Should a patient be denied a liver transplant for using medically prescribed marijuana?

the chosen one
#1. January 13th, 2009, at 6:33 PM.

All I can tell you is that the more our medical doctors learn the more fu**ed up their reasoning becomes.

Rev. Kiki-la
#2. January 16th, 2009, at 5:52 AM.

The doctor that refused him must be against even prescribed cannabis. This is, in a way, discrimination.

I think it is ludicrous. Is this in the US? If it is, I am not surprised.

As if anyone needs drug treatment for cannabis.

Peasoup
#3. January 17th, 2009, at 5:18 PM.

The whole western medical system is out of whack. And why should medical use of marijuana be such a problem while narcotics are prescribed all the time?

mommanuke
#4. January 19th, 2009, at 1:20 AM.

It’s ridiculous considering the alcoholic sports announcer who was given a liver transplant for liver failure brought on by his alcoholism.

gjmb1960
#5. January 22nd, 2009, at 10:53 AM.

Should a patient be denied a liver transplant for using medically prescribed marijuana?

it depends on the reasons to deny.
if there are medical reasons not to transplant a liver because for instance the chances on failure are to high when the patient uses marijuana ( doesnt matter if it is medicaly prescribed imo ), then ok.

if the reasons are “because marijuana is illegal” it is not ok. doctors shouldnt be bothering about legal/illegal drugs.

a bankrobber who was shot by the police also needs medical attention.

reallytrue101
#6. January 22nd, 2009, at 1:33 PM.

Its terrible. Marijuana is fantastic for stopping nausea, and
also inflammation in glaucoma patients, among other uses.

Probably they told him he has to stop smoking it just as they
do when someone goes for a transplant who is smoking
ciggarettes. They figure that their available organ should go
to someone who will not endanger it with risky health behaviors. I have two thoughts about that:

1. This is an exception because his marijuana use is for
medical reasons, and they don’t reject other people for
transplants because they need other medications, so
they shouldn’t reject him, either. In this case, its
a descrimination.

2. They consider the pot smoking as risky behavior, so they
figure they don’t have to give an organ to him if he continues in that risky health behavior – I WOULD LOVE TO
SEE THEM REJECT A HOMOSEXUAL for an organ, and yet thats about as medically risky a behavior healthwise as
you can find anywhere.

Rev. Still Monkeys
#7. January 25th, 2009, at 2:10 PM.

It means they have a set of criteria that the patient must meet before they can get a transplant. This patient didn’t meet them after being told failure to do so will result in him not being considered.

turtles all the way down
#8. January 27th, 2009, at 8:18 AM.

Before deciding whether or not denying the person a liver transplant was fair, you need to look at what went into the decision.

There are far more patients in need of transplants than there are available organs. Transplant committees are aware of this, and as a result the people who are chosen for organ transplants are the ones who are expected to have the longest and highest quality lives as a result of the transplant.

To say that denying somebody a liver transplant shows that the transplant committee does not have a “committment to saving lives” is disingenuous. They wanted to give the liver to the person who would have the highest chance of using it the longest.

In the case with the marijuana smoker, continuing to smoke marijuana after the transplant greatly increases the risk of aspergillosis, and can cause various other complications. The transplant committee probably felt it was better to give the liver to somebody who had a lower risk of complications.

For the record, I support the usage of medical marijuana. I just don’t think any of us are sufficiently qualified to make a moral judgment on this case, unless we know the specifics of the person who got the liver and why the transplant committee chose one person over another. I’m just trying to show why their decision wasn’t necessarily immoral.

Nah Z
#9. January 28th, 2009, at 4:17 PM.

I think he should have been rejected.

The fact is, we have FAR less organs than people waiting- many candidates on UNOS given likely 2-year survival upon addition to the active waiting list end up sticking around for 5 years or more.

The fact is, it is a transplant center’s responsibility to try and ensure the BEST possible candidate ends up with the organ- the one that is going to make the best use of it.

The fact is, most people who do meet the health and psychological requirements still die waiting, because of organ shortages.

Only people willing to understand and comply with the requirements should be considered- if it says no drugs, no drugs.

It is a sad reality, but for anyone pointing fingers at the center for rejecting him- how many of you have expressed intent to donate organs with your family? How many of you are on the bone marrow registry? If you aren’t working to be part of the solution, don’t sit and moan about the problem.