• areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    3 months ago

    That’s absurd. Refusing someone a transplant because they used to drink more than 3 drinks a week before they knew they even had liver problems is completely absurd. Calling her an alcoholic for that is even more absurd. What in the world are these people or you thinking?

    • racemaniac@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Are you on purpose missing the point?

      The point the person you replied to made is that she didn’t completely stop drinking alcohol once she was diagnosed to have a terminal liver disease due to alcohol use.

      So first of all, she must have drank a lot more than 3 drinks a week to have terminal liver disease in her 30s that’s due to alcohol (yes, all of that is in the article)

      But the issue is she didn’t stop drinking after being diagnosed, she reduced her consumption but didn’t stop it.

      If any of the above is incorrect, feel free to correct us, but making a point that’s completely missing the facts that are being talked about here doesn’t add anything to the discussion.

      • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        The first point is correct. The second one is shown to be wrong in the second paragraph.

        The issue here is you need to have stopped 6 months or more before, and she was only diagnosed 5 months before she died.

    • z00s@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      “minimal abstinence outside of hospital”. That means she was still drinking.