There is a lot of talk about how much Britain needs a few liver transplant centers due to the exponential rise in binge drinking.
No, we don't need them.
The rise in liver disease is controllable. If young people would stop their binge drinking, the crisis would sort itself out. The troubled Liberal Democrats have a good idea about the government setting a strategy to warn people about safe alcohol consumption limits. But will they be heeded? After all, most smokers continue to smoke despite ads showing clogged arteries that were caused by the habit.
Britain has the worst drinking habits in all of Europe, if not the world. Alcohol abuse is chronic. If people want to shoot their livers to shit, let them. I don't want public money going to the NHS so they can give new livers to heavy drinkers. A new liver, in most cases, will simply be a license to keep drinking.
Look at George Best– they wasted a new liver on him. They saved his life and told him, you won't live if you keep drinking. The stupid bastard kept drinking. Many will follow in Best's shoes.
The problem mostly lies in the trash culture that has taken over England. Many want to replicate the antics of footballers and celebrities. Many don't have access to the supply of hard drugs that Pete Doherty does, so they drink themselves into oblivion instead, equating hard drinking with the high life.
But, in the long run, you'd have to be pretty stupid to not realize the very real dangers of alcohol. Greater government action in terms of trying to control the binge-drinking epidemic might be called for — especially as it is responsible for the out-of-control crime in London and other British city centers — but might we be excusing the problem by proposing to bring binge drinkers back to full health? Do they deserve it in light of people with diseases over which they have no control?
I say spend the money instead on government anti-drinking strategies. In the long run, that will be cheaper than liver transplant centres. We also won't be rewarding alcohol abuse.
Article comments
1 - Nancy
And then there's the problem of where they're going to get the livers from. Last I heard, pig livers didn't work so well. Don't know about Britain, but in the US, alcoholics are at the very very bottom of the list when it comes to transplants - so virtually written off, 'cause there are never enough to go around. 'Course if you're rich or a politician (usually both) you get jumped to the head of the list ....
2 - Mark Edward Manning
"'Course if you're rich or a politician (usually both) you get jumped to the head of the list ...."
True.
3 - Joanie
As a former transplant nurse, I can tell you that more centers won't solve the problems. I can also tell you that, at least in the U.S., money doesn't get you placed any higher on the list.
I've worked with some of the wealthiest patients in the U.S. They wait and worry and do whatever it takes to prolong their lives just like the patients without a penny to their names. The simple fact is, money doesn't buy you matching tissue.
But, back to the real problem: the need for transplants in the first place. Not all liver transplants are needed because of cirrhosis or hepatitis. There are many other conditions unrelated to drinking and drug use that contribute to organ failure. The sad thing is that the instances of alcohol-related failure adds to the already over-burdened system.
4 - Nancy
How do you account for that wealthy politico who "just happened" to be a perfect match only a few weeks after being told he needed a liver & got jumped ahead of thousands? What a coincidence, hey? Sorry - I know they first have to have a tissue match, but after that, money speaks loudest.