As an alcoholic, I initially agreed. Don’t waste a liver on me. Then this:
Even pleas for a living liver transplant, with Allan offering to be her donor, were not entertained.
What the actual fuck.
A partial liver transplant wasn’t viable for someone this sick, so when the partial transplant failed, they would have to resort to a full transplant from a dead donor, or she would die in operation.
Since she wasn’t eligible, a partial transplant was just a death sentence.
It’s not like giving away part of your liver is a zero sum game, now that person is at risk of infection, has lesser liver performance, and for what? Someone who has showed they will just continue to harm themselves, and others (the person they’re getting the liver from,) if you allow it?
I don’t know any other surgeons who would do that.
If a surgeon refused to let me save the life of the one person in the world i love then they wouldn’t be able to save any more lives after that so add that to your heartless calculations…
There are very few transplant surgeons who would take the risk of a partial liver transplant which they have high likelihood of being a death sentence for the patient (not sure if you read but they need a full liver, from a cadaver, not partial,) and want to willingly throw their name in with another patient to discuss during M&M.
This is coming directly from familiarity with the procedure, comorbidities, and other factors from a general surgeon at a top 10 hospital in the US.
Takes up valuable hospital times
No. A partial liver transplant wasn’t viable for someone this sick, so when the partial transplant failed, they would have to resort to a full transplant from a dead donor. But she wasn’t eligible, so a partial transplant was just a death sentence.
I’d have supported her paying out of pocket to use the live donor that was willing, but not to use my tax money when it’s pretty fucking clear she has no intention of changing.
It’s the same reason I’m largely against the Liberal’s diabetes funding - ~90% of diabetics are Type 2 (I’m willing to help Type 1’s out because it’s not their fault) and the vast, vast majority of those are from unhealthy lifestyle even if they are genetically predisposed.
If were going to have a public health system, people should be required to take care of themselves. And no, I’m not talking about the one-off accidents from riskier activities (although I do think people should bear the cost of their own healthcare if it’s the result of criminal activities), I’m taking the problems that occur as a result of abusing your body for years or decades.
What a shitty attitude.
You’ve gotten a lot of downvotes but rather than doing that I want to explain to you why your position here is flawed.
First think of every lifestyle activity whether it be food, motorcycle riding, music, etc. Now consider that there are some activities that are statistically safer than others.
If we took your position to the point of being law why would we stop at food lifestyle choices? Why not just any risky lifestyle choices? Eventually you end up with a society where individuals have less choice and freedom and are constantly obligated to live the safest possible lives.
You and I both know that isn’t a desirable outcome. We should be empowering people to live the lives they choose and encouraging them to be healthy, not punishing them for make the “wrong” choice.
I attempted to address this but perhaps I wasn’t clear:
Yes, some activities are risky then others, however many of them have absolutely 0 negative impact on you unless something major happens all at once. In fact, many of them have major health benefits for the vast, vast majority of participants.
Contrast the above to overeating, chronically eating stuff that’s not good for you (ex. excessive sugar, salt), drinking too much, doing lots of drugs, smoking… that kind of behaviour will basically screw up everyone who partakes given enough time and has no positive health benefits at all.
You talk about a loss of freedom… I’ve already lost freedom by paying for a bunch of people who purposely fuck themselves up for no tangible benefit to themselves. There is stuff that would be good for me that I literally can’t afford because of the amount of taxes I pay.
Here’s an idea for your route of encouraging healthy lifestyle rather than removing freedom: include a physician form in my taxes where my doctor attests that I am generally in good shape (given my age) and he has no reason to believe I am doing anything that is a risk factor for chronic cardiovascular or lung diseases, diabetes or related chronic illnesses, and give me a significant tax break for doing so.
Right now you’re on the internet instead of being physically active, that’s a health risk.
Who says I haven’t already gotten enough exercise today?
You’re aware of the concept of overworking your body, right?
Who says how much it’s acceptable to eat or drink?
I don’t care if you’ve gotten enough exercise, you would be healthier if you were walking around the block right now instead of sitting inside on the internet. Since my taxes pay for your medical bills I get to tell you how to live your life, so get walking!
Great, so maybe you can stop paying for my healthcare and I can stop paying for yours.
