Teenager Needing Liver Transplant

[cheryl33]

Not sure if everyone had heard about this, but wondered what your thoughts were?

 

A critically ill teenager being treated for liver failure after binge drinking left his hospital bed and went to the pub for a drink, it has been confirmed.

 

The father of Gareth Anderson, 19, is fighting to overturn NHS rules which mean his son has to be alcohol free for six months before a liver transplant.

 

But at the same time, a publican confirmed Garath went to her pub last Wednesday looking for a pint.

 

He was still in his slippers and with the needle from a drip in his hand.

 

Staff in the Old Moat Inn opposite the Ulster Hospital in Dundonald refused his order, alerted hospital staff who took him back.

 

The teenager from Newtownards, County Down, was transferred to Kings College Hospital in London on Friday and doctors have told his father, Brian, he may have as little as two weeks to live.

 

Mr Anderson Snr told the Press Association: "I don't know what he was thinking about, I don't think he knows.

 

"He said 'I don't know why I did it, I just walked out and walked across to the pub'."

 

Mr Anderson Snr said his son first told him he had a coke, but when pressed admitted trying to order alcohol first.

 

"I said 'What were you thinking about son' and he said ' I don't know, I just don't know'."

 

Mr Anderson said he was trying to get his son psychiatric help.

 

"I don't know what is going on in his head, he needs mental help as well."

 

Old Moat Inn manager Lorraine McMillan said : "He walked into the bar on Wednesday and the staff immediately recognised he was from the hospital - he had a needle in his hand, was wearing slippers and was still wearing his hospital name band.

 

"He was very young and didn't look very well. He asked for a pint or possibly a vodka. He was refused a drink and he said that was OK he would take a coke.

 

"I contacted the hospital and one of the staff walked him over and he was met at the door."

 

Legal action

 

The incident last week came before Mr Anderson finally told his son that he could be dead in a couple of weeks unless he got a liver transplant. He has since sworn never to drink again.

 

Gareth suffered acute liver failure earlier this month after drinking 30 cans of lager on a weekend binge-drinking session and had to be rushed to hospital.

 

Although it is common medical practice in the UK to insist that liver patients whose conditions are linked to alcohol abuse go without a drink for six months before going on the transplant waiting list, it is only a guideline and not a formal rule.

 

Mr Anderson insists the policy should apply to older patients with chronic alcoholism, not a teenager who has never before needed medical treatment for a drink related illness.

 

He plans legal action to get the rule overturned. He was expected to launch a judicial review in the High Court in Belfast this week, but may now have to take action in London following his son's transfer to King's College Hospital.

[blackmagic]

This report is slightly different

 

His father said that the six-month policy should apply to older patients with chronic alcoholism, not a teenager who had never before needed medical treatment for a drink-related illness. He plans legal action to get the rule overturned — although he admitted that his son was an alcoholic.

[Kathyw]

What about all the people on the transplant list who are on there because of liver failure that has nothing to do with drink?

 

How would they feel if this person jumped the queue?

 

 

[cheryl33]

I think its disgusting he should have to wait like everyone else

[murtle]

A life is a life. Either I agree with transplants or I don't. Is someone who struggles with alcoholisms life worth less then someone who doesn't? No I don't think so, they are still someones mother, father, brother, sister etc.

 

Are the rules in place fair? Probably not, but some process has to be in place to choose what goes where and to who. As the article says though they are guidance not set rules. Is the ruling in this case unfair, maybe. If it's around alcholism, and he isn't then why the ruling.

Does every liver transplant patient sign up to never drinking?

 

My question would be "What makes one persons life worth more then someone elses? "

 

and more importantly - who are we (collective) to play judge, jury and executioner on someones life?

 

Very complex, but a great discussion point.

xxx

Edited August 26, 2009 by murtle

[Ian]

I basically agree with Murtle. Whilst there is a limit on availability & the lad is obviously being a fool to himself he's nevertheless 19 & in urgent need.

 

If others have more than two weeks to live then perhaps his immediate need is greater? He would obviously need further help afterwards but if it were your son, boyfriend, friend or whatever would those of you who think otherwise still want to just let him die because of that fact?

[Ruthi (borrowadog)]

I don't think the rules are there to make judgements, so much as because if the patient continues to drink the transplant will almost certainly fail. So if there are limited resources, do we plough them into any old case, or do we use them for the cases most likely to succeed?

