'Heavy drinkers are receiving nearly one in four of the UK's liver transplants, it was revealed last night, igniting a furious row .....' thus shrieks the Observer.
Actually, I'm a little surprised we tipplers don't make up for a higher proportion. What have the three quarters who haven't damaged their livers with drink done to need a transplant? They can't all have got Hepatitis exploring up the Amazon, surely?
According to the rant, Dr Tony Calland, chairman of the British Medical Association's medical ethics committee 'acknowledges' that this is raising new questions for surgeons, who 'are within their rights to refuse transplants to anyone with alcohol-related liver disease if they do not demonstrate a genuine desire to stop drinking.'
And I bet you were expecting this: 'Liberal Democrat shadow culture, media and sport secretary Don Foster, who obtained the new transplant figures, said only by increasing the cost of alcohol could the nation's health be saved from Britain's binge-drinking culture.' As with most Lib Dem MPs, I've never heard of him, but I bet he's a smug, sober bastard, hmm?
So, under the new fascism, when you are ill, before you are treated some godly soul is going to decide whether you have contracted your illness in a suitable way, and perhaps withhold treatment if you do not show remorse for your sins.
Now, I don't mind limiting healthcare provision for people who have brought their troubles on themselves, as long as we have a level playing field. Promiscuous homosexual who has contracted AIDS? No drugs or liver transplant for you! Respiratory complaint when you live in a town? Suffer and die, towny! Mountain climber? Cyclist? Nope, brought it on yourself.
Alternatively we could revert to the system of treating people who need help.
No comments:
Post a Comment