plans. they have NO PLAN to fix our healthcare (BOTH PARTIES) without taking control of what we can get insurance wise and procedure wise. do you not understand that both parties care more about themselves than they do us?
Here's a simple way to fix our health care: put people in both houses of Congress on OUR plans, no special ones for them.
This really sums it up….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUu-_QOOoO4&fe…
This really sums it up….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUu-_QOOoO4&fe…
This really sums it up….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUu-_QOOoO4&fe…
This really sums it up….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUu-_QOOoO4&fe…
Not really.
so because there's only 1 crappy plan, we should jump all over it? Because 1 guy doesn't know the plan doesn't mean there isn't one. look up "Republican Health Care Plan [or proposal]". they suck almost as much as the current democratic plans. they have NO PLAN to fix our healthcare (BOTH PARTIES) without taking control of what we can get insurance wise and procedure wise. do you not understand that both parties care more about themselves than they do us?
Here's a simple way to fix our health care: put people in both houses of Congress on OUR plans, no special ones for them.
This really sums it up….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUu-_QOOoO4&fe…
Well maybe this does…..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbQKry5Z_ok
Martin, what's the point of linking to that video in this thread?
Martin, what's the point of linking to that video in this thread?
Well maybe this does…..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbQKry5Z_ok
Well maybe this does…..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbQKry5Z_ok
Martin, what's the point of linking to that video in this thread?
he's still hoping that he can make someone angry and they'll go off on liberals? then he can blab about republicans being dumb. then we all remain separated and unable to take back power and return it to Constitutional levels and return state rights to the states. keep working martin!
he's still hoping that he can make someone angry and they'll go off on liberals? then he can blab about republicans being dumb. then we all remain separated and unable to take back power and return it to Constitutional levels and return state rights to the states. keep working martin!
he's still hoping that he can make someone angry and they'll go off on liberals? then he can blab about republicans being dumb. then we all remain separated and unable to take back power and return it to Constitutional levels and return state rights to the states. keep working martin!
The same organ transplant guidlines are used here in the US. Organs are not given to drug and alcohol addicts because statisticly they do not change and waste the very precious gift of life that was given to them.
As tragic as this is he had 10 years worth of chances. Everytime he kept drinking he made this choice. Signing up for AA does not mean he stopped drinking. The fact that he didn't have a chance to prove it again is his own fault for drinking himself into that condition to begin with.
The same organ transplant guidlines are used here in the US. Organs are not given to drug and alcohol addicts because statisticly they do not change and waste the very precious gift of life that was given to them.
As tragic as this is he had 10 years worth of chances. Everytime he kept drinking he made this choice. Signing up for AA does not mean he stopped drinking. The fact that he didn't have a chance to prove it again is his own fault for drinking himself into that condition to begin with.
The same organ transplant guidlines are used here in the US. Organs are not given to drug and alcohol addicts because statisticly they do not change and waste the very precious gift of life that was given to them.
As tragic as this is he had 10 years worth of chances. Everytime he kept drinking he made this choice. Signing up for AA does not mean he stopped drinking. The fact that he didn't have a chance to prove it again is his own fault for drinking himself into that condition to begin with.
I'm all for logic instead of empathy, which is what it appears this story hits on (empathy). it's sad that he died. The rules that are in place, are in place for a reason to give the healthiest people the best chance to continue living. sometimes it's not fair, sometimes it's not nice. BUT, if it was a healthy person (say duane's wife) or the guy who's been drinking for 13 years, I would hope they'd give the transplant to duane's wife, who has lived a more healthy life.
I don't believe this is an example of health care rationing. If you don't have enough organs to go around (we usually don't) then the healthy, younger people should get them. Not based on who gives the most money, not based on who has the bigger sob story. It should go in order of the people who've been on the list the longest and have lived a life that fits within the guidelines of healthy transplanting. While I agree that this story for this family sucks, I'm afraid I've become calloused the last few months (years) and don't have the empathy that I once did for people continuing to act foolishly and being rewarded for bad mistakes.
I'm all for logic instead of empathy, which is what it appears this story hits on (empathy). it's sad that he died. The rules that are in place, are in place for a reason to give the healthiest people the best chance to continue living. sometimes it's not fair, sometimes it's not nice. BUT, if it was a healthy person (say duane's wife) or the guy who's been drinking for 13 years, I would hope they'd give the transplant to duane's wife, who has lived a more healthy life.
I don't believe this is an example of health care rationing. If you don't have enough organs to go around (we usually don't) then the healthy, younger people should get them. Not based on who gives the most money, not based on who has the bigger sob story. It should go in order of the people who've been on the list the longest and have lived a life that fits within the guidelines of healthy transplanting. While I agree that this story for this family sucks, I'm afraid I've become calloused the last few months (years) and don't have the empathy that I once did for people continuing to act foolishly and being rewarded for bad mistakes.
I'm all for logic instead of empathy, which is what it appears this story hits on (empathy). it's sad that he died. The rules that are in place, are in place for a reason to give the healthiest people the best chance to continue living. sometimes it's not fair, sometimes it's not nice. BUT, if it was a healthy person (say duane's wife) or the guy who's been drinking for 13 years, I would hope they'd give the transplant to duane's wife, who has lived a more healthy life.
I don't believe this is an example of health care rationing. If you don't have enough organs to go around (we usually don't) then the healthy, younger people should get them. Not based on who gives the most money, not based on who has the bigger sob story. It should go in order of the people who've been on the list the longest and have lived a life that fits within the guidelines of healthy transplanting. While I agree that this story for this family sucks, I'm afraid I've become calloused the last few months (years) and don't have the empathy that I once did for people continuing to act foolishly and being rewarded for bad mistakes.