Yeah, that survival rate is for people that do not start drinking again… So, likely not her you know

Oh so you want me to explain to you why there are medical directives that rule out life long alcoholics from receiving incredibly scarce organs for transplant?

There is a ton of info here (first link after googling alcoholism and relapsing)

https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/alcohol-abuse/alcohol-relapse-statistics/

It’s literally what the article said… she stopped drinking after diagnosis

Here, second hand from her partner (my emphasis)

Her partner Nathan Allan says he and her physicians petitioned four times for permission to get her a transplant, the only treatment that would possibly save her life. ->Huska, he said, stopped drinking as soon as she was diagnosed with Alcohol Liver Disease on March 3<- and had also registered for an alcohol cessation program to begin once she was discharged.

Stopping to drink for a few weeks after you realize you are about to die from drinking… doesn’t really make a difference here. Unfortunately, she was an alcoholic for most of her life and, before diagnosis, did not show any capacity to quit

So, even if she did stopped drinking 100% after May… it was just too late

I’m sorry, maybe I’m just daft this week, but I missed the concept “the doctors believed her liver is so far gone, a partial would lot [sic] work” in that.

This was posted like 5 times and I assumed it was the same article… I’ll find the link to the original one where they detailed this. In any case, she was not eligible because she was likely to go back to drinking and ruin the new liver…

So where does the article state she kept drinking while waiting for the transplant?

I never said that… what the article says is that she was an alcoholic since late teens and was never able to stop. She literally only stopped drinking after she found out she was going to die, and that was only like 3 months. She tried to quit before but never succeeded… that tells you she was a super high risk of relapsing

“minimal abstinence outside of hospital.”

This means she kept on drinking while not hospitalized

The rest is standard boilerplate, they can’t speak about her detailed case in public

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

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

That is because her boyfriend could only give her a partial transplant (he cannot donate his whole liver) and the doctors did not think it would work as her liver was too far gone to recover with a partial transplant

The rest of your comment is so far from reality or logic, I’m not going to bother addressing it

I completely disagree. People should be able to make mistakes.

You are allowed to make mistakes… What you are not allowed to do is skip the consequences

It’s not like you can pick a liver at Walmart and give it a try. That liver could save someone else, giving it to an alcoholic is likely to only buy her a tad more time untill she relapsed

Did you bother to read the article?

Did you? Her liver was so far gone, doctors did lot believe a partial transplant would work

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

He has a platform? Every time I check is just angry “I’m better than Trudeau” statements

So exactly JD Vance’s stand

Well I’m happy a war was fought to liberate them and bring them the joys of deMoCRacy and cheap beer

I totally understand where you are coming from and agree in those particular examples; sure, the characters give us something to watch but without understanding what is actually happening, the story loses tons of steam

In the case of Civil War I think it works because of the following (no spoilers):

• Unlike those other movies, we all know what a Civil War is, so “filling the blanks” is not as critical
• Whatever caused it, happened a bit back. You start the movie towards what feels like the end of the war and nobody is trying to stop the war or solve the problem; because of that, you are not focusing on the reasons why it started
• You follow journalists in the movie and they make it clear they are there to report what is happening, not to provide commentary. Again this moves you away from “why is this happening” mindset
• Finally, yes they do provide enough to make an educated guess. They even provide one which is presented as the “final straw” that started it all. You won’t get the play-by-play sequence but it was enough for me to fill in the blanks

Cinematography is amazing and it does have that odd vibe that A24 movies have. I liked this movie a lot.

Apparently, the movie never explains why there is a war, which would annoy me too much.

This is true, but it’s not what the movie is about so not really an important part.

They drop enough hints to satisfy curiosity but they do not go into details

Oh no, poor Putin

But remember, when god closes a door, he certainly opens a window…

Nah, those are just Brazilian tourists now

And they won’t without bloodshed… Thinking that it can be done diplomatically is noble but I sincerely can’t see it