Prev
Next

I’ve got a hunch that Hinch is just the beginning

Tory Shepherd

by Tory Shepherd

07 Jul 05:45am

Must Reads

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project - this is a caption

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

41

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics - this is a caption

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

60

Please enter your password - this is a caption

Please enter your password

39

Filed under: Budget, Economy, Ethics, Health, Organ Donation

147 comments

Derryn Hinch won the Great Organ Gamble, scoring a life-saving liver. Many lose that lottery. Many people die waiting for organs.

Hinch and wife Chanel. Photo: Rob Leeson

The latest statistics, from the Australian & New Zealand Organ Donation Registry, show about 1600 Australians are waiting for organs – 176 for livers. More than 1140 for kidneys, 96 for hearts, 146 for lungs.

Hundreds die waiting. Demand exceeds supply. We can increase supply – by getting more people to sign up for organ donation and to make sure their families are aware of their wishes – but there won’t be enough any time soon.

So a swathe of factors feed in to who gets lucky. According to Transplant Australia these include “medical need, urgency and the capacity of the recipient to benefit”. You have to wait. Organs have to match. Urgency matters.

Hinch got lucky. And some people question that. He was, after all, a legendary drinker. According to a chat he had with Sixty Minutes he would get through three, four or five bottles of wine a day. Seven days a week, for decades.

He joked that his liver died in 1964.

When people are dying for want of a liver, some wonder whether people should be passed over because of their health history. Should drinkers get livers, and smokers lungs?

According to an AdelaideNow online survey yesterday, a large minority of people think people who ‘abuse’ their bodies shouldn’t be eligible for transplants. Most, thankfully, think it should depend on individual circumstances. Hinch gave up drinking. He’s waited. He wasn’t preferenced. He deserves that organ.

It’s a big conversation to have – who deserves to live and die when resources are finite - but it’s one that has to be had, and will have to be properly faced.

In South Australia Health Minister John Hill has a graph that shows one day not too far away the health budget will have guzzled the entire state budget. The day is coming where we have to start having a serious discussion about who gets what. And who misses out.

It’s easy to see why the bean counters might start to argue against elderly people getting shiny new hips, for example, when there aren’t enough defibrillators, or enough dialysis machines to keep people alive.

Then there are some really difficult decisions that might have to be made around extremely premature babies – babies that are extremely expensive to keep alive, but for whom we have ever more (expensive) technological help for, but who might never really… live.

Drug companies are developing more and more expensive but life-prolonging drugs. And we’re an ageing population, a fattening population. We’re getting sicker, we’re going to need more and more healthcare.

These are conversations that doctors and health bureaucrats are familiar with, but most Australians are not. It’s uncomfortable to think that services might have to be capped, that more tough decisions might have to be made.

Something, somewhere, sometime will have to give.

In the meantime, though, sign up for organ donation through Medicare, and if you drink like Hinch used to, maybe rethink your lifestyle.

Most commented

431Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
336Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
266Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

147 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Erick says:

      06:03am | 07/07/11

      The problem with health expenditures is that there is no upper limit. If you pay to save a life today, the same person will get sick from something else a few years down the track. The longer that person lives, the more expensive care they will need.

      In effect, spending money on health now means spending more money on health later. It’s a vicious cycle driven by a futile desire for perfection and immortality. This is related to the health-nanny-state and its ultimately futile efforts to eliminate risk.

      At some point, we need to realise that there are limits to life, and limits to the ability and desirability of prolonging it. A perfectly safe and optimally prolonged life can also be a fruitless and boring one.

      If we put all our efforts into mere existence, that existence tends to lose any purpose or enjoyment it might have had.

      Reply

    • The righteous one says:

      07:57am | 07/07/11

      I wonder if you will have the same view when its your turn Erick.  Mind you I’m all for euthenasia if the patient wants it, but what if they dont?  I keep forgetting that you live in medieval times where women were possessions to be treated with disdain by their lords and masters and the most revolutionary medical treatments were bleeding by leeches or burning at the stake and family law was non existant

    • marley says:

      08:01am | 07/07/11

      Erick - I nearly died of pneumonia when I was 6, and of appendicitis when I was 9.  Two interventions - penicillin in one case, and emergency surgery in the other, saved my life and have given me another 50 plus years (so far) of what I like to think has been a reasonably productive life, during which I’ve paid more than enough taxes to cover the costs of that early medical care.

      I agree that there has to be some sort of balancing out of cost vs quality of life, especially in the later years of life, but I don’t believe that it’s a simple as figuring that if the person dies today, he won’t be a burden on the health system tomorrow.

    • acotrel says:

      08:08am | 07/07/11

      ‘Should drinkers get livers, and smokers lungs? ‘

      No!  We should base the application of all medical procedures on value judgements!  I’m sure Tony Abbott would like to instruct us on our values?

    • acotrel says:

      08:59am | 07/07/11

      @The Righteous One
      ‘Mind you I’m all for euthenasia if the patient wants it, but what if they dont? ‘

      If euthanasia is a medical procedure, should it not be applied on the basis of a value judgement?  We now live with the cult of the individual.  Some people know the price of everything, but the value of nothing!

    • NicoleG says:

      09:01am | 07/07/11

      Nice attitude you have there acotrel. Truly compassionate. And trust you to bring Abbott in to this. If it were possible for brain transplants, I would not begrudge you from having one.

    • Expat Ozzie says:

      09:13am | 07/07/11

      Eric I think you need to go and see doctor Phill to help you out with your wrapped views of the world. The very basis of a society is to help each other when it’s required. It’s intended that the combined efforts of the group will improve everyone’s life both in health and longevity. This psychotic drive to wards money ruling everything is getting ridiculous. I hope no one you love dearly gets a serious illness that is possible but expensive to treat medically because it looks like you would have the calculator out working out weather it’s cost effective to save them. Your a rather sad individual I feel.

    • Hammond says:

      10:23am | 07/07/11

      Expat, as politically incorrect as it may be, with a population boom of billions and billions of people a decade, and an aging population that is going to be expected to be supported when they haven’t bothered to keep up the birthrate, the world’s resources and the economy simply cannot function properly.

      That’s the problem with you idiot leftists. You delude yourself from reality by pandering to your own emotions. You’re killing humanity and you’re killing the planet.

    • The righteous one says:

      10:32am | 07/07/11

      @acotrel So by your standards all cases could be solved on a value basis. What value standard would you apply? value to the patients family value to society? or are you speaking of something like casemix where x number of dollars are set aside for a particular procedure or illness.
      An interesting proposition if it was value to society who would we value more, a homeless person who is not contributing to society because of circumstance, but not really hurting anyone or perhaps a media mogul worth billions paying taxes but who may ormay not have known directly or indirectly that his staff were eavedropping on mobile phones causing untold harm to society
      which person would you give the value judgement to?  Do you enjoy playing power games?

      My original statement had nothing to do with adding value except from the point of view of valueing a person’s wishes. Which is the respect we should all be entitled to.

    • Erick says:

      10:53am | 07/07/11

      Did anyone even read my comment? It’s a very simple statement of fact: Resources are limited, while demand is not.

      We could spend every single cent we have on medical care, but eventually the money will run out. What then?

    • RyaN says:

      10:54am | 07/07/11

      ‘Should drinkers get livers, and smokers lungs? ‘ Surely that is not your place, nor the public to decide who gets it and who doesn’t, perhaps it should be an option or a wish of the person whose organs are being donated.

    • LeonT says:

      11:49am | 07/07/11

      Erick, the longer a person lives, the more they can produce. Health care is a money funnel rather than a black hole.

      No one is suggesting that we merely exist and eliminate all risk except you.

    • Richard says:

      11:58am | 07/07/11

      You’re right Erick, which is why Medicare needs to be abolished. Everybody has to be responsible for their own state of health.

