Court Challenge to 6 Months Sobriety Rule for Liver Transplants

[TimG]

16% RElapse, meaning they had a drink.

If this is based on self-reporting it will greatly underestimate the amount of alcohol consumed. The fact that they are not sober will impact their long term survival and this study only looked at 1 year survival rates.

[guyser]

I'm a little unclear on your argument here Guyser. Are you saying people shouldn't prove they can be sober for 6 months before taking someone else's liver?

There did not appear to be any sound rational to reference with those who made this rule up.

[Boges]

There did not appear to be any sound rational to reference with those who made this rule up.

So where would you put the benchmark for knowing when someone is likely not to relapse? Or would you not have one?

[guyser]

So where would you put the benchmark for knowing when someone is likely not to relapse? Or would you not have one?

I personally would not know. Ergo some investigation/science should be done.

But 5.3% is not really huge a problem. ALthough I have no way of measuring or knowing for fact, but I would not be surprised if infection/hospital diseases kill more transplant patients as does the alcohol. 200,000 people die in the US for mistakes/misreads/sanitary issues.

The reports also suggest that some prime candidates who were sober for some time died due to not continuing with the autoimmune pills, thus they died for not taking pills not the alcohol they may have consumed.

So many factors are at play, living conditions,other health issues, medications and so on.

So my concern is more what do they know before they put the rule in effect ?

[Boges]

Wouldn't you imagine the success rate of transplant recipients not relapsing was due to the fact that sobriety IS ensured before giving them a new Liver.

I'm also not sure what the benchmark should be, but there should be one. You have to make sure the guy isn't addicted anymore.

[guyser]

Wouldn't you imagine the success rate of transplant recipients not relapsing was due to the fact that sobriety IS ensured before giving them a new Liver.

I'm also not sure what the benchmark should be, but there should be one. You have to make sure the guy isn't addicted anymore.

Do we do this with any other medical procedure ? Thats also the point.

We give bypasses and stints installed in 80 yr old men with one leg in the grave.

We give gastric bypass to Oreo and chip eating folks.

[Boges]

Do we do this with any other medical procedure ? Thats also the point.

We give bypasses and stints installed in 80 yr old men with one leg in the grave.

We give gastric bypass to Oreo and chip eating folks.

That's not true actually. I know someone that's going through that now. You have to give up solid food for the weeks leading up to and after the surgery. Also the point of the procedure is that you really can't eat a lot.

As for heart procedures, an apples to apples comparison would be a heart transplant and not traditional heart surgery.

I would like to think they'd want to know you've quit smoking before they give you a new lung/s as well.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Boges

[TimG]

But 5.3% is not really huge a problem.

But it is 16% according to you numbers and that is likely an under estimate.

The issue here is also not the absolute numbers but the relative relationship between different people who could receive the same liver. i.e. should someone who has stopped drinking get priority over someone who has not. I would say emphatically yes.

[guyser]

That's not true actually.

Except it is true, the Oreos and chips are mere minor examples Boges.

These issues are Medical issues, and costs are high. We need to determine what the ramifications are in totality.

[guyser]

But it is 16% according to you numbers and that is likely an under estimate.

Thanks for that tim, but no, they do not say that.

16 was the number who relapsed, presumably meaning they broke the vow and had a drink.

the 5% are heavy consumers, thus the two stats.

[Boges]

Except it is true, the Oreos and chips are mere minor examples Boges.

These issues are Medical issues, and costs are high. We need to determine what the ramifications are in totality.

Which goes back to my first post. Are we going to determine ALL factors before allowing people to have major medical procedures? Can't get a new knee because your BMI is 30?

The cost of a Liver, Heart or Lung transplant is just extraordinarily high so more precautions should be taken before giving someone someone elses organ that would be in short supply.

Also the difference with Gastric Bypass is that everyone has to eat something. It's just the portions that are the issue.

[Boges]

Thanks for that tim, but no, they do not say that.

16 was the number who relapsed, presumably meaning they broke the vow and had a drink.

the 5% are heavy consumers, thus the two stats.

Once a Holic, always a holic though. I don't think any alcoholic should go back to social drinking.

[The_Squid]

Wouldn't you imagine the success rate of transplant recipients not relapsing was due to the fact that sobriety IS ensured before giving them a new Liver.

I'm also not sure what the benchmark should be, but there should be one. You have to make sure the guy isn't addicted anymore.

That was my point... the 5% is for people who are in an addiction program before and after. So if they are not, then the rate will obviously be much higher.

Those numbers are meaningless as Guyser is using them. He claims 5% isn't a big deal... except he ignores that this is 5% of those who are in treatment!

[guyser]

That was my point... the 5% is for people who are in an addiction program before and after. So if they are not, then the rate will obviously be much higher.

Mind pointing out where it stated the above? Thanks.

Those numbers are meaningless as Guyser is using them. He claims 5% isn't a big deal... except he ignores that this is 5% of those who are in treatment!

Id be embarassed if I were to roll my eyes ..............then completely crap the bed by being wrong.

Best go back and read the report . K? (hint, there are two studies referenced)

thanks.

BT W, 5% is not a big deal....anywhere.

Heart transplant anyone? 85-90% success. That means 10% die in the first year.

The 5% is the % of people who wind up back at the heavy drinking stage...not dead. So ya, 5%...pfft, nothing.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Guyser2

[guyser]

Once a Holic, always a holic though. I don't think any alcoholic should go back to social drinking.

No question boges. They shouldnt, but it would appear that some lapses are not a death sentence, but those " described as "alcohol use without any periods of sobriety." are the main problem.

[TimG]

16 was the number who relapsed, presumably meaning they broke the vow and had a drink.

You know nothing about addiction. Anyone who is so addicted that they destroyed their liver is NOT going start being a social drinker. Any drink is a relapse and will impact their long term survival. Edited January 29, 2015 by TimG

[guyser]

You know nothing about addiction.

Oh lord thats a dumb thing to say. You dont know jack shit about what I know.

Anyone who is so addicted that they destroyed their liver is NOT going start being a social drinker.

Oh thats nice dear.

Who said that anyhow? Not me.

Is there an underlying issue with people reading, and commenting, with what one has said ? It would appear so.

[TimG]

Oh lord thats a dumb thing to say. You dont know jack shit about what I know.

Your comments about "breaking a vow" shows that you don't know what addiction is. Not drinking for an alcoholic is not a "vow" - it is an essential part of the treatment for the disease. That is why a relapse is a relapse and your attempt to minimize the significance of the relapse is nonsense.

Your own data says 16% relapse. That is 16% of alcoholics decided that they would rather piss away all of the health resources spent on them. This number would likely be much higher if they did not pre-screen for alcoholics that can stay sober for a period of time.

[guyser]

Your comments about "breaking a vow" shows that you don't know what addiction is.

Rather presumptious huh?

Not drinking for an alcoholic is not a "vow" - it is an essential part of the treatment for the disease. That is why a relapse is a relapse and your attempt to minimize the significance of the relapse is nonsense.

Again with this putting words in my mouth I didnt say. Again, is there a problem with sticking to what I have said?

The link said that 16% had a relapse, it did not say they went fullblown back to drinking. 5% did.

Your own data says 16% relapse. That is 16% of alcoholics decided that they would rather piss away all of the health resources spent on them.

NO no it didnt.

YOU say that they are pissing away the resources, no one else.

If it said a 16% mortality rate for all liver transplants for those who drank heavily, you may have a point.

But it didnt, and neither did you .