this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2024
310 points (93.3% liked)

Canada

7218 readers
363 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] z00s@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

The only genuine hint to the real reason of the refusal was "minimal abstinence outside of hospital".

Let me ask you bud, if you needed a liver transplant to continue living, would you have even one drink per week, or would you just quit completely?

Very biased article.

Plus, regardless of her husband being compatible, it still costs the state tens of thousands for the operation. In no way would it be ethical to put a new liver in someone who refuses to completely abstain from alcohol.

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

That's absurd. Refusing someone a transplant because they used to drink more than 3 drinks a week before they knew they even had liver problems is completely absurd. Calling her an alcoholic for that is even more absurd. What in the world are these people or you thinking?

[–] racemaniac@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Are you on purpose missing the point?

The point the person you replied to made is that she didn't completely stop drinking alcohol once she was diagnosed to have a terminal liver disease due to alcohol use.

So first of all, she must have drank a lot more than 3 drinks a week to have terminal liver disease in her 30s that's due to alcohol (yes, all of that is in the article)

But the issue is she didn't stop drinking after being diagnosed, she reduced her consumption but didn't stop it.

If any of the above is incorrect, feel free to correct us, but making a point that's completely missing the facts that are being talked about here doesn't add anything to the discussion.

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

The first point is correct. The second one is shown to be wrong in the second paragraph.

The issue here is you need to have stopped 6 months or more before, and she was only diagnosed 5 months before she died.

[–] z00s@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

"minimal abstinence outside of hospital". That means she was still drinking.

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

Given her condition it's possible she never left hospital after her diagnosis