      I dare say people would take care of their health a lot better if it was a user pays system as well.

      But private health insurance is perfectly adequate, and everyone should be encouraged to take out the right policy for their own needs. I can’t think of a better incentive for that than the abolishment of medicare.

    • marley says:

      12:14pm | 07/07/11

      @Richard - well, it hasn’t worked in the US, where lifestyle-related disease and illness is a major issue

    • marley says:

      12:24pm | 07/07/11

      @Erick - yes, I read your comment.  My point is that it’s too simplistic to argue that letting someone die today saves health care costs down the road.  If that person can be treated, recover, and continue to contribute for another 10 or 20 or 50 years, that is a net gain.  If a hip replacement at 75 means 20 years of comparatively pain-free life for someone who has worked long and hard, I do not regard it as money ill-spent.

      But obviously, if no level of treatment will return a person to a meaningful life, either in terms of comfort or productivity, then the treatment should not be given. 

      The trick is, where to draw the line on who should and shouldn’t get treatment, and on what treatments should be made available and which denied because of cost.  I believe hospitals have ethical committees to hammer out some of these issues, and certainly, doctors do make decisions about denying or prioritizing treatments.  Perhaps all the guidelines now in place need to be revisited more often as the impact of an aging population hits - but I don’t see that there will ever be a “no upper limit” situation because there are limits right now.

      And I read somewhere (sorry, can’t remember the source) that there is some level of concern in the medical industry not so much with aging boomers, but with Gen X and Y - because the boomers, though older, tend to be healthier than their younger counterparts.  Now that adds a really interesting dimension to the question - if 45 year olds start needing expensive treatment for illnesses that boomers are only encountering when they’re in their 70s.

    • Erick says:

      01:42pm | 07/07/11

      @LeonT - That is the logical endpoint of the nanny-state mentality.

      @Richard - I actually like Medicare the way it is, even though I have private health insurance. I think it’s a fairly balanced system, unlike some of the schemes in other countries.

      @Marley - I’m not suggesting that life-saving treatments should be denied just to save future costs. The observation that saving lives entails further costs is just a step to the proof that the cost of perfect healthcare for everyone has no limits.

      It seems that some people have difficulty understanding the idea that, barring some amazing new technological development, our resources are finite.

    • Expat Ozzie says:

      01:59pm | 07/07/11

      Marley very nicely put. I agree with you.

      Hammond thank you for defining me as an “idiot leftists” that is one thing am not. I’ve actually voted liberal for most of my life but i’m not died in the wool one eyed about.

      I do not agree with Ericks assertion that spending money on people with health problems is a wasted effort. I think health is one of the areas a society should spend money one. The rate at which technology evolves is proof of what can be done. Just because it’s expensive to save someone does not make it any less worth while to try. There are many people in society with medical conditions that live happy and productive lives. To write someone off based on a dollar value in my view is discussing.You can call me lefty if you like but i’d rather my tax dollars go to a hospital then getting a small personal tax cut any day of the week.

    • Mike says:

      02:20pm | 07/07/11

      @acotrel
      ‘Should drinkers get livers, and smokers lungs? ‘
      No!  We should base the application of all medical procedures on value judgements!  I’m sure Tony Abbott would like to instruct us on our values?

      And who judges?? You??
      Why not extend your logic further??
      People who eat Mcdonalds and other fatty foods on a regular basis aren’t entitled to lipo?
      Girls getting pregnant without the use of proper contraceptive methods aren’t entitled to abortions??
      People who crash their car while intoxicated aren’t entitled to life saving surgery??
      Should people supporting the carbon tax be forced to use only environment friendly resources??
      Slightly different cases I know considering organs aren’t in endless supply but i’m just basing this on your supposed “value judgements”

    • AnthonyG says:

      02:33pm | 07/07/11

      The righteous one. the people living in medievil times are the muslim losers who make their wives cover up their faces with burqas and similar shit. Erick is a realist

    • AnthonyG says:

      02:59pm | 07/07/11

      I dont mean all Muslims only the jerks that make fools of their wives by having them wear that garbage

    • Erick says:

      03:08pm | 07/07/11

      @Expat Ozzie - Seriously, I’ve stated my point three times now. Are you still unable to comprehend?

    • easy peasy says:

      04:29pm | 07/07/11

      Erik’s right, best to adopt the same attitude we have with other animals….break a leg, sorry junior. Although using Alcotel’s approach we could solve the organ transplant issue. If you have smoked, drank, eaten fatty foods, gone without exercise ofr a pariod of a year or more or lived in a capital city and breathed in smog, you don’t qualify. Now to go work on world peace.

    • Erick says:

      04:50pm | 07/07/11

      @easty peasy - Sigh. Is it so hard to understand simple English? I’ve explained it three times already.

    • Expat Ozzie says:

      05:27pm | 07/07/11

      Erick - I was writing my reply while you refined your position in response to marley. I’m looking after my two year old daughter today, it’s a public holiday were I’m living so I got a little distracted.

      As for the Nanny state bit I fully agree with you. I don’t like the push to cotton wool everyone from every danger there is in the world. I ride a motorcycle for that reason. Although it is a dangerous past time it’s what I love doing. I also understand the point about perfect health and we can’t possibly fix every problem with every individual today.

      However I don’t think we should ever give up pushing to improve things, it’s what has got the human race to the technical level it is now. While demand is always going to far exceed the resources of the system I’ve never accepted the arguments of people that assert there are limits and so we can’t/shouldn’t possibly do any more. That to me is utter bullsh*t. We can always do more with what we have and that goes for all fields not just medical. Medical science is constantly advancing as are all other areas of learning. Although there is no magic bullet to fix any problem it always amazes me the stuff people come up with when they need to.

      As for the mere existence part I agree and have been a long time supporter of euthanasia.

    • acotrel says:

      10:01pm | 07/07/11

      @the righteous one See my response to Matt about ethics, below.

    • acotrel says:

      10:07pm | 07/07/11

      @RyaN
      ’ Surely that is not your place, nor the public to decide who gets it and who doesn’t, perhaps it should be an option or a wish of the person whose organs are being donated. ‘

      I’d make sure none of my free organs were fitted into the bodies of self-serving conservative voters! They can go and buy their organs from the Chinese!

    • acotrel says:

      10:11pm | 07/07/11

      @Mike I know what I value. I don’t want any fascists or communists to get my organs! Only straight up and down christians!

    • atthepub says:

      06:04am | 07/07/11

      Whilst working in the medical industry, one of the hardest things is to make the elderly take their meds. They just don’t, they forget, they don’t want to take all 10 or 20 or 30 of them, every day.

      Doc insists (as do the pharmaceutical companies), if they miss their meds or muck it up (f.i. see another doctor and forget to mention what they’re on etc) guess who is going to be sued. Guess who’s suing? The kids who never visited mum/dad in the nursing home.

      Such a wonderful world where we keep people alive for the benefit of ..?

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      08:33am | 07/07/11

      Take ‘em out the back and shoot ‘em !  Theelderly have obviously already served their purpose in society?  Alternatively - User pays - rip ‘em off for a few dollars!

    • atthepub says:

      09:19am | 07/07/11

      The point acotrel is that a whole stack of oldies don’t actually want to live any more. They’ve had enough. They don’t want to have their bums wiped by adolescents and be force fed the drugs which keep them alive.

      If only we would allow these oldies the choice to die gracefully, instead of forcing them to stay alive to boost the profits for pharmaceutical companies and pay the doctors/nurses mortgages etc. This would free up a lot of funds for people who actually want to stay alive and aren’t on the way out already anyways.

