|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:14 pm
I'm kind of tossed on this debate. People smoke all their life, they get lung cancer and they get treated for it. People eat highly unhealthy food, get clogged arteries, and they want treatment for it. And there are many more circumstances for where people ruin their lifes and expect treatment. Then you have the other group that are not treated. They don't give treatment to non-compliant diabetics. They don't give drug addicts dialysis. They don't give alcoholics liver transplants. Why is it okay for some circumstances for people to knowingly or unknowingly ruin their life’s and still get treatment and for others it is not?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:18 pm
Alcoholics can't get liver transplants? Who else would want one?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:27 pm
Deo_Machina Alcoholics can't get liver transplants? Who else would want one? * Amebic liver abscess * Autoimmune hepatitis * Biliary atresia * Cirrhosis * Coccidioidomycosis; disseminated * Delta agent (Hepatitis D) * Hemochromatosis * Hepatitis A * Hepatitis B * Hepatitis C * Hepatocellular carcinoma * Liver cancer * Primary biliary cirrhosis * Pyogenic liver abscess * Reye's syndrome * sclerosing cholangitis * Wilson's disease
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:31 pm
*ahem*
I see.. redface
I suppose we shouldn't really give up on people just becuse they brought it on themselves, they might be in an excuseable situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:34 pm
Deo_Machina *ahem* I see.. redface I suppose we shouldn't really give up on people just becuse they brought it on themselves, they might be in an excuseable situation. There are so many alcoholics and a lot of other people who didn't bring it upon themselves that need livers as well. Livers don't seem to grow on trees. Do we give the in short supply livers to someone who brought it upon themselves or to someone who didn't bring it upon themselves? The liver issue is the one I have really strong opinion on. The others are pretty questionable for me. Once we are able to use stem cells for mass producing livers, then I don't see any problem in it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 1:46 pm
If the livers are in short supply, I'd say we should give it to the one that needs it most, if that can be decided.
And how would mass production of organs work?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:08 pm
Deo_Machina If the livers are in short supply, I'd say we should give it to the one that needs it most, if that can be decided. And how would mass production of organs work? Either artificial or stem cell related.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 3:17 am
My Conscience Deo_Machina If the livers are in short supply, I'd say we should give it to the one that needs it most, if that can be decided. And how would mass production of organs work? Either artificial or stem cell related. Yeah, but...George W. Bush wtf? Ok, I know this doesn't really help, but I smoke and drink, and I fully expect to get cancer and cirrhosis of the liver, and I welcome them. It's part of life to get a disease like that. I won't even need treatment, because goddamnit, I smoked the goddamn cancer, I want it. I drank the ******** alcohol, those are battle scars. If that makes me look like a total psycho...oh ******** well. It's just how I am.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:09 pm
My Conscience I'm kind of tossed on this debate. People smoke all their life, they get lung cancer and they get treated for it. People eat highly unhealthy food, get clogged arteries, and they want treatment for it. And there are many more circumstances for where people ruin their lifes and expect treatment. Then you have the other group that are not treated. They don't give treatment to non-compliant diabetics. They don't give drug addicts dialysis. They don't give alcoholics liver transplants. Why is it okay for some circumstances for people to knowingly or unknowingly ruin their life’s and still get treatment and for others it is not? And those damn people who stress! They know that having productive yet stressful lives increases their chances of getting cardiovascular disease, yet they aren't lazy anyway! They knew what they had coming when they decided to be productive and they should pay for it! Or what about women? Women know that they're more likely to get sexually assaulted than men are, yet the don't seal themselves into concrete bunkers. Well, those idiots deserve what they get! We should deny them medical care and counseling because they were stupid. Particularly the women who go to college - everyone knows that you're more likely to get raped if you go to college, yet all those stupid women every year keep on going anyway. Idiots! Do I need to keep going on like this, or are you going to admit that you're full of s**t? You're grossly oversimplifying a complex social phenomenon to the point where you are excluding valuable data (such as the benefits of smoking and eating fast food). In fact, any problem whatsoever that anyone ever has, for any reason could have been avoided had they just been clever enough to commit suicide when they were young, so we should deny all aid and treatment to absolutely everybody.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:22 pm