Consider what you just said can apply to motorcycling or buying a classic car with outdated safety features. There is no tangible health benefit to motorcycling or driving a classic car, it basically “has no positive health benefits at all” (as per your own words) and only increases risk. Show it be banned? What about every other risky hobby? If not, then neither should eating junk food which is measurably less dangerous/risky. Keep in mind that for smoking the overall trends of diminishing smoking habits in younger generations basically highlights the proof that encouraging healthy habits rather than punishing the individual is the correct way to approach this.
Buying a motorcycle or classic car doesn’t necessarily lead to injury in the same way that overeating and being lazy to the point of becoming a land whale does.
I suggest you look up just how often motorcycle injuries/deaths happen. What you’re saying only applies if you never get into an accident or fall off the bike ever, in the entire period it is owned (which could be 20-30 years). Something which is incredibly unlikely. From the language you’re using (i.e whale) I’m getting the impression that your position isn’t rational and instead based on a dislike of overweight people. I’ve done what I can here but I don’t think you’re messaging back in good faith and don’t want to entertain the perspective of someone who tries to put others beneath them based on their body and eating habits.
I’d be willing to bet that the number proportion of motorcycle owners with health problems caused by riding is a hell of a lot lower than the proportion of people who don’t eat right and don’t exercise enough and have health problems linked to that.
And no, it’s not just overweight people I don’t like, it’s also people that are sick all the time (like, weak immune coughs and colds type of stuff).
Being a judgmental asshole increases your likelihood of being assaulted. I shouldn’t have to pay your medical bills when you get punched in the face by a stranger.
Free expression bud, it’s my right to be a judgemental asshole. Take that up with Pierre Trudeau.
So I drink more pop than I should. Why should I have to pay more for my healthcare than my buddy who had a habit of timing running green lights as soon as they turned green. That isn’t illegal, either, yet it’s very risky behavior. It didn’t work out for him just one time, and he nearly died. Why should taxpayers have to pay for him?
The answer is because the vast majority of us engage in risky behavior, or just have the bad taste of passing on our poor genetics to the next generation, and the social cost for penalizing people for not agreeing with societal norms are too high. This includes drug use, even legal ones like alcohol. Sure, don’t spend limited resources such as donated livers on people who aren’t willing to make the lifestyle changes required to make it worthwhile, because someone else will probably have to die for that to happen. But if we could make new livers and the price was reasonable, I wouldn’t even be against that.
If your buddy who likes gambling with green lights was convicted of a traffic offence as part of that accident he should have been on the hook for his own healthcare and the healthcare of anyone else he hurt.
Way to miss the point. It’s a good thing you don’t engage in any risky behavior, or anything that would have a negative impact on your health. I mean, it’s not like you would be a hypocrite, right?
I never said “Don’t engage in any risky behaviour”. Stuff like cardiovascular and lung diseases and Type 2 Diabetes doesn’t happen over the course of days, weeks, or months, you have to be chronically treating yourself like crap for years to get to those points.
Thats a dark road to tread.
An example,
no alchol consumption is safe, so using your line of thinking you’d need to argue that anyone who partakes of alcohol at any anytime would fall under that line of thinking
Processed red meats simailary, especially those treated with nitrites, so those eating bacon, ham etc shouldn’t be entitled to public heath care under your reasoning
Or are those things ok becase you do them ?
On the upside, now you’ve excluded 95% of the population, public healthcare will be cheap :)
Contra to most peoples thinking, if you’re concerned about public healthcare costs, you should “encourage” obesiety and smoking, they all die early, most health care coats are associated with healthy people in their old age. See here
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html
Adults are stupid and greedy, we all are.
Perfect, let’s just get rid of public healthcare then
Jesus Christ that’s fucked up. Only 36 too and stopped drinking… and had a willing living donor. What do you do in this situation when they won’t help you? Go down to Mexico?
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.
I didn’t catch the part where she relapsed after diagnosis. For fucks sake how much was this lady drinking to get liver failure at 38?
heavy drinking – a term defined as five or more drinks for males, or over four for females, on one occasion at least once per month in the past year.