    • Fiona says:

      09:40am | 07/07/11

      So because someone forgets their meds, or just doesn’t really want to take them all, you have made the leap to thinking they don’t want to live anymore. Interesting….and you say you work in the medical field. God forbid you ever look after one of me or mine.

    • marley says:

      11:08am | 07/07/11

      atthepub - my mother occasionally forgets her meds - not too often, and she’s not taking 30 pills a day either - just 3.  Her memory is fading, and she’s in the early stages of dementia.  But guess what?  She’s happy, she enjoys life, loves to go out for drives, has dinner with my sister and her family at least once a week, and has been known to sip the odd glass of red wine at said dinner.

      And her cost to the medical system?  Her pills - minimal - doctor’s visits every few months - that’s it. 

      Now perhaps you think she’s ready to slip away, but no one who knows her thinks that.  And she’s 94.

    • atthepub says:

      01:07pm | 07/07/11

      No Marley, Fiona, that’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that there is a stack of oldies who genuinely don’t want to live anymore. My dad was one of them. He was kept alive for some 5 years after he stated very clearly that he’d had enough. The medical system is set up to keep everyone alive, if they want it or not. If we can afford it or not.  Read Anne McDonalds story to get a bit more of a sense of what the medical industry is about.

      Congrats on a mum who’s happy at 94. She’s clearly enjoying her life, I am very obviously not talking about people like her.

      Not leaping Fiona, a little bit of inside info obviously wasted on some. Don’t strain your brain too much, it’s OK, you don’t have to understand everything.

    • marley says:

      01:42pm | 07/07/11

      @atthepub - I think I took your first comment to be, perhaps, harsher than you intended.  I think we probably have pretty much the same point of view - if the individual thinks life is worth living, he (or she) should have the medical care (within reason) that is necessary,  but I agree that if that individual is one who no longer wants that option, he should be allowed to make that decision and have the medical people honour it.  (Incidentally, my dad had a massive stroke a few years ago - and we and the doctors decided there would be no attempt to keep him going - he was made comfortable, and simply allowed to quietly pass away - so I do understand the other side of the equation - I just don’t want to see it implemented purely as a cost-saving measure).

    • atthepub says:

      02:32pm | 07/07/11

      100% Marley, that was my point. Sorry if I did not make that clear enough. You’re one lucky dude with a Mum still rearing to go at 94 and a dad who wasn’t kept alive against his wishes.

    • acotrel says:

      10:18pm | 07/07/11

      @atthepub My father died from a lung infection exacerbated by smoking.  He didn’t get the chance to get sick of living!  In fact he had an excellent sense of humour and never suffered from such depression.

    • TChong says:

      06:18am | 07/07/11

      You sum up the dilemma quite nicely Tors.
      Its all about money.
      Any one who could even remotely be considered a normal human must believe that everyone has a right to the best care availble , regardless of the individuals financial circumstances.
      We are very fortunate that our Health system functions with this ideal.
      In the Public system as much resources are utilised for the “have nots” as the “haves”, as it should be.
      The circumstances of the individuals health are the determining factors, again as it should be.
      The answer - for extra dialysis machines, artificial hips etc etc etc etc is more money.
      If we want such universal coverage to continue, it has to be paid for.
      Any one thinking - “tough” - I hope you never need retreiving from a trauma site, or be hooked up to a dialysis machine, you may very well be grateful that these services are there , regardless of the high cost it keeps to have such services availble .
      Who would want the class based US model, where money does the talking ?
      No thanks.
      As to how the Health budgets are paid for- thats a whole topic on its own.

      Reply

    • Erick says:

      07:57am | 07/07/11

      You’re missing the point, T. Resources are finite, but the demand for health care is potentially infinite. What happens when we simply can’t afford any more?

    • acotrel says:

      08:29am | 07/07/11

      @Erick When we run out of money to help the sick, we might have to cut our defence spending? - Bring ‘em home!

    • Hammond says:

      10:25am | 07/07/11

      good idea acotrel. Then, after we’re overrun by billions of dirt-poor, uneducated asians and africans, you think we’re going to have a glorious leftist multicultural utopia?

      You’re deluded.

    • Erick says:

      10:56am | 07/07/11

      @acotrel - You just don’t get it, do you?

      We could put the entire government budget into health, and raise the tax rate to 100%, and it still wouldn’t be enough to help everyone.

      What happens when we run out of money?

    • dupledge says:

      12:14pm | 07/07/11

      Judging by what I have read here it seems that the real problem is not that people become a burden on the health system, it is that the health system is too expensive to run. Why does it cost so much to care for someone? I think we need to address the cost blowouts for medical. I suspect when we look, no too closely, we will see that the real problem is borne from greedy pharmaceutical companies etc. Not people who are ill. Why does it cost me $120 per script for my pai?. Why does it cost $1300 for my specialist? Why does dialysis cost so much? We need to address these issues first.

    • MarK says:

      03:55pm | 07/07/11

      “What happens when we run out of money? “

      The ALP have that covered. They just borrow more and call spending “investment” and “business” to keep it off the budget for as long as possible.

      Oh oh and then they tax a colourless, odourless tax that is essential for life.

      gg

    • marley says:

      04:18pm | 07/07/11

      @Erick - but is that really true?  that we’re going to run out of money?  We get better results overall in terms of health and longevity than the Americans, but spend less money per capita than they do.  That’s not because our hospitals and services are necessarily better, it’s because they’re focused on the conditions and illnesses that are the more common (and the more treatable).  We have left a lot of the highly expensive, leading edge stuff to the Americans.  So they have all the bells and whistles to deal with conditions affecting maybe 1% of the population, but we have a solid medical system for 90% of the population.  More bang for the buck, so to speak.

      And lets face it, life isn’t infinite so medical costs aren’t either.  An awful lot of people live their lives without major medical intervention.  They just wear out.  And while it’s unreasonable (IMHO) to do hip replacements for 95 year olds (unless they’re the Queen Mum) it makes sense for 75 year-olds who can get another 15 years of pain-free time to spend with their families or volunteering or even working. 

      Of course there has to be some level of cost-benefit done on all of this - but that’s already in place.  That’s why we’re having the kerfuffle over the PBS not funding some very expensive cancer medication.  And why doctors are less likely to do drastic interventions in cases like my father’s.  But on the other hand, by funding inexpensive medication for blood pressure, for example, the system is saving itself the money a potential heart or stroke attack victim won’t cost them. 

      I’m just not as convinced as you are that the needs are infinite, or that we can’t put a limit on what will and will not be funded.  In fact, I think we already have, it’s just not a very clear one.

    • Erick says:

      04:48pm | 07/07/11

      Well, Marley, all I can say is that medical costs are *potentially* infinite, as long as people can be kept from dying.

      As an extremely simple analogy, I offer this: Joe Blow gets diabetes at age 48. He can be kept alive by injecting $100 worth of insulin a month. At 55, Joe gets liver cancer. Fortunately, chemotherapy treatment worth $100,000 saves him - but he has to take certain drugs costing $200 a month to stay alive.

      Later on, Joe’s heart gets clogged up. A transplant at $200,000 saves him, but he needs another $300 of anti-immune drugs every month to keep from rejecting the new heart. Then, at 70 years, he gets a kidney problem, and osteoporosis ... more drugs needed ... and so on.

      Whenever we develop better medical technologies, we can extend life - but at a cost. And whenever we save someone from one problem, that person will only develop another problem later on.

      The better we get at extending life, the more resources it will cost. And we don’t have infinite resources.

      Of course, as I mentioned earlier, this could change if we developed some miraculous technology we don’t have yet. But, barring that eventuality, if there is any limit to how much we could spend on health, it’s way above what we can actually afford.

    • PK says:

      05:28pm | 07/07/11

      Oh Erick.

      In that time that that person (who has problems every 10 years) is alive, they also contribute to society.

