"..And the mother of a young woman whose organs helped to keep five people alive after she died said it was "offensive, terrible and unfair" that an increasing proportion of livers were going to people with serious alcohol problems."

I find it as a complicated issue. On the surface the answer here seems simple (no organ for drinkers), but it is a question of where can we draw the line? what is the ethical model that one can use? is there one? the question is of course focusing with the scarcity of resources. So with the rising costs of health should we treat those who smoke? or eat junk food? should we treat a disabled baby that his father did not want to go through abortion? All these and i am sure there are more examples, are to stress the need for a paradigm that one can work with.

My mother was once refused surgery because of her weight and my dad who has emphysema was told he wasn't eligible for a lung transplant because of his age. In my dads case the truth was because he still smokes and refuses to quit. Fair in my mom's case, no. She has a thyroid problem. In my dads case it was fair to say no. These are just my opinions.

I have been told that a new liver is dependant on not drinking at all in the period up to the transplant from diagnosis. The patient also has to be fit enough to live for a while after the transplant. In my case this will probably wreck my chances as, like tanyamm's father, emphysema will preclude me. My choice and I happily accept the consequences, and I am determined never to lose that point of view.
Medicine can have the treatment available but the patient must make sure the money is spent wisely by doing their bit.

Everyone makes mistakes and, if possible, should get a second chance. It is then a must that the patient becomes responsible for actions and wears the consequences of being arrogant enough to expect further treatment.