Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Morals should not affect decisions on who receives treatment

  • Comments (4)

News that heavy drinkers are to be considered for liver transplants led to a predictable flurry of comments on national press websites. Many were along the lines of “it’s a waste of a liver”, “why should I fund surgery that just lets them carry on drinking”, or “the NHS shouldn’t offer this to people who have brought it on themselves”.

The less responsible media (yes you, Daily Mail) didn’t bother to mention that the NHS Blood and Transplant pilot scheme will involve only 20 patients and is designed to assess the benefits or otherwise of offering transplants to people with severe alcohol-associated hepatitis in some fairly tightly defined circumstances. But then, the image of hordes of rampaging drunks storming transplant centres across the UK and stealing livers from “deserving” recipients will attract more comments and clicks.

There are some aspects of healthcare that will raise debates about whether finite NHS resources should be spent on them – and treatments for conditions related to alcohol, tobacco or drug use top the list. But if you start making judgements about whether people “deserve” treatments, where do you draw the line?

Did I deserve a knee operation to repair damage sustained while skiing? Should someone who falls and sustains a fracture while drunk pay for their own treatment? And what about IVF – should the NHS fund that? It’s not like there’s a shortage of babies is there?

In a world of infinite demand for healthcare and finite resources, decisions about who receives treatment involve hard choices and inevitable losers. But these decisions should be based on evidence of costs and benefit rather than moral judgement.

  • Comments (4)

Readers' comments (4)

  • Anonymous

    Alcoholism is an illness, with most people ending up with this condition following a tragic event in their lives. It is generally not through choice, it's something that people drift into, and then see no way out.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous

    IVF should not be considered a life-saving treatment eiter, so if should be payed by the taxpayers.
    There are so many babies waiting for love from the adopitve parents!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous

    Attacking the Daily Mail, bit pathetic really.

    Alcoholics, or those who manage to keep away from an office licence or public house for a few months already meet the criteria for transplantation.

    All this will do is make bereaved relatives think twice about donating a loved-ones organs; it's a lose-lose for all concerned.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous

    Attacking the Daily Wail is a necessary duty I would say. Less responsible is a very diplomatic way of describing them IMHO. I can think of numerous ways of describing them that are probably not printable here!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment.

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.