 

Its not really to do with the value of the life, so much as the 'return on investment'. We as a society don't give the NHS enough money to give everyone the treatment they would like. So we force doctors to make difficult decisions on behalf of society.

 

Every liver transplant means someone else doesn't get IVF, or doesn't get a life-prolonging cancer drug, or physiotherapy after an accident.... Until we face up to the fact of our unwillingness to pay for all that is medically possible, doctors will be forced to bring in apparently unfair rules.

[Brenda]

It is very sad that a 19 year old needs a liver transplant because of excessive drinking. If he is unlikely to change his habits what is the point of using a much needed liver on him? Just look at George Best It is not that I don't believe his life is more precious or important than someone else's, but I just feel that if he continues drinking then the transplant would have been a waste. No easy answer.

[BillyMalc]

Hmmmm ..... I can see the point that anyone, whether alcoholic or not, is someone's son, father, brother etc. But that would implicate that the "right" of having a transplant would be related to the amount of grief it would cause family and friends if the transplant was denied and the sufferer would die. By that standard, should someone with a family, kids and a lot of friends get a transplant sooner than someone who's got no family and no kids (like yours truly)?

What with resources getting more and more scarce in the NHS, I think the emphasis should be on the likelihood that the transplant would succeed, and in the case of this young man? Let's face it, he's not gone from being a good, coke-drinking lad to a 30 cans-in-a-weekend bloke overnight. And then walking out of the hospital and trying to get alcohol in a pub? Yes, the guy's obviously got a problem and needs help. However, there is a queue for mental health care as well - what do you reckon the chances are that the bloke is doing his best to waste his new liver before he's come to the front of the queue to get mental help?

Let's put it this way: if I was the friend or family member of someone who had liver disease or similar, through no fault of their own, and saw them wasting away while patiently waiting in the queue, behind people who got there through their own fault, I'd be gutted!

One of my neighbours is an older alcoholic. A few years ago he was admitted for the umpteenth time to hospital, and apparently possibilities for a liver transplant were discussed. His reaction when he got out? "Great, then I can carry on without having to worry about the damn liver." Do I think that he deserves a transplant? Do I heck! Not as long as there's anyone waiting behind him in the queue!

[Kaos]

 

Let's put it this way: if I was the friend or family member of someone who had liver disease or similar, through no fault of their own, and saw them wasting away while patiently waiting in the queue, behind people who got there through their own fault, I'd be gutted!

 

People don't 'choose' to become alcoholics, or suffer from the difficulties it can lead to.

Alcholism is an illness, it isn't the afflicted persons 'own fault'.

 

IMO the lad should be treated according to medical need, and that includes both a transplant and appropriate assistance with his addiction.

[Laura_E]

People don't 'choose' to become alcoholics, or suffer from the difficulties it can lead to.

Alcholism is an illness, it isn't the afflicted persons 'own fault'

 

I thought the article stated that the liver failure was caused by a weekend drinking binge, it didn't actually say that he was an alcoholic. Lots of people (stupidly) drink excessively at the weekends or on nights out, but it doesn't make them alcohol dependant. I know his Father is supposed to have said that he is an alcoholic, but that doesn't necessarily confirm it, it seems to be more of an opinion than actual fact.

 

It's a difficult one really. Ok, so the liver failure has been caused as a direct consequence of his own actions, but would doctors take the same stace if a gang member was rushed into A & E with a stab wound? In theory the gang member would have rapidly increased their chances of being in that situation by their behaviour and the fact that they have affiliated themselves with a gang. There would also be a high chance that either they, or a rival gang member, would return for medical treatment in the future as a consequence of their behaviour and lifestyle choices. But I am sure that doctors wouldn't think twice about doing a blood transfusion if they thought the person was going to die, so why should it be any different for this boy?

 

However, saying all of that, I don't think that somebody who has basically caused their own liver to fail shoud be given priority over somebody that has been born with, or developed, liver failure through no fault of their own. If I had lost a friend or family member and they had donated their liver to help somebody else, I would be devastated to think that it had gone to a person that had no intention of addressing their alcohol mis-use. But, if this boys death is imminent, you would think that they have a duty of care to operate.

