I re-traced my steps, and the source was both dogshit, and didn’t site primary sources. I edited the original comment to convey non-compliance before hospitalization was required.
Ultimately “was sick, didn’t listen when doctors said to stop drinking” conveys the same doubts that “tried to stop but failed” does about suitability for a donor liver.
In isolation it’s not great, but in conjunction with your own advocate talking about you not following a doctor’s orders? It doesn’t bolster confidence that the individual would follow doctors orders in the future.
It means she hasn’t been able to quit drinking!
Yes, that’s exactly the point. It’s quite unlikely her medical troubles started when she was hospitalized.
A history of not following medical advice casts doubt about a future of following medical advice.
Yes, addiction is a disease that the individual may lack the ability to control. That doesn’t change that it’s a risk factor for non-compliance that’s absent in others who need the transplant.
Not made up, I just read a couple other articles that mentioned it.
It’s also part of the whole “the only people who can talk freely are the people with an interest in the doctors being wrong”.
People aren’t turned away because they didn’t exercise or because they work too much or they don’t get enough sleep or they didn’t follow doctor’s orders. So, in Nathan and Amanda’s case, you’re seeing someone being told, ‘You didn’t follow doctor’s orders, so we’re not going to help you. We’re going to let you die’
As a quote from the other interested party, as well as the “in documents shared with CTV News, notes show […] their decision was based on ‘minimal abstinence outside of hospital.’” is pretty much spelling it out.
It actually takes surprisingly little if it’s done consistently and without giving your body time to rest.
A standard drink has roughly 14g of ethanol in it. People with notable liver damage tend to have a history of a decade or more drinking 30-50 grams a day, or two to three drinks.
People who drink more than 80g a day for a decade are almost guaranteed to have liver problems (~5-6 drinks).
Obviously drinking a half gallon a day is worse, but consistent long term drinking is also not great.
It is essentially a poison that’s only around because it’s easy to make and traditional at this point.
Well, stopped drinking when she got the diagnosis, not before, didn’t comply with medical advice to stop drinking before hospitalization, and as they said in the article there are a lot of criteria for a living donation, and it’s only an option if you otherwise qualify for a donation because of the possibility of rejection requiring an urgent transplant.
A different article said they were trying to raise funds to get the transplant done at an unspecified European hospital, so “yes”. I think it’s telling that they didn’t go to the US, a north American country, or specify the country.
It’s worth remembering that the only people who can talk freely are the people who were decided against and are talking about suing.
No one wanted her to die, but with organ transplants it’s a case where you’re more or less picking who will die. Phrasing it as being punished for bad behavior is unfair to the people who need to decide which people are likely enough to benefit, which isn’t easy.
There’s literally an approved solution to the problem designed explicitly to solve the problem.
Install a transfer switch so you can disconnect utility power, switch to your generator and people can see the situation at the breaker.
If you don’t have one, you use something called an “extension cord” to run power to your important devices for the duration of the outage.
If you don’t know how to power a few appliances with a generator and some extension cords, you definitely shouldn’t be thinking you can use a dangerous cable that people who do know you should never use in the first place.
Yes, you minimize risk by being prudent and using reasonable and cost effective safety measures.
In a car, that’s things like seatbelts, airbags, and other safety features.
The equivalent for powering your house with a generator is the aforementioned transfer switch.
What you’re doing is saying that driving a car without seatbelts or airbags is perfectly safe, you just need to not get in an accident.
Stop powering your house with a generator plugged in via the dumbest possible cable and just install a fucking transfer switch. They’re not expensive and it keeps you from needlessly endangering people, or even just having a preposterously dangerous cord laying around.
Just because you didn’t get hurt doesn’t mean it wasn’t dangerous.
There’s a reason the people who write the fire and electrical codes say that if you need to do something like that, you need to have a properly installed transfer switch.
… Picking a side is literally what an election is.
If you watch the video, he wasn’t using it for anything political. He’s doing low stakes crowd work. He’s chatting with people, gives a guy in a trump hat a signed hat while making some self deprecating jokes and good natured insults to the guy in the trump hat. Definitely makes like he’s going to steal the guys hat, and puts it on for a second for a bigger laugh.
Optics good, bad, or neutral, it wasn’t a planned “solidarity” thing like the headline makes it sound.
A better headline would have been “Biden borrows trump hat for laugh at lunch following 9/11 memorial event”