I’m just wondering if anybody here has a rational defense of the policy of putting one of the highly limited supply of livers available for transplant into someone with Hep-C, which will quickly destroy the new liver.
As opposed to using the same liver to extend the life of an otherwise healthy person for a much longer period.
If we had an unlimited supply of organs available for transplant, the situation would be different. But we don’t. Doesn’t it make sense to use the limited supply where it will do the most good?
Health care: affordability, accessibility, quality.
Pick any two.
I’m glad you’re not sitting on the death panel. Who’s to say which person would do the best with a liver transplant? You know, they keep saying that a reliable cure is getting close. A liver transplant now might allow someone to live long enough to receive a real cure (as opposed to the torture that now passes for “treatment”).
And please note—they are also denying a lot of other treatments for a lot of other conditions, if you read the whole story. A lot of people will be hurt by this.