 

 

[blackmagic]

I thought the article stated that the liver failure was caused by a weekend drinking binge, it didn't actually say that he was an alcoholic. Lots of people (stupidly) drink excessively at the weekends or on nights out, but it doesn't make them alcohol dependant. I know his Father is supposed to have said that he is an alcoholic, but that doesn't necessarily confirm it, it seems to be more of an opinion than actual fact.

 

It's a difficult one really. Ok, so the liver failure has been caused as a direct consequence of his own actions, but would doctors take the same stace if a gang member was rushed into A & E with a stab wound? In theory the gang member would have rapidly increased their chances of being in that situation by their behaviour and the fact that they have affiliated themselves with a gang. There would also be a high chance that either they, or a rival gang member, would return for medical treatment in the future as a consequence of their behaviour and lifestyle choices. But I am sure that doctors wouldn't think twice about doing a blood transfusion if they thought the person was going to die, so why should it be any different for this boy?

 

However, saying all of that, I don't think that somebody who has basically caused their own liver to fail shoud be given priority over somebody that has been born with, or developed, liver failure through no fault of their own. If I had lost a friend or family member and they had donated their liver to help somebody else, I would be devastated to think that it had gone to a person that had no intention of addressing their alcohol mis-use. But, if this boys death is imminent, you would think that they have a duty of care to operate.

 

 

But a blood transfusion wouldn't mean somebody else going without and possibly dieing before another transplant became available.

 

If you had two patients and one liver and a choice to make, how would you make that choice?

[Kathyw]

Hmmmm ..... I can see the point that anyone, whether alcoholic or not, is someone's son, father, brother etc. But that would implicate that the "right" of having a transplant would be related to the amount of grief it would cause family and friends if the transplant was denied and the sufferer would die. By that standard, should someone with a family, kids and a lot of friends get a transplant sooner than someone who's got no family and no kids (like yours truly)?

What with resources getting more and more scarce in the NHS, I think the emphasis should be on the likelihood that the transplant would succeed, and in the case of this young man? Let's face it, he's not gone from being a good, coke-drinking lad to a 30 cans-in-a-weekend bloke overnight. And then walking out of the hospital and trying to get alcohol in a pub? Yes, the guy's obviously got a problem and needs help. However, there is a queue for mental health care as well - what do you reckon the chances are that the bloke is doing his best to waste his new liver before he's come to the front of the queue to get mental help?

Let's put it this way: if I was the friend or family member of someone who had liver disease or similar, through no fault of their own, and saw them wasting away while patiently waiting in the queue, behind people who got there through their own fault, I'd be gutted!

One of my neighbours is an older alcoholic. A few years ago he was admitted for the umpteenth time to hospital, and apparently possibilities for a liver transplant were discussed. His reaction when he got out? "Great, then I can carry on without having to worry about the damn liver." Do I think that he deserves a transplant? Do I heck! Not as long as there's anyone waiting behind him in the queue!

 

 

Totally agree Billy.

 

Jumping the queue for any reason is obnoxious to me but however imminent his death - others on the list, many of them children will also be under a death sentence and no -ne ca say for sure how long they have left.

I do not have children but were he my son, the first time he got that drunk at that age (30 cans is greed) would have been the last.

[blackmagic]

Totally agree Billy.

 

Jumping the queue for any reason is obnoxious to me but however imminent his death - others on the list, many of them children will also be under a death sentence and no -ne ca say for sure how long they have left.

I do not have children but were he my son, the first time he got that drunk at that age (30 cans is greed) would have been the last.

 

Could somebody who was not used to drinking large amounts of alcohol actually drink 30 cans of lager. That is a large volume, never mind the alcoholic content.

Edited August 27, 2009 by blackmagic

[Laura_E]

But a blood transfusion wouldn't mean somebody else going without and possibly dieing before another transplant became available.

 

If you had two patients and one liver and a choice to make, how would you make that choice?

 

Maybe I didn't use the best analogy (when I just re-read it I thought it seemed a bit random). The point I was trying to make is that when faced with an emergency life or death situation, most doctors would do everything within their power to save the patient, even if it meant using the limited resources available. I know that blood donors are nowhere near as scarce as organ donors, but does that mean that somebody equally as responsible for putting themselves in that situation should still receive treament whilst others are refused?

 

The guidelines are obviously in place to ensure that the donors go to the right people, and I am in no way saying that this boy should be able to jump the list, but there are other factors to take into consideration. It isn't a decision that I would want to, or be able to make.