What the article calls heavy drinking, would have been nothing to me when I was an active alcoholic. Towards the end I’d be drinking anywhere from a pint to a fifth of bourbon a day. I was an active alcoholic for over a decade, running from age 23-33. I’m thankful that I was able to sober up, celebrated 5 years sobriety (from alcohol) a few months ago. Saved my life.
Jesus Christ that’s fucked up. Only 36 too and stopped drinking…
From the article:
Amanda Huska died Aug. 15 after spending six months in an Oakville, Ont. hospital.
and:
Huska, he said, stopped drinking as soon as she was diagnosed with Alcohol Liver Disease on March 3
So that sounds like she was immediately admitted (which implies she was already very sick) and only was sober in the hospital. In my opinion, that doesn’t qualify for “stopped drinking” and unfortunately she didn’t get a chance to prove whether or not she was actually able to stop.
And why the fuck is alcohol taxed so damn high then? I thought that was the compromise.
It’s taxed the way it is, because the only drug that kills more than booze are cigarettes.
Those taxes also go to help innocent people who are harmed in crimes that are often related to alcohol, like domestic violence, assault, and auto-incidents, also things like uttering threats and mischief.
domestic violence, assault, and auto-incidents, also things like uttering threats and mischief.
Crimes most committed by the police?
I agree with the general vibe of police are bad, in Winnipeg they recently killed a woman because they were driving off-road in a park at night, but the idea behind “sin taxes” are generally as a deterrent, as well as a way to try to mitigate damage to others.
I’ve been to places that are “cop bars” unknowingly, so the porcine populace may have have a DV-juice problem.
There are more people who need transplants than there are organs, so the medical profession has to make decisions about who to deny. This was a reasonable decision, in my opinion.
I’d be inclined to agree, except that her partner wanted to donate HIS liver and was prohibited from doing so as a living donation due to the alcohol use determination.
In Canada, drinking more than 3 drinks per week is medically considered “high alcohol use” for a woman… (6 for a man). This limit keeps getting lower year after year
If this can prevent you from getting organ transplants, then it encourages lying to your medical doctor about your current habits… That lady was not considered alcoholic, she just used alcohol in greater amount than the limit considered acceptable by doctors.
Latest stats show that almost 4 out of 5 people has exceeds that limit at some point in their life. This woman died only because she was honest with her doctor about her alcohol use. (Note that the article says her partner was a compatible donor but the system refused to accept him because she used alcohol. It’s not about lacking donors.)
That’s total bullshit. As a IT professional I have a nightly drink after work for self medication. Never two. Just one.
Just remember if a doctor ever asks then lie and say only on friday, there’s a few things in life you absolutely have to lie about because the system is not designed to care about people.
Here in the uk never admit to smoking weed to a medical professional, never admit to even so much as thinking about any form of self harm, delusions, emotional regulation issues… it can come back decades later and fuck you over.
This is generally pretty bad advice.
I mean I get where you’re coming from, and I cannot speak to what it is like in the UK (I can only speak as a man in the US), but you should not lie to your doctor.
If you see a doctor, and they start treating you differently after finding out that you smoke weed, then you find another doctor.
Unless you’re in Canada and there’s a doctor shortage and you can’t just shop around for a different family doctor if you don’t like your current one. If you’re lucky enough to even have a doctor here…
deleted by creator
Maybe if donating organs was compulsory they wouldn’t be so rare.
In my country, everyone is an organ donor unless they specifically opt out. Usually due to religion.
I’ve been seeing organ transportation ambulances near my city’s hospital from time to time. It’s weird to see, but a good thing.
They still need to be a match
Imagine how many matching organs are just left to rot in the ground.
Can’t just implant a 90 year old liver. And a lot of them are unsalvageable. Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be mandatory, just that it will still be a limited resource.
I don’t want to be morbid, but with as many gun deaths as there are in the US there are lots of young livers to go around.
If you are going to make alcohol consumption a bar to a liver transplant without making alcohol illegal you should all go fuck yourselves. You had a drink and you should die should not be a thing.
This isn’t what happened though. She was addicted to alcohol, per her partner, got diagnosed with needing a new liver, she immediately quit alcohol, and they denied her anyway even though quite a bit of time had passed while she was sober. I am unaware if her liver disease was because of the previous regular alcohol use. It wasn’t just 1 drink though.