      They work, they have families, the volunteer and are mostly good people.

      Looking at this from a medical perspective only is horrible. You are failing to look at the impact their life has on other people.

      If anyone should be shot, it’s Pharmaceutical companies who have made medicine a profitable business! Yes I understand they need to make money to cover the costs of research and so on but the cost of existing medication is just shocking. This is not okay.

      There should be no price on human life. If someone wants to live and medical treatment helps them to do so, help them live.

    • marley says:

      09:10pm | 07/07/11

      @Erick - yes, I grant you your Joe Blogg - but what about people like my Mom, hitting 94, and taking pills for gout and blood pressure and that’s it.  Losing it a bit these days, and starting to have a few problems - but no transplants, hip replacements or expensive drugs in all those 94 years.  Which is more common?  Your Joe or my Mom? 

      I do understand your point - I just think I have a less apocalyptic view of the situation than you do.

    • acotrel says:

      10:24pm | 07/07/11

      @Marley
      ‘@Erick - but is that really true?’

      AGAIN with the difficult questions?

    • Faz says:

      07:30am | 07/07/11

      And I guess this puts issues like plain packaging for cigarettes in some sort of context. If such measures can make a difference, that is have less people needing expensive medical interventions later in life, doesn’t make the concern about personal freedom (or the confected industry ‘nanny state’ scare) less important.

      I know it’s a delicate balance sometime, but I don’t feel less free because I have to wear a helmet when I ride on two wheels or a seat bealt when driving and, with all these issues at the time, many argued against them because it threatened their ‘freedom’.

      Reply

    • Richard says:

      03:11pm | 07/07/11

      Now that is nonsense, Faz. I can understand seat belt laws, because they are equipped as part of the car by design. And I can understand that Motorcyclists must wear helmets, because they are taking advantage of motorised energy to travel in an exceedingly dangerous fashion.

      But for me to be forced to wear a pathetic bit of foam on my head when I go for a nice slow gentle bike ride through the deserted suburban streets and parks of my neighborhood on a quiet sunday afternoon is a bridge too far.

      In any case, the benefits to cardiovascular health of riding a bicycle (sans helmet, because I don’t own one and cant find one that thats properly, studies show its more dangerous to wear an ill-fitting bicycle helmet than it is to wear none at all incidentally) offset the negative impacts of the minuscule risk that I might come a cropper and bang my noggin.

      Nanny statism is a risk, because the will to power (over other people) is and insatiable drive inherent in human being, and if we give them an inch, they’ll try to take a mile. We’d be better off defending our freedoms at all costs.

      What’s so wrong with taking personal responsibility for ourselves and asking everyone else to do the same?

    • fml says:

      06:04pm | 07/07/11

      “But for me to be forced to wear a pathetic bit of foam on my head when I go for a nice slow gentle bike ride through the deserted suburban streets and parks of my neighborhood on a quiet sunday afternoon is a bridge too far.”

      How do you think the poor bloke who runs you over would feel if that small bit of foam is the difference between saving your life or manslaughter?

    • phhw says:

      07:55pm | 07/07/11

      fml will that bit of foam stop a car?

    • Fiddler says:

      07:51am | 07/07/11

      Two words - Soylent Green

      Reply

    • TChong says:

      08:14am | 07/07/11

      and / or
      “Logans Run”

    • adam says:

      09:04am | 07/07/11

      i look forward to my turn on the carosel

    • Tchom says:

      10:13am | 07/07/11

      Maybe some kind of ‘Repo! The Genetic Opera’ organ rental scheme is a more reasonable middle ground?

    • Huey says:

      10:29am | 07/07/11

      MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM..Soylent Green. (Homer Simpson)

    • kirsty says:

      08:03am | 07/07/11

      Great article Tory!  The awkward conversation is going to have to come up sooner or later.  It makes it tough though when we have reactions to health topics as seen yesterday in the grog article and to a degree in the AC articles.  We all need to face reality and discuss what is going to happen logically and rationally because we are headed towards a trainwreck of a health budget in the future.

      Reply

    • Danielle says:

      08:07am | 07/07/11

      Not much to say but good luck to you Derryn Hinch.
      Its a crazy world we live on when people die and most have their organs burnt or buried when people need them, such a waste but then if we keep people alive the balance on the worlds population will zoom up and the problem on the planet would spell desperation and death to many.

      Reply

    • Organ donor says:

      02:48pm | 07/07/11

      There is a simple answer to the lack of organ donors. The current legislation states that every body is NOT an organ donor by default. You can only donate organs if you go on the organ donors list and a next of kin verifies this at the time of death. If we simply change the legislation to every body is an organ donor unless they go on a non organ donors list and this is verified by a next of kin. Seem too simple to me. Make apathy work for the system for a change.

    • Organ donor 2# says:

      04:38pm | 07/07/11

      Good idea Organ donor! A lot of people can’t be bothered to go through all the effort of adding their name as an organ donor, but if you create legislation that means everyone is an organ donor unless otherwise stated, there would be a huge increase in organ donors. Lots of people don’t care either way, and the ones that really don’t want to still have a choice.

    • Peter says:

      08:08am | 07/07/11

      Do fitness freaks deserve medical attention when their hips and bones break after excess use? Do they deserve medical attention when they are in their late 90’s and after wanting to live for so long their body finally starts to deteriorate?  Every single individual has the right to free healthcare in this country.


      And a survey from AdelaideNow? Sorry to break it to you but I live in Adelaide and the majority of the people here negative serial complainers that blame everybody else for their own woes, and like most negative nanny’s they generally take their anger out on dole bludgers, fatties, drinkers and smokers in NewCrop blogs.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      08:51am | 07/07/11

      @Peter The guy in the bed opposite to mine, when I had a heart op, was a fitness freak.  He’d run in a marathon on the Saturday, rode his bike on the Sunday, came home and climbed a tree to saw off branches.  Then he sat down inside his house and went to sleep, and his wife couldn’t wake him.  That was the heart attack!  In hospital he was most distressed that he wouldn’t be able to continue his fitness oriented activities.

    • Mark says:

      08:59am | 07/07/11

      “Right to free healthcare”

      No such thing as free healthcare. Somebody has to pay for it. What you are really saying is that I have an obligation to pay for your healthcare.

      Maybe I do, but what is the limit of that obligation? Am I obligated to begger myself to pay for the healthcare of someone who has never bothered to look after themselves?

    • libertarian vegetarian says:

      01:41pm | 07/07/11

      No, now Mark. Perhaps Peter simply means that doctors and nurses should be obliged to work for free, that companies that manufacture medical equipment should be required to supply that for free, that phone companies supply hospitals free phone calls, the companies who do the laundry should do that for free too.
      Gotta love that free healthcare - paid for by everyone else.

    • Peter says:

      07:59pm | 07/07/11

      @ libertarian vegetarian

      Sorry to break it to you but when people pay tax in this country they are also paying to ensure that our governments fund public hospitals and public healthcare. Instead they are wasting our tax dollars giving themselves massive perks and massive pay rises while our public healthcare system suffers. Where is this GST money going? Where is the money from fines and rates going?

      If you want our healthcare system to be like America where people are committing crimes to go into jail for healthcare then bloody move there yourself, but I want Australia to once again have the best healthcare system in the world, so that even the most disadvantaged in our society which we like to call democratic and progressive, has access to a system that can benefit their health.

    • con barrington says:

      08:09am | 07/07/11

      I think you may have confused the issue; defibrillators are an emergency response and now widespread amongst responders; dialysis machines are expensive and not in the same category.

      cost is relative. the pharmaceutical industry could probably churn out 5 billion blood pressure tablets a year, economy of scale production, and keep all the ageing baby boomers alive in that respect, but not in others


      but then again, there is your mental health…....

      knock knock anyone home!!!...... write it down here baby boomers….........- what are the diseases of ageing they can’t find a cure for, as they don’t even know what causes it.

      knock knock! don’t tell me you can’t remember…... you’re well on the way

      Reply

    • Matt says:

      08:29am | 07/07/11

      ‘Should drinkers get livers, and smokers lungs?’ 