ReiDuck My Conscience I'm kind of tossed on this debate. People smoke all their life, they get lung cancer and they get treated for it. People eat highly unhealthy food, get clogged arteries, and they want treatment for it. And there are many more circumstances for where people ruin their lifes and expect treatment. Then you have the other group that are not treated. They don't give treatment to non-compliant diabetics. They don't give drug addicts dialysis. They don't give alcoholics liver transplants. Why is it okay for some circumstances for people to knowingly or unknowingly ruin their life’s and still get treatment and for others it is not? And those damn people who stress! They know that having productive yet stressful lives increases their chances of getting cardiovascular disease, yet they aren't lazy anyway! They knew what they had coming when they decided to be productive and they should pay for it! Or what about women? Women know that they're more likely to get sexually assaulted than men are, yet the don't seal themselves into concrete bunkers. Well, those idiots deserve what they get! We should deny them medical care and counseling because they were stupid. Particularly the women who go to college - everyone knows that you're more likely to get raped if you go to college, yet all those stupid women every year keep on going anyway. Idiots! Do I need to keep going on like this, or are you going to admit that you're full of s**t? You're grossly oversimplifying a complex social phenomenon to the point where you are excluding valuable data (such as the benefits of smoking and eating fast food). In fact, any problem whatsoever that anyone ever has, for any reason could have been avoided had they just been clever enough to commit suicide when they were young, so we should deny all aid and treatment to absolutely everybody. Remember, devils advocate here. I don't really have an opinion. I'm just bringing up reasons that people who support the non-allowance in certain circumstances and allow in others. I am just waiting for you all to give a more definite opinion on the matter. I know this is a prominently not talked about subject. That is why I made the topic. On a side note: Benefits of smoking and eating fast food? Other than masking true disorders or problems? Hmm... Hey, if I am wrong, call me on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:33 am
Actually, they do provide people who've ruined their own health through chemical abuse or otherwise organ transplants. They're just really low on the list, which is generally prioritized by need and chances of success. And of course the pool of potential donor organs is relatively low.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:33 am
My Conscience Remember, devils advocate here. I don't really have an opinion. I'm just bringing up reasons that people who support the non-allowance in certain circumstances and allow in others. I am just waiting for you all to give a more definite opinion on the matter. I know this is a prominently not talked about subject. That is why I made the topic. So the entire point of your thread is "You people should pay attention to THIS"? My Conscience On a side note: Benefits of smoking and eating fast food? Other than masking true disorders or problems? Hmm... Hey, if I am wrong, call me on it. Smoking is relaxing and fast food is both convenient and tasty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:59 am
Actually, there was a major scandalous thingy where either Young, Crosby, Stills, or Nash got a liver transplant because his deteriorated due to heavy drinking. And then he went back to drinking.
Hippocratic Oath says doctors must treat all for any reason and cause no harm. However, cause no harm in today's society has evolved into, cause less harm than good. People may be denied transplants if they are suicidal, alcoholic, drug abusers, etcetera. That causes harm to them, but good to someone else on the list that won't misuse their replaced organ.
And really, all medical problems are brought on by things we do. We could all choose to live in clean rooms and have sterilized robots bring us food, but that'd be boring as hell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:44 am
ReiDuck My Conscience Remember, devils advocate here. I don't really have an opinion. I'm just bringing up reasons that people who support the non-allowance in certain circumstances and allow in others. I am just waiting for you all to give a more definite opinion on the matter. I know this is a prominently not talked about subject. That is why I made the topic. So the entire point of your thread is "You people should pay attention to THIS"? The entire point was for a unique discussion. How! How dare I! Just because I don't have a direct opinion on the subject matter DOESN'T mean that others don't. This thread is a way for those people who do have a stronger opinion than me to debate it. Quote: My Conscience On a side note: Benefits of smoking and eating fast food? Other than masking true disorders or problems? Hmm... Hey, if I am wrong, call me on it. Smoking is relaxing and fast food is both convenient and tasty. Is the end a justification for the means?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:12 am
linaloki Actually, there was a major scandalous thingy where either Young, Crosby, Stills, or Nash got a liver transplant because his deteriorated due to heavy drinking. And then he went back to drinking. Hippocratic Oath says doctors must treat all for any reason and cause no harm. However, cause no harm in today's society has evolved into, cause less harm than good. People may be denied transplants if they are suicidal, alcoholic, drug abusers, etcetera. That causes harm to them, but good to someone else on the list that won't misuse their replaced organ. And really, all medical problems are brought on by things we do. We could all choose to live in clean rooms and have sterilized robots bring us food, but that'd be boring as hell. It has been brought up several times that all medical problems are brought on by things we do. What about inherited diseases that require transplants? Autoimmune Hepatitis, hemochromatosis, alpha1-antitrysin deficiency, sickle cell, and many others? All those, if not caught, not treated, or are a worst case scenario, need a transplant. They didn't do anything to bring on the disease.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
