Are the rules around organ transplant eligibility fair?

[aimeeandbeatles]

Recently in Canadian news is something about this woman who was denied a liver transplant because of alcoholism problems. It's very sad in general but people are claiming it's discriminatory somehow because I guess aboriginal people are more likely to have alcoholism problems I guess (????).

Anyways some people are saying that they should change the organ transplant eligibility guidelines. Right now any drug or alcohol misuse within six months makes you ineligible for a transplant. Some people think that should be changed.

I think the current guidelines are fair. Organs are already in very short supply, and if someone is unable to control their alcoholism beforehand, good chances are that they'll have difficulties afterwards as well. It's sad but the rules are there for a reason.

 

[Synobun]

We don't have nearly enough organ transplants available to loosen the eligibility guidelines, IMO. There's a long list of people who need organs that never seems to get shorter. Even if you adhere to the strict rules it's more than possible you won't get a transplant in time.

Once growing organs becomes commercially viable then I'd be in favour of reduced restrictions. That isn't the case yet. Until then, you have no choice but to be picky.

 

[stinkubus]

Allowing people to be paid for donations could potentially make more of some select organs available for transplant.

 

[Ryika]

If there are not enough organs, then I think it makes sense to have some restrictions in place to make sure the organs go to people who get the most out of them.
It's cruel in a way, but that's true for any solution. The only way around it is by increasing the number of organs that are available (or decreasing the number of organs that are needed).

What I find way more tragic is when people are denied organ transplants because of things that they are not responsible for. I don't remember the details, but there was a case about a young girl being denied an organ because she had a condition that meant that she would likely die within a few years. That's just... cruel, unfair, tragic... and yet there's a morbid logic behind it.

 

[Perfection]

I am in absolutely no way qualified to know the answer here.

 

[Commodore]

That's just... cruel, unfair, tragic... and yet there's a morbid logic behind it.

Yeah, it is tragic. But, as you say, it is logical. With the perpetual shortage of viable organs and the long list of people who need those organs, it makes sense to not want to waste a perfectly good organ on someone who isn't going to live a long, healthy life no matter what.

 

[metatron]

I am in absolutely no way qualified to know the answer here.

Me neither.
But i have the vague impression, supported by game theory, that the requirements are unnecessarily strict.
Sure, giving organs to a straight up addict would be dumb.
But in most countries the rules are waaaaaaaay stricter than that.
And, yeah, having overly strict regulations is attractive. You have too few organs to go around and you have to have people suffer or die before they get one.
With too tight regs you have a class of people where you can say it's "their own fault".
How convenient.

And if then this class of people comes with overrepresentation of some ethnicity or other group... yeah, that does have a bit of a taste, whether it's technically justifiable or not.
It may even be "just", but it can still hardly be surprising if there are complaints, made from a position of righteousness.

 

[Synobun]

I don't really think "don't have a habit destructive to your liver" is a far-fetched limitation when discussing liver transplants when there aren't enough livers for even the people who have squeaky clean records.