this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2024
314 points (93.4% liked)

Canada

7204 readers
369 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The policy isn't there just to be extra nice, it's because otherwise the patient dies without a liver.

Since she was too sick for a partial liver transplant, and not eligible for a dead donor full liver transplant, she would have just died.

It might seem cruel but the same is done for a lot of other procedures; if the chance of you dying in surgery is way too high, doctors won't take the risk, they're not executioners.

It's not a moral judgement about her alcoholism, the same would have been true if she had a cancer no surgeon would take on.

[–] Breadhax0r@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

I totally understand the mortality aspect, I was just thinking if a patient is 100% going to die from liver failure without a transplant, any chance to live from a live donor seems worth it. Of course I don't know any statistics so I have nothing to base it on.

Maybe euthanasia should be a legal option instead of a slow agonizing death that puts next of kin into medical debt.