(no subject)

[ajva]

Oh fuck *off*.

Everybody knows BMI is a shit measure anyway. Why does an entire profession, scientifically trained, ignore the evidence of the scientific method? Knowing that BMI is shit because it measures only weight with respect to height rather than anything else like bodyfat or muscle, still they persevere with it because they can't be bothered to do anything else.

Are they going to turn away athletes like Martin Johnson or Matthew Pinsent?

Cunts. Morons. I despair.

Comments

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

We've already crossed that line, in that alcoholics won't get replacement livers on the NHS unless they stop drinking.

[kelemvor.livejournal.com]

Or they're George Best...

[djm4]

Well, yes, but it's not a 'letting the genie out of the bottle' situation, is it? We can (and should IMO) cross back over the line again.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I agree that we should cross back - there are only so many donated livers and would be even if the NHS had the funding it needed - but I certainly don't think having put a toe in the water makes it morally OK to dive in headfirst. Sorry if it sounded like I was saying that - I just meant to raise another example of where treatment is given preferentially based on lifestyle choices.

[adjectivemarcus.livejournal.com]

there are only so many donated livers

When a donated organ becomes available all sorts of systems swing into operation to match it up with someone who needs it, but sometimes there's no-one currently in the UK who is a tissue match.

So having more people on the list would mean that there was actually more chance of each individual organ getting used, potentially increasing the number of lives saved. But a longer list of people waiting would also mean more people dying while on the list, rather than off of it.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

OK, but where there's more than one person waiting for a given liver, I think it's OK to prioritise the one who's less likely to immediately start destroying it, all other things being equal.

[adjectivemarcus.livejournal.com]

I can't disagree with you there. Can't, won't, don't!

But I don't think it's right to deny someone with alcoholism a place in the priorites though - last place is still better than no place. Not all alcoholics are incurable.

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

Exactly. It's one thing to refer someone and then prioritise by clinical need and ability to benefit - especially if they are offered help in improving their ability to benefit - but it's another not to refer someone at all.

[djm4]

I'm not sure I agree that we should cross back

Yes, actually, you have a point there.

[purplerabbits.livejournal.com]

Alcoholics don't get *pushed up the list* for available livers unles they can agree with a GP on a strategy to ensure they won't endanger their recovery to a point of uselessness. Until we can manufacture livers I don't see a better way...