Case Study Cary Gallant

My personal opinion on the Cary Gallant case is that the people on the top of the waiting list should be those who are youngest and most in need for a liver transplant. It should not matter if the person is an alcoholic or not, if they desperately need one they deserve to be at the top of the list. The reason why I say youngest is that the younger people have their whole life ahead of them, and if they need a liver transplant at a young age, they deserve to get one. We should not be judging the person with their relationship with alcohol, if there is a risk that they would not survive the six months of being sober, there is no reasonable reason they cannot be on the list. Besides, if I was in the position of Cary Gallant or another person with

an alcohol addiction and it was likely I would not survive before the six months, I am certain that I would not be inclined to support this rule. From reading articles about people that have been negatively affected by the rule, I think people who did not agree with alcoholics being on the waiting list would change their mind if they or someone they loved were in the shoes of Cary Gallant. I agree with the choice the organization made with running a three-year pilot program because it gives people the chance to see if it was a wise decision without making it a permanent change. The University of Pittsburgh suggested that a three-month sobriety wait might have more success than six months. I think that if the Trillium Gift of Life Network went with that pilot program first, then the no sobriety test after, it might have had been more appealing to those who are completely opposed to alcoholics being on the list. I feel like the outcome of the case was the best outcome possible, and that everyone involved should be happy that there is a pilot run in affect that is not putting anyone to harm.