Yes, organ donation is messed up. I met a girl dying in hospice once. She needed a new kidney. Genetic stuff, and then when she was 15 she tried to kill herself with Tylenol. She got her first transplant before the suicide attempt. She was denied a second one due to the suicide attempt itself. There are only so many organs in the world. She died in agony in hospice, young and covered in calcium deposits.
We punish substance use and mental health so harshly in this country. No one deserves the death penalty for previous substance use, especially for alcohol which is ancient af. It’s horrible she was denied when there was a liver already available.
It’s horrible she was denied when there was a liver already available.
Any full cadaver liver that could have gone to this woman didn’t get thrown into the garbage — it went to someone else who would have died without it.
As for the living donor liver her boyfriend offered, even though he was a match her level of liver failure likely meant that the partial liver her boyfriend could have donated wouldn’t have been successful. Living donors still need a liver for themselves, and we each only have one full liver — so the best they could have done is given her half a liver. Her condition was too poor for this to have a likely positive outcome, which was why this was also denied.
It sucks, but there aren’t enough donor livers for everyone who needs one. The cadaver liver she was denied however would have gone on to save the life of someone else you’re not hearing about in the press — someone else who may have died without it.
If the unfairness of it all upsets you that much, then make sure you’ve signed your organ donor card, and make sure your family members know and understand your desire to be an organ donor. And encourage the people you know to do the same. This is only a problem because there aren’t enough donor livers for everyone — when you have n livers, at best you can save n lives — and thus having a larger number of donor livers allows for more lives to be saved, with fewer qualifications.
My cousin was a raging alcoholic. He got clean, but not before he fucked his liver right up. I don’t know if they even allowed him on the liver transplant list or not, but if he was, he was very low on it. He died in early 2015 at the age of 43.
I’ve known entirely too many alcoholics that have had too many wake-up and come-to-Jesus moments, only to go back to drinking as soon as the immediate crisis is over. Change only comes when the alcoholic wants to change for their own reasons, not due to external factors.
Livers are a limited resource. Wasting a donor’s liver on a person that
usis unlikely to stop drinking–despite their protestations–means that another person doesn’t get one. It may seem like a cruel calculus, but it’s the only reasonable way to ration a scarce resource. It doesn’t matter if alcoholism is a disease, or you think that it’s a moral failing; the end result is the same.This was my initial opinion until I read the whole article.
“I got my blood tested, I had MRI scans, I had a CT scan, I had ultrasound and blood compatibility test with her. I was a match,” said Allan.
Transplant guidelines in Ontario and much of Canada require patients with ALD to first qualify for a deceased donor liver. If they don’t meet that criteria, they aren’t considered for a living liver transplant, even if one is available.
Her partner was a willing, compatible donor, wanted to give her his liver and was prevented from doing so. So yes, this is a cruel take.
If you keep reading it gives a reason why this is a requirement. Now whether you agree with the doctors or not is up to you but there is at least a reason for this.
But doctors say that people with severe liver disease from alcohol use may need more than just a partial living liver donation to thrive.
“The sicker someone is, the more they benefit from getting an entire liver from a deceased donor, as opposed to part of the liver from a living donor,” said Dr. Saumya Jayakumar, a liver specialist in Edmonton and an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry at the University of Alberta.
“On the off chance their (living) liver doesn’t work, they urgently get listed for a deceased donor,” said Jayakumar. "We need to make sure that everyone who is a candidate for a living donor is also a candidate for a donor graft as well, " she added.
From this, the reasoning appear to be this: there is a high risk that the living liver transplant will not take. In this case the patient may be at risk of dying instantly and thus need another liver transplant. Since the candidate doesn’t not qualify for this other transplant, in the case where the transplant does not take, the patient will die instantly. This is in contrast with the patient being terminally ill however given time to live out the remainder of their life.
This is a bunch of CYA from the hospital that got a woman killed. The article talks about how transfer success rates are up around 80-85%. That’s just for the 6% of people who magically fit through all the “qualifications” the hospital has decided determine whether you get to live. This lady had a doner tested and lined up, but was rejected on the “off chance” (read: low probability) that IF the transplant failed, she would almost certainly die without an immediate whole liver transplant. So the fuck what? Her options were to maybe die from surgery or absolutely 100% die an agonizing slow death from liver failure. The hospital took away her ONLY chance at life. This is murder by committee and I hope the estate sues the entire hospital into the ground.
