I only skimmed through the article as I read it, but in my mind, I was shocked. The thought crept into my mind that irrespective of the NHS’s rules, was denying a liver transplant to a teenager deemed to be “critically ill” fair? Up to a certain extent, it seemed horrendous and shocking that the NHS which is meant to look after all citizens of Great Britain equally actually denied a boy something that could potentially save him from death. But then, I thought, if he chose to binge drink or drink heavily, and it was thoroughly his decision, hasn’t he carved his death into his future any way? Maybe it was right for the NHS to deny him a liver transplant because he brought himself into a very saddening state in the first place. The NHS could provide liver transplants to others who probably didn’t do anything alcohol related but still required medical attention. Were these alcoholics ‘stealing’ other patients of their right to live, just because the drinkers feel that their medical needs should be prioritised? As much as this logic made sense to me, my heart started ruling my head and I thought, alcoholic or not, heavy drinker or not, was it really right to deny someone the right to life? Maybe the NHS rules were made for a reason that six months should be alcohol free but if a person’s life was in grave danger, whether he chose to do something detrimental to his health or not, shouldn’t he be given the appropriate amount of medical attention? Many others who go to the NHS would probably have a condition that was probably far less life threatening than his, but was it right that they should be treated before him, just because he caused his own misery and they didn’t?

Thoughts crippled my mind and I still can’t decide whether denying someone medical care is right or not. My mind says that if he digs his own grave, he should rest in it, but a softer side of me feels that he should be given good medical care because as a British citizen, it is his right.

Gareth’s father protested that the rules of drinking set by the NHS were set for older drinkers who probably intoxicated themselves a lot more and said that his son’s drinking habits weren’t any different to other teenagers’ habits. What he has made is a valid point but are the NHS’s rules the final decision? A young adult and a fully matured adult’s bodies are completely different so should there be separate rules made? Is Gareth being made to suffer because the rules set are made from the experience of having older patients who suffer the same medical issues? Is Gareth’s life being compromised for the sake of other drinkers who have forced the making of these rules?

The NHS is a good service but it has disappointed in the past and these “rules”, I felt, although rigid, must have some leeway for special cases. Gareth has now been moved from Ulster Hospital in Northern Ireland to the specialist liver unit at King’s College Hospital, London in the hope that his state will be stabilised and he can be out of danger again. But that’s not all, it was also reported that despite having being told he only has about 2 weeks to live, Gareth still left the hospital to look for a pint in a pub. The pub staff denied him any alcohol because they recognised him from the hospital. Does this support the NHS’s cause to not treat him? That despite making the effort, Gareth still wants to make his situation worse for himself? Is that folly or is that just suppressing an unstoppable need for alcohol?

But even though he is being treated now, this is just one instance where this has happened. What’s to say that something like this won’t happen again? My mind filled with other thoughts that of drinkers, smokers and any others who did drugs. All these groups of people chose to take up lifestyles which they probably know will wither them with age, but still they chose it. What if they are in grave danger soon? Will they be denied medical assistance just because a so-called set of “rules” doesn’t abide with their condition? Or will they be denied essential care because they’ve taken up lifestyles that make these medical conditions inevitable? But then, if a person continues to break the “rules” and continues to engage in an act that could be injurious to him, maybe it is right that they not be given any medical care just to “teach them a lesson”. If they take up a bad habit, they should probably learn to get rid of it the hard way. I guess this is a debate that will go on forever, but I can’t make up my mind between what the NHS did was right or wrong, even if the rules didn’t exist.