      I guess that clearly depends on how much money they have..

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      09:14am | 07/07/11

      @Matt When medical pactitioners have to decide who gets the expensive treatment amongst several patients competing for a limited resource.  Whether they are wealthy or a social undesirable cannot be allowed to affect the decision!  The decision is made on the basis of whom will get the most benefit - ethics is the issue.

    • Matt says:

      09:46am | 07/07/11

      Ok, thanks acotrel, I guess those other 1140 people got their kidney’s pretty quick..

      Quote from his Dr - “Derryn had been on our list for many months and the cancer was getting quite out of control,” he said.  Yep, those other 1140 must have gotten no benefit at all…

    • marley says:

      04:31pm | 07/07/11

      I don’t want to get into the philosophical aspects, but isn’t it true that even if you’re not at the top of the list, you might get the transplant because you’re a better match for the donor organ than someone who might be ahead of you on the waiting list?

    • Claire says:

      03:50pm | 08/07/11

      Marley, I used to coordinate Lung Transplants; the waiting lists are complicated by various factors.  Generally, they are split into two categories: an inactive list and an active list.  Inactive list is for people who need a transplant but can wait a little while; Active list is for those who require transplant as a matter of urgency.
      Those on the active list have priority if a suitable organ becomes available.  If no active recipients can be found, we move to the inactive list. 
      Managing the lists is a delicate balancing act, especially for active recipients who must be in critical need of a donor organ but not so ill that they cannot withstand transplantation.  Many patients develop infections or their disease progresses to a point where they drop off the active list.

      And just to clear this up:  Current smokers/drinkers/recreational drug users etc are NOT considered for transplantation.

    • fairsfair says:

      08:41am | 07/07/11

      The same debate raged in the UK when George Best got his new Liver.

      I don’t think this is a debate that needs to be had at all. You get on the waiting list, you wait. If you get it you get it, if you don’t you don’t. Look at that girl from WA (was it last year?), that had to source her organ overseas - she got it, but she died. It is just a risk we all face in life, drinkers or not.

      Are we going to get to a point where people choose an “organ buddy” and determine who gets their organs before they die? Its rediculous. People really amaze me sometimes with their stupid notions of what is “right”.

      Good luck Derryn. I may not agree with a lot of you say, but your are part of Australia’s journalistic landscape and I wish you a full and quick recovery. You have made the required changes in your life, to which I respect you, and you deserve to be able to look forward to your now bright future. All the best.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      09:23am | 07/07/11

      @fairsfair ‘
      ‘Good luck Derryn. I may not agree with a lot of you say, but your are part of Australia’s journalistic landscape and I wish you a full and quick recovery. You have made the required changes in your life, to which I respect you, and you deserve to be able to look forward to your now bright future. All the best.’

      I agree and wish you well too, Derryn.  If it was Andrew Bolt or Alan Jones,  I might not be so nice!

    • Chris L says:

      08:41am | 07/07/11

      Another reason to allow voluntary euthenasia. I am not saying “get them out of the way” but I do think it should be an option for people facing debilitating illness and it could possibly remove a great deal of pressure from our gallant medial professionals.

      Reply

    • Fiddler says:

      08:50am | 07/07/11

      How does the rest of the world deal with this?
      Or we could just ramp up immigration even more to deal with “the aging population” It’s done wonders so far. Sydney is a much better place to live now

      Reply

    • Reg Whiteman says:

      09:05am | 07/07/11

      I have a modest suggestion to make that will cure both the shortage of transplant organs and the boat people problem.

      The next time a boat load of refos arrives, why don’t we harvest their organs? They are all mostly young, reasonably fit and of military age. We could fatten them up a bit, make sure they don’t have AIDS or TB or hepatitis etc and then harvest their lungs, hearts, kidneys, livers etc. The rest of the carcase could then be dried, ground and turned into fertiliser.

      It is a simple and economical solution that will cure two problems in the short term.

      I think we should also introduce a maximum life-span law. Really, what is the point of all these nursing homes full of old women no-one wants who just refuse to die - or are kept alive indefinitely by with a bucket of pills each day? I think that, once you hit 80, you should be tested to see if you are still capable of independent living and some sort of productive contribution to society. If not, then you should be assisted into eternity.

      My old Mum is 86, off her head with dementia, can barely walk, and is of absolutely no use to anyone. She has assets that could be used by the family, but we can’t redistribute those assets until she finally cashes in her chips. In the meantime, the nursing home keeps her alive and slowly but surely steals everything she has. If Mum was a dog or a horse, we’d be charged with cruelty for not putting her down. She is, for all intents and purposes, dead anyway, but those pills just keep her heart beating. She has no idea who she is, who we are, or where she is.

      Every time I visit that nursing home (mostly to pay another extortionate bill), I see all these old women sitting around and staring vacantly into space. There’s not a coherent thought between the lot of them. How much more humane it would be just to give them all a whack with a heavy mallet and put them, and their families, out of this misery.

      But I still think harvesting organs from refugees is a good idea. We would, of course, stun them humanely first. I think it would be a great deterrent and end the people smuggling trade rather swiftly.

      Reply

    • bec says:

      09:30am | 07/07/11

      Irish babies are the tastiest babies…

    • Fiona says:

      09:55am | 07/07/11

      It’s a good thing your mother has dementia. That way she doesn’t know her son would like to see her dead so that he can get into her estate. Maybe your sentiments aren’t all that bad (I get that you’re frustrated), but you really put them down in an awful way. Traditionally we looked after our elders when they became infirm, we didn’t kill them.

    • Mark says:

      10:34am | 07/07/11

      If I begin to suffer from dementia, I hpoe I will find to willpower to kill myself before I become a zombie.

    • Reg Whiteman says:

      10:37am | 07/07/11

      @Bec

      I haven’t tasted a whole Irish one yet - though there is a good recipe on the Master Chef website. They come already marinaded in Guinness but you have to burn the alcohol off first. When served with potato Rossi, pureed turnips, and a nice shiraz jus you get a delectable balance of texture and flavour. Always garnish with fresh clover leafs and season to taste. Don’t forget to caramelise them first in a very hot pan with extra-virgin olive oil and some freshly crushed garlic; then bake at 180 in a fan-forced oven. This makes the crackling extra crunchy.

      There’s been a bit of a shortage of Irish babies (IBs) since the Catholic Church started losing influence there.

      My Speciality Butcher only has IB Kievs which he stuffs with the most piquant garlic and herb butter you’ve ever tasted. They are beautifully crumbed which turns a honey-golden brown when deep fried in Canola oil at 160 for about 25 minutes. I recommend serving with seasonal vegetables or a fresh garden salad and a warm and crusty Cob loaf. A chilled botrytis Chardonnay and a selection of melons on ice, with King Island whipped cream, rounds off the ensemble perfectly.

      I’m not sure what they do with their organs. I’ve never been game enough to ask the ingredients of the Limerick and Cork sausage - but they do have a “Heart Smart” tick sticker.

    • REM says:

      11:03am | 07/07/11

      @ Fiona
      Traditionally nature took its course and we didn’t pump people full of preservatives (medications) that prolonged the misery.  The only ones benefiting here are pharmaceutical companies.

    • marley says:

      11:12am | 07/07/11

      @Reg - well, if you don’t want your mother’s estate to be “stolen” by the nursing home, why don’t you look after her?

    • Cloud Strife says:

      11:20am | 07/07/11

      Yes, aged care is very expensive.