15% failure rate is not low, it’s a dice roll essentially on par with Russian roulette.
Is a 15% chance of death during the surgery lower than the 100% chance of death if she doesn’t get the surgery?
Yes. Yes it is. It is THE lowest possible chance of death she had among her remaining options.
As grim as it might be, transplants are handled by apathetic, risk averse math and little else. Loose organs and surgeons are far from common.
Selkirk said she and Allan are both discussing a legal challenge to the liver transplant guidelines for those with alcohol use disorder “with people who have their own living donor.” “It’s not fair and it’s not right, and hopefully we’ll change that policy,” Selkirk said.
Even if her partner could donate his own liver, it should still go to a better recipient. If anything he should be donating anyways to honor her and save a life
You (or the committee of doctors) don’t decide who is a better recipient for my goddamn organs. You can make whatever the fuck ethical decision you want when I’m dead, but not until then. And I’ve gotta say, it’s shit like this - treating patients & donors like you know better - that make me not want to be a donor anymore. If I wanna donate my lungs to Hitler because he’s my grandpa and I love him, that’s not something you get to have a decision on.
The fact that people are down voting you for saying in essence “my body, my choice”, is ironic for lemmy.
my body, my choice
It’s a bit more complicated than that with transplants. Should people for example be able to sell their kidney to the highest bidder? That’s also “my body, my choice”. And should doctors be forced to participate in such a scheme?
A transplant system should consider fairness, equality and possible abuse. Obviously I think it should be possible to donate to a loved one, but we should also be careful not to create a system where the rich get priority, because they can pay more, and where poor people could be financially pressured to give up their bodily integrity by having to sell an organ.
Even if her partner could donate his own liver, it should still go to a better recipient
That’s nonsense, because the partner would not donate his liver if it went to someone else.
Right? Like I would donate my liver to my kid, or my spouse, without even questioning it.
But if the doctor told me they can’t have it (for some reason other than incompatibility), and they died? Fuck them. I’d de-register as an organ donor out of spite.
Donating an organ is a pretty invasive operation that can have a lot of complications, doctors aren’t only taking the recipient health, but the donor too, in the equation.
We’re explicitly talking about a situation where the donor is suitable. So I don’t know what kind of information you’re trying to add here.
Even if the donor is suitable, the operation to extract the donor organ is invasive and can have complications.
All true, yet it has nothing to do with what we are discussing, so why are you muddying the water with it?
Well this was informative. I will now start lying to my doctor about my occasional alcohol use.
Or maybe read the article?
Occasional alcohol use won’t put you in this situation (hopefully you’ll never be in this situation for any reason)
However, of the reason you need a liver is that you wrecked your own with booze; you are unlikely to get another one
Same for all the people who eat nuts and get hospitalized as well, pull the plug right? I mean come on, they are lesser humans as we stand on our pedestals and look down on them. /S
Genetics play a huge role in liver diseases. 85% of liver replacements don’t come from alcohol. Alcohol in sure is bad for you, but it really is a high horse scenario.
I didn’t see in the article if she self-reported alcohol use, or was tested. I’m responding to the comments here about self-reporting.
She had been an alcoholic since teen years and repeatedly tried and failed to quit
To clarify, I am NOT saying she deserved no healthcare. But donor livers (any organs actually) are a really really scarce commodity. This is why she would not get one
If we had artificial livers (for example), of course she should have received one
Or maybe read the article; she already had a donor lined up only for her. :-D
Omg, again this is like the third time it was posted
The boyfriend cannot give a full liver because he would die. Living donors can only donate a part of the liver. Unfortunately her liver was too far gone and she required a full cadaveric transplant.
Basically the docs saved the boyfriend from losing 1/3 of his liver for nothing
I’m quite torn on this issue, my sister donated her kidneys and liver when she died. On one hand people who need an organ, need an organ but on the other hand deceased persons organs are so rare that they should go to those with liver diseases they have no medical control over before those who are sick from an avoidable disorder.
