Article content continued

The lawsuit was just filed by Toronto’s Debra Selkirk, whose late husband, Mark, died after doctors refused to transplant even a piece of her own liver into him until he’d been dry half a year.

Selkirk’s case argues that the widely followed guidelines violate the right to life, liberty and security of the person, essentially condemning hundreds of alcoholic patients for no justifiable reason.

Continue reading…

[/np_storybar]

Since known living donors — family and friends — may be willing to donate directly to an alcoholic loved one, but would not simply give up part of their livers to an unknown individual, these donors are not so much allowing their loved ones to jump the queue as they are removing the loved ones from the queue altogether.

This was apparently the case with Debra Selkirk, whose dying husband Mark Selkirk was ineligible to receive a transplant of liver tissue from his willing wife because he’d only been “dry” for six weeks. Mark died due to his acute alcoholic hepatitis months before doctors would have been prepared to even consider him as a transplant recipient; now Debra has launched a constitutional challenge to the six-month rule.

The Post’s Robyn Urback has argued previously that although Mark Selkirk’s story is tragic, the six-month rule is necessary. She pointed out that the organ transplant system might benefit from different rules for living and cadaver donors. But she concluded that even in a known living donor situation, which would not take an organ away from another waiting recipient — a situation such as Debra Selkirk donating liver tissue to her husband Mark — precious hospital and physician resources would be expended on the alcoholic patient rather than on someone else.