      But did you know you are only paying 20% of the costs of aged care? The other 80% is funded by the Department of Health and Ageing.

    • Erick says:

      01:57pm | 07/07/11

      @CloudStrife - “The other 80% is funded by the Department of Health and Ageing. “

      And where does the Department of Health and Ageing get those funds? Oh, that’s right, from us.

      Governments do not magically produce resources. They take resources from some people, and give them to others.

    • Cloud Strife says:

      02:20pm | 07/07/11

      @Erick

      I’m well aware that DoHA is funded by the taxpayers (ie, us).

      My original comment was based at Reg who says the nursing home is ‘stealing everything she’s got’.

      Imagine how much more aged care would be if you had to pay the whole 100%!

    • Reg Whiteman says:

      03:45pm | 07/07/11

      @ Marley and Cloud Strife

      After Dad died, I had her for a year. Dad was older and very frail, but still had his mind. You could have a conversation with him and he had a great depth of wisdom. Mum, on the other hand, can remember little of the last 50 years. She has no short-term memory; indeed she has forgotten that her husband of 62 years is dead.

      That year I had her I received no help from anyone - other than two phone calls. The first was after 9 1/2 months when someone from Health and Aging rang me to tell me I was entitled to a Carers Allowance and had been since the day Dad died. I applied and got it, but it wasn’t back dated. The second was after she’d had a fall and they told me I had to find a nursing home as her dementia was so advanced that I could not provide proper care.

      That year was about the hardest of my life. She became the centre of the Universe and my life orbited around hers. In the morning I made her breakfast, and gave her 8 pills; then waited to give her lunch and another 4 pills; then waited till evening, fed her again, and gave her another 6 pills. I couldn’t go anywhere or do anything. Her hips are gone so she can barely walk. Every time I went to town, which normally takes 25 minutes, I had to take her with me and it turned into a 90 minute exercise as she was so slow and I had to pack the wheel chair every time.

      I have been living alone on the farm since my wife died in a tragic accident in 2002 - she was gored and trampled by Nigel, one of my best Hereford bulls. I had grown used to living alone and running this place by myself with seasonal help.  So you can imagine what didn’t get done when I had Mum like an albatross around my neck.

      But the worst thing about Mum was being asked the same question or told the same story over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over - it was driving me completely insane! I thought about leaving her in the paddock with Nigel, but I didn’t think the Police would believe that the same accident could happen twice.

      The other thing is that, when I did find a nursing home, they discovered that Mum has assets in the form of a house in a country town and some good grazing land. So they “assessed” its worth and then told me I had to come up with a $500,000 residential bond. On top of that, because of her wealth, she is also charged $950/fortnight plus incidentals.

      I put the house and farmland on the market last October and, so far, there have been two inspections and no offers - even though I have priced both well below the “assessed value” worked out by the Government Departments. I am going to auction it all in the spring and take what I can get - i.e. no reserve.

      Because I had to “borrow” the $1/2 million for the bond, at 9.2% compounding monthly, I can see everything Dad worked for all his life going straight into the maw of this “aged care industry”. If they keep Mum alive for another 8 years, there won’t be enough left to bury her. The “interest” bill after a year is already c$50,000.

      If that’s 20% of the real cost, then I’ll eat Nigel raw and without any salt!

    • marley says:

      06:36pm | 07/07/11

      @Reg - that’s a tough story, and I apologize if I came across as being judgemental - but the fact is, you mother is getting a lot of care for the money, more than you can provide, so I think it’s pretty debatable that we’re talking about theft.

      I’m not very familiar with the Australian system - my mother is in a retirement home (not a nursing home) in Canada.  And I can tell you, it’s costing her substantially more than $950/fortnight, and that’s with no special care beyond meals and the occasional outing.  Neither my sister nor I expects to see anything in the way of an inheritance, which is fine.  My dad worked to make his wife comfortable and his kids independent, and there’s an end to it.

    • Sheridan says:

      09:25pm | 07/07/11

      Hello Mr Swift..

    • acotrel says:

      10:33pm | 07/07/11

      @Reg Whiteman Have you ever noticed how domestic cats look at their owners and their friends so appraisingly.  It’s very clear that if they were big enough they’d eat them! A bit like you and your mum? You’ve obviously got the same mindset as the opportunistic moggies?

    • Fiddler says:

      09:06am | 07/07/11

      Another elephant in the room is the amount doctors charge. I agree they need to be well paid, but I had a two hour operation (knee reco) followed by two days in hospital. Cost - $25,000 for two nurses, an anesthetist and a surgeon for two hours.

      Reply

    • Fiona says:

      10:00am | 07/07/11

      ....and the hospital bed, domestics, kitchen staff, admin staff, power etc costs and any medication, dressings. In a private hospital you will pay for everything.

    • Fiddler says:

      10:51am | 07/07/11

      Even then, at a conservative estimate the surgeon would have made seven grand from it. And he does three or four a day. By anyones margin that is a little extreme.

    • Liza says:

      12:39pm | 07/07/11

      And insurance Fiddler. That insurance premium (just incase anything had actually gone wrong with your knee) would have eaten up a lot of that money too.  Also figure in upkeep on the machines… You are right, that is a LOT of money, but there is a lot more in there then the doctor earning $21 000 a day just doing a couple of knee surgeries.  They earn good money, but not that good.

    • bella starkey says:

      12:46pm | 07/07/11

      I know day surgery in a private hospital is about 1500 for just the bed, I’d say probably double or triple that for an overnight stay.

      Besides what Fiona has listed you are also paying for the replacement joint, the hire of the operating theatre and equiptment, the after care consultations etc.

      Although, 25000 sounds a little too pricey considering my Dad is having his hip done next week, which is a longer stay and a bigger operation for 30 000.

    • Fiddler says:

      01:08pm | 07/07/11

      Bella, wasn’t replaced, just some ligament work and an osteotomy. And it was an insurance company who paid for it (workers comp). I stick by taking all overheads into account the surgeon (who was the best) pocketing seven grand. And it was 25 grand I saw the paperwork for it at work.

    • bella starkey says:

      01:36pm | 07/07/11

      In that case the surgeon probably jacked up the price because he knew the compensation insurance would cover it.

    • Margaret Gray says:

      09:09am | 07/07/11

      Derryn should thank the Easter bunny from Reservoir who was responsible for him receiving a suitable donor liver.  Pity someone had to die first.

      Reply

    • Elphaba says:

      09:19am | 07/07/11

      Everyone, regardless of your lifestyle or your financial circumstances, deserves to be treated equally when they require healthcare.

      Everyone also deserves the right to make their own decisions about organ donation, whether to refuse treatment, and when to end their life.  Whatever it costs, it should be made available.

      Reply

    • Michael says:

      09:44am | 07/07/11

      “Whatever the costs, it should be made available”

      You are more intelligent than that comment, i have seen it with my own eyes.

    • Elphaba says:

      10:04am | 07/07/11

      *yawn*

      It’s what I think.  You don’t like it, meh, I don’t care.

    • Erick says:

      02:02pm | 07/07/11

      @Elphaba - “Whatever it costs, it should be made available.”

      Sorry, but you really didn’t think this through.

      Think about it some more. Hint: How can the costs be paid?

    • dancan says:

      09:20am | 07/07/11

      Cloning is the only real viable option.  Why wait for a donor that matches when you could have an organ cloned and grown in a tube?  It makes no sense to ignore such an option.  While the technology is available the research isn’t, too many old world views about the sanctity of the human body, that the research into cloning is immoral and unethical.  Yet these people have no problems the cutting up of a dead body and harvesting the organs inside.

      Reply

    • Harquebus says:

      09:32am | 07/07/11

      Been waiting a long time. Guess I’ll just have to wait some more. The bastard might even outlive me.

