• CommanderCloon
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 months ago

    The policy isn’t there just to be extra nice, it’s because otherwise the patient dies without a liver.

    Since she was too sick for a partial liver transplant, and not eligible for a dead donor full liver transplant, she would have just died.

    It might seem cruel but the same is done for a lot of other procedures; if the chance of you dying in surgery is way too high, doctors won’t take the risk, they’re not executioners.

    It’s not a moral judgement about her alcoholism, the same would have been true if she had a cancer no surgeon would take on.

    • Breadhax0r@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I totally understand the mortality aspect, I was just thinking if a patient is 100% going to die from liver failure without a transplant, any chance to live from a live donor seems worth it. Of course I don’t know any statistics so I have nothing to base it on.

      Maybe euthanasia should be a legal option instead of a slow agonizing death that puts next of kin into medical debt.