I don’t like to think of my sister’s liver going to someone who would abuse it over someone who just happen to have a genetic liver issue. She lived a life too short bringing joy and education to many children, her final act saving others would be soured by someone wasting it.
I guess you can also think of alcoholism as a disease too?
It is, or at the very least is a symptom of another one. I have all kinds of addiction issues which is why I must be super careful in my life. I am a former alcoholic who used to drink nearly every day from basically after work until I was too tired to keep going. I also have ADHD and possibly ASD (the latter not officially diagnosed as of now). There seems to be some evidence that those can play a role in addiction.
Somehow I read the article thinkingshe had a kidney problem which we have two of.
How can her boyfriend even donate his liver? Wouldn’t he die?
Something interesting about the liver is that we can regrow it. So it might be possible to take a portion of a liver, put it in another person, and then both those pieces grow into a full or well-enough-functioning liver. I’m not a physician and I don’t know if such a procedure has ever been attempted.
I believe that’s an established procedure. Both the donor and the recipient regrow full livers from the portion they have. You can only donate once though because of how the new liver tissue is structured. I believe the arteries in the new one aren’t in the same place.
Edit: if you read the article it actually tells you her boyfriend was willing to be a live donor.
maybe this is a joke going over my head but you just described a liver transplant. what blew my mind was learning that they don’t take the old liver out, they just squish the new one(the healthy liver sliver if you will) in and let it do it’s thing
Seems like we knew about stem cells before we even knew what they were…
I donated a kidney to a friend earlier this year. The reason his kidneys failed wasn’t anything he was at fault for, but even if it had been because of poor decisions he’d made in the past, I still would have given him one of mine. Because people deserve second chances. I can understand not wanting to give a recovering alcoholic a deceased donor’s liver, when someone else could receive that liver, instead. But this woman’s partner was a match and was willing to donate to her. What’s the harm in that? That isn’t a liver that could have gone to someone else who needed it. It’s a donation that would have either gone to her or no one else. No one could have lost out of the donation had been carried out. This was just cruelty, and now someone is dead. And for what? Because there’s a 15% chance (according to studies the article mentioned) that she might have started drinking again???
It’s not super clear, but the article makes it sound like if a partial graft from a live donor fails, then the recipient is automatically fast tracked for a new transplant from a deceased donor.
If that’s the case then maybe policy should be changed in the case of alcohol abuse.
The policy isn’t there just to be extra nice, it’s because otherwise the patient dies without a liver.
Since she was too sick for a partial liver transplant, and not eligible for a dead donor full liver transplant, she would have just died.
It might seem cruel but the same is done for a lot of other procedures; if the chance of you dying in surgery is way too high, doctors won’t take the risk, they’re not executioners.
It’s not a moral judgement about her alcoholism, the same would have been true if she had a cancer no surgeon would take on.
Surgeon time is precious as well.
So let the free market sort out the organ redistribution problem!
I’m a free market entrepreneur and I’d like to solve your organ shortage and homeless problem all at once.
In the article, it shows that the hospital spent significantly more slowly letting her die than the average cost of the transplant.
The comparison is apples and oranges. They only include the cost of the surgery itself, not the cost of after-surgical care, the potential cost of complications to both the patient and the donor, etc. Then there’s the cost if the partial liver donation doesn’t take, or if the patient relapses.
Obviously, there’s also a lot of potential upside to having the patient survive, I just don’t think the odds of that were all that high.
Since no one has mentioned it, USA has the same policy basically.
And for good reason, really. The supply of livers is too small to save everyone who needs them, so they give them to the people most likely to have a successful outcome. Basically every lived given to one person is sentencing another person to death. That’s just reality with supply being what it is.
Their boyfriend volunteered as a live donor. They weren’t asking to be put on the general register.
Which was determined to be unlikely to be successful given her condition, so she would have just died in the attempt.
The provincial governments in charge of our single payor health care system made the conscious decision to keep the liquor marts open while banning in-person sales of tea kettles (and we call ourselves a commonwealth nation!) during a pandemic.
I think our single payor at least partially did this to themselves.
I’m pretty sure people would’ve stormed parliament if you banned alcohol sales.