      Reply

    • Retired Soldier says:

      09:46am | 07/07/11

      Reg Whiteman says: Well said Reg. You realize of course the do gooders are already penning their serious responses to your humorous comments. I actually agree with much of what you say but we don’t receive enough Boat People to ensure your fertilizer scheme would be a success,  there are plenty of them turning up to operate the body part scheme but the fertilizer business would go broke. To ensure its success I suggest we add the Dole and Welfare mob to the mix and those people who someone described here earlier as “socially unacceptable”. That ought to rectify all the problems associated with your scheme except for your dear old mum. If she remains in good health through the efforts of the Old Ladies Home owners, then you can kiss your inheritance goodbye. Sorry mate !

      Reply

    • Turqs says:

      11:12am | 07/07/11

      Retired Soldier, I can only assume you’re approaching the maximum age limit (being as you’re retired and all) and so choose to take Reg’s comments as humour…

    • Harquebus says:

      10:31am | 07/07/11

      No good can come of messing with the evolutionary process.

      Reply

    • LeonT says:

      11:52am | 07/07/11

      Yes, medicine is a blight upon that which was intended for us.

    • Retired Soldier says:

      11:53am | 07/07/11

      Turqs says: I would like to see about another 20 + years reading the Punch and those of you who are devoid of humour Turqs. I should also be dead by some estimates at least seven times but i’m not , yet!  In the meantime I suggest you lighten up and get out in the sun before you become fertilizer for Reg’s thriving new business venture. You might also consider that one doesn’t need to be at the end of life to be retired in this day and age providing one has been smart enough to plan for a future and also been lucky enough to dodge bullets fired by people who didn’t appreciate our presence in their miserable lands.

    • RyaN says:

      10:55am | 07/07/11

      ‘Should drinkers get livers, and smokers lungs? ‘ how about wasting good organs in brain dead dropkick Labor and Greens supporters!

      Reply

    • Chris L says:

      01:59pm | 07/07/11

      Not a fan of democracy, eh RayN?

    • RyaN says:

      05:00pm | 07/07/11

      @Chris L: just not a fan of communist parties claiming to be democratic.
      Fan of democracy, not a fan of communist oppression.

    • The righteous one says:

      11:08am | 07/07/11

      I dont know why this is even getting a comment\

      IN THEIR OWN WORDS
      ” Would it be fair to send a part of
      somebody else to jail?”
      Broadcaster Derryn Hinch, who has just had a liver transplant and
      is facing prison time for breaching court suppression orders.
      Canberra times today.

      The man is pathetic, all bluster but don’t try and get him to take responsibility for his actions A true shock Jock

      Reply

    • Roland says:

      11:49am | 07/07/11

      i’m a smoker and i’d never accept a lung transplant while a non-smoker needed one. derryn should have accept the consequences of his lifestyle and turned the liver down. 5 bottles of wine everyday for years is quite enough living for one person.

      Reply

    • TK says:

      12:09pm | 07/07/11

      Are you people for real???  You are talking about a human life not some criteria for who lives and who dies.  What not base it on wealth as well you pack of fools.  Surely logic dictates a wealthy person contributes more to the country that the poor so by default the wealthy deserves to live rather than the poor.  Never heard so a bunch of mindless nonsense in all my life written by a moron and agreed to by other morons.  Get a life.

      Reply

    • W says:

      12:12pm | 07/07/11

      “The day is coming where we have to start having a serious discussion about who gets what. And who misses out”. When that day arrives you may be absolutely certain that “who gets what” will depend upon “who knows who” and who has the most cash.

      Reply

    • Monique says:

      12:13pm | 07/07/11

      And what of the elderly who have spent years of paying for private health insurance?  Are they not entitled in view of the fact that they have spent all of those years paying for a maybe?  I think that we will have paid for whatever we should need.  I am 68 and think that if I need hip recplacement in the future then I should have one regardless of what age I am.  I also think that if I need any kind of organ replacement I should be on the list like everyone else and take my turn, not be turned down or put at the end of the queue.  It is people like myself and my husband that contribute to funds that pay for those who need when we do not.  The same should apply to us in our older years, regardless of whether we have or do smoke or drink.  Maybe the answer would be for the Government to stop the ridiculous laws of what and what can’t be done medically.  Stems cells technology and cloning of ones organs needs to be done now.  Pigs organs are compatible with humans so why is this not being pursued further?  I say shame on anyone who begrudges anyone else the right to live through organ transplant.  I am on the organ donors list purely and simply to allow someone else to be given a second chance, even if when I do die, the only useful items are my eyes and considering I don’t wear glasses, they should still be in pretty good shape when I die.

      Reply

    • Richard says:

      12:14pm | 07/07/11

      Tory, the problem of a lack of organs available for donation is easily solved: simply legalise drink driving~ Problem Solvered!

      And you can see how absurd that is, so you must necessarily now see how disgusting and macabre the principle of organ donation and organ transplant really is.

      When you hope that more organs become available for transplant, what you are really hoping for is for healthy people to die so that terminally sick people can greedily grasp to life for merely a few years more. That’s all it is.

      Now your cognitive dissonance will set in and you will get offended by what I said. But at the bare bones of the matter, my point is valid.

      Reply

    • Chris L says:

      02:24pm | 07/07/11

      Not so, Richard. What is being asked (hoped for) is that more people sign up as organ donors.

      Fact is that everyone will die, but only by signing up can people use their death to grant someone else a second chance at life.

    • Tory Shepherd

      Tory Shepherd says:

      03:33pm | 07/07/11

      Your point’s entirely invalid, Richard. The organ donation process goes wrong AFTER someone dies, when they either haven’t made their wishes known, their family overrides their wishes, or the hospital doesn’t manage to coordinate the donation for one reason or another. No one wants more people to die, just for their organs not to be wasted when they do.

    • Justice is waiting says:

      12:16pm | 07/07/11

      This is real good news!
      Now when does this scumbag go to jail?

      Reply

    • davi_88 says:

      12:26pm | 07/07/11

      Nobody deserves to live more than anyone else, or at least nobody has the right to rank people from most desrving to least. Yes smokers and heavy drinkers self inflict the damage to their body but what about the self inflicted damage of poor diets and high stress levels. Maybe people with type A personalities don’t deserve a heart transplant because they should have scheduled some stress relieving massages into their lifestyle. 
      Everyone has a poison - I don’t know anyone who leads a perfect lifestyle

      Reply

    • R RODGERS says:

      12:28pm | 07/07/11

      Life is paramount and must be treasured and if you believe when you die that…................no won,t go their but santa will be around shortly.ENJOY WHILST YOU CAN.

      Reply

    • Mahhrat says:

      12:44pm | 07/07/11

      With regards organ transplanting, why not change the system so you have to opt OUT instead of IN?

      That way, you want to be religious, or have a personal problem with it, then you can go into the local and opt OUT.  Otherwise, your organs can be transplanted if they’re of quality.

      Reply

    • lesley laurel says:

      01:27pm | 07/07/11

      Who is derryn hinch?Does he play for melbourne and queensland?? Or is he Premier of Victoria?

      Reply

    • lesley laurel says:

      01:30pm | 07/07/11

      Derryn Hinch had a close shave but he still has a beard.

      Reply

    • Erick says:

      03:09pm | 07/07/11

      Congratulations! You have made your first witty comment!

    • Tristram says:

      03:19pm | 07/07/11

      Well, I’ve abused my body,  just about every night since I was 15,  and I expect to go blind. I’m 16.

      Reply

    • Tully says:

      03:26pm | 07/07/11

      I dont normally comment on these, but you have all missed the point, and gee, dont some of you get testy!  What about a decent, intelligent conversation.  Anyway back to my point… Derryn only has to 1. sue his parents for the inherited poor liver function (probably lack of enzimes)  2. sue the wine company and bottle shop for not complying with responsible service. 3. Sue the government for taxing and allowing for sale a harmful substance and then after paying the lawyers should still have enough money to buy a liver from Thailand and almost everybody wins and it doesnt touch the health budget and frees up the donor organs ...

      Reply

    • Wolf Schmidt says:

      03:42pm | 07/07/11

      THe Nazis had an answer for the incurable sick, they just killed them.
      In Holland where they have “voluntary” Euthanesia, in many cases it
      has become compulsory.
      If we had this system here, mass murder would be the likely outcome,
      all in the name of saving money, of course.
      We waste billions on so many things, just think of the war in Afghanistan,
      it is a waste of money, not some oldie who badly needs a hip replacement
      to regain independence and quality of life for a few extra years.
      Once we abandon our old and sick people to their fate/doom whatever
      our whole society does not deserve to continue.

      Reply

    • Bruce says:

      04:31pm | 07/07/11

      So if a drinker needs a liver and smoker needs a lung, it’s their fault that they need one and they shouldn’t get them.  But if an abstainer needs a transplant then well and good they are more deserving because…?????

      Reply

    • bec says:

      04:52pm | 07/07/11

      I’m not so worried about smokers and drinkers as i am about people who refuse to be donors but expect an organ if they need it. Example, I know a family with 5 kids, 4 of those kids have congenital heart defects (parents are first cousins) and are all on the donor list. mum and dad however refuse to be donors themselves because of their religion. Apparently god won’t be ahppy if they donate their organs after their death but they can take someone else’s. They are the kind of people that should be denied organs. If we bring in the the rule that unless you are a registered organ donor (and it is legally enforceable) then you cannot receive an organ yoursself if needed we would have an abundance of organs. this is the case in some european countries with organ donor rates up around 80%

      Reply

    • George says:

      08:45am | 08/07/11

      Ew. 100% agree, what detestable people. Why are so many religious people such arseholes.

    • Smoker who doesn't want your stupid lungs says:

      05:50pm | 07/07/11

      What if you deny a decent human being, who happens to be a smoker, a new set of lungs and inadvertently give those lungs to a non-smoker who just happens to be an extremely unpleasant individual - what if they were an abusive husband or father, a paedophile, a thief, or even just a person that makes life miserable for others - who would you want to have the lungs then?

      Reply

    • Mike says:

      06:07pm | 07/07/11

      Priority should be given to those most likely to survive the operation, and not reject the organ. Just like if a group of people are drowning - first you rescue the fit guy who is closest, not the old guy who can’t swim and is further away. But then I’m sure that is how it happens anyway. If more people donated organs, and the redtape was cut, this wouldn’t be an issue.

      Reply

    • jojo says:

      08:56pm | 07/07/11

      People who haven’t signed on to be an organ donor should not be eligible for an organ transplant.   

      They also should not be allowed to comment on or decide who does or doesn’t deserve a transplant.

      This would probably solve the moral problem anyway because most people would sign up and therefore we would have enough organs to go ‘round.

      Reply

    • Emmy says:

      01:59am | 08/07/11

      that’s very limited.  I have told my family I would like to donate my organs, I have even had a discussion with the donate for life staff and advised that ideally I would like to donate all my organs if and when the time comes - however - until they allow me to tick a box that puts very simply that my loved ones have the ultimate say on the day - I can’t sign up.  Despite their assurances I don’t feel confident that loved ones are ALWAYS adequately consulted and have the right to override my choice given the circumstances.  As soon as I can tik the box to say - yes in principle but on the priviso that my family gives the final sign off - I wont give them carte blanche… my husband knows my wishes.

    • jojo says:

      07:41pm | 08/07/11

      @ Emmy:
      Well it should be limiting.  Why should you receive an organ if you won’t donate.  Why should others miss out on organs because so many families would prefer their loved one’s organs to rot in the ground? You would let critically ill people die just to pander to your families illogical wishes.  Tell me, is it worse to let a person die or to let your family feel a bit bad about the fact that your organs aren’t going to die. 

      All I can say to those families is: Get over it.

    • anthropology 101 says:

      09:17pm | 07/07/11

      There will always be a massive shortage of organ donors. Organ supply is limited simply because you need organs from (preferably young) healthy people. The only useful source of healthy organs is accident victims.

      The vast majority of people die in middle or old age from medical conditions that make their organs totally unsuitable for transplantation.

      Reply

    • Fairy Nuff says:

      01:52am | 08/07/11

      look, I am not a smoker nor a drinker but I am an organ donor and I have no issue with whomever my organs may save if it comes to it… that’s really a very silly judgemental thought and following this silly logic - should mean people be entitled to my generous heart. lol. or should oxygen theives like Julia et al be entitled to my lungs. smile should people who always scowl be entitled to a face transplant - or people who always see the evil in people be entitled to donated retinas. who makes these decisions? if people are ill and they need it - the need is genuine regardless of cause.  Hopefully forgiveness and a second chance helps the recipient to reform and has a positive influence on others.

      Reply

    • HLT says:

      08:16am | 08/07/11

      Humans…we are so very complicated! grin

      Reply

    • paul says:

      08:18am | 08/07/11

      smokers & drinkers pay their way in taxes reaped by the govt.  they are entitled to health care as they have paid for it.
      whats next no organs for assholes?  that would exclude most of us then wouldnt it?

      Reply

    • George says:

      08:46am | 08/07/11

      It should be based on how good looking they are and their taste in music. For instance if they like Celine Dion or Nickelback it would be an immediate no.

      Reply

    • Soylent Green says:

      09:50am | 08/07/11

      Dudes - you aren’t thinking laterally here - the answer is staring us in the face!

      Reply

    • Soylent Green says:

      09:52am | 08/07/11

      Dudes - you aren’t thinking laterally here - the answer is staring us in the face!

      Reply

    • Soylent Green says:

      09:52am | 08/07/11

      Dudes - you aren’t thinking laterally here - the answer is staring us in the face!

      Reply

    • darragh scully says:

      04:00pm | 08/07/11

      lucky he had a doner and lucky they had the resources to do it.
      Public health these days is eclectic.
      A fence by the cliff to stop people falling into the trap, for example cancer advertisements everywhere, who should pay for the fence.
      An ambulance in the valley when you fall from the cliff, for example dial 000 and see how long it takes for your ambulance to get here, and trust me its going to cost you if your not insured with at least ambulance cover in most cases.

      And a safety net at the bottom of the cliff to soften your fall, such as great surgeons and organ doners.

      Saving someones life aint such a bad thing. Its hard to be choosy about it because you dont know for certain that the liver failure was caused by booze, poor genetics or exposure to something else such as a virus.

      I recon its interesting though. What makes Hinches case so special or any different from someone who didnt get the benefit. He paid his taxes, let him live.
      AEOL10150, this is a drug that may save your life if you need liver transplant. What an amazing porphorin indeed. Im not sure its even available here yet as its out of California, but its really good for cleaning up free radicals among other things and has been found to greatly enhance your chances of survival after a liver transplant.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:27PM

Dementor doing a good job for sweden #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:11PM

Ukraine song pinches chord progression from The Verve's Bittersweet Symphony. Fo real #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:00PM

RT @GerardDaffy: @antsharwood all the talk over there is the grannies will win.they entered to get a church built,feelgood story

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 08:57PM

These peole insult my grandmothjer, who was born in minsk, belarus #sbseurovision

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

by Claire Connelly

41

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

I’d like to be able to say that sharing the world’s largest radio telescope with South Africa…

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

by Laurie Oakes

60

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…

Please enter your password

by Lucy Kippist

39

Please enter your password

Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed