Are you trying to argue that alcoholism shouldn't be a factor AT ALL for liver donations, or that living donations shouldn't also need to meet the standard full liver donation standards?

Lol I quoted something from not just this article, but a second article they link to from the one above, but sure.

They blocked her, at least in part, because she was an active alcoholic who had not shown any signs of changing her behaviour outside of time inside the hospital. Something that would have weighed on their decision included medical information such as previous attempts to stop drinking. Mental health care, including healthcare for addictions, is lacking in Canada. You can't force someone to go into rehab, but offering better care and options might have helped her in the past.

As said in the main article as well as the one I read, in order to qualify for a living donation you need to qualify for a full donation, because if something goes wrong you'll need a full liver ASAP and get bumped to the top of the list.

Medical notes suggest she started drinking in her late teens and had tried -- unsuccessfully -- to quit. After periods of sobriety, she returned to alcohol, which could increase the risk of continued use after the transplant.

Allen says Huska registered for an addiction program early on in her hospital stay to stop drinking after she's discharged. Hospital records also say she suffers from anxiety.

From the first article CTV made about this, linked in in the first sentence they posted. Seems like we need to actually fund mental health care in this country or something, because she's obviously been struggling for a while. You can see how the board would weigh previous failed attempts to quit against her.

So some rough numbers I found from places online for rough estimates. Also, the link the article has for bed costs is actually to a study on liver transplant costs.

On average, 25 days in hospital between pre/post transplant. Of that, seems like a few days (varies by person) is in ICU. So thats 50 days of beds for the two of them, with say a week of combined ICU time.

Plus two surgeries - the article only takes an average cost of liver transplants, which is not indicative of a second surgery needed for a living donor transplant.

That puts the cost up to ~240,000-300,000. That cost is close enough that I can see it not being a factor for the decision.

Plus living donation means the donatee needs recovery time and a bed as well.

But doctors say that people with severe liver disease from alcohol use may need more than just a partial living liver donation to thrive.

"The sicker someone is, the more they benefit from getting an entire liver from a deceased donor, as opposed to part of the liver from a living donor," said Dr. Saumya Jayakumar, a liver specialist in Edmonton and an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry at the University of Alberta.

"On the off chance their (living) liver doesn't work, they urgently get listed for a deceased donor," said Jayakumar. "We need to make sure that everyone who is a candidate for a living donor is also a candidate for a donor graft as well, " she added.

Guy you were responding to wasn't entirely accurate with what the article says, but general idea is there. If the partial liver fails, then they immediately get added to the full liver list, which is why they need to meet the full liver list requirements. Based on how end-stage she was, it sounds like its less likely the partial would be successful.

Damn, can't imagine sending over the funds for a house purchase and the lawyers taking it - who would be the ones on the hook there? Do the buyers still keep the house, or are the sellers still in ownership?

I don't even know how they can make this right - hopefully its covered under malpractice insurance, but what a nightmare for their clients.

As a teenager, Poilievre had a job at Telus doing corporate collections by calling businesses.[16] He also later worked briefly as a journalist for Alberta Report, a conservative weekly magazine.[17]

Neither of these are hourly jobs.

In 2003, Poilievre founded a company called 3D Contact Inc. with business partner Jonathan Denis,[29] who became an Alberta Cabinet minister years later. Their company focused on providing political communications, polling and research services.[30] After founding the company, Poilievre ran for MP as a member of the Conservative Party of Canada, which had recently been formed from a merger the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives.

This wouldn't be an hourly job either. The links to the source for him starting this company don't list Poilievre as a director, or any other sign that he actually started this company, or what his role at it was. I've tried searching but can't find anything else that verifies this.

You say this like it isn't literally any country's leaders. Are there any you can point to that don't do the same things you blame NA countries for?

this place gives you a nice area not to be judged about asking it. Everyone here is willing to help.

Lol, good info in the middle two sentences, way too much judging on either side. This guy is here to ask a question significantly more involved than "How to tie shoes", the example in the sidebar, and you treat him like an idiot. Nice.

Disappointing they've been sent to arbitration. Just a good reminder that the Liberals are not the party for unions/workers.

Glad the government refused to arbitrate at this point, and glad rail workers were deemed non-essential by the CIRB, meaning they can strike.

CN has been pulling in crazy profits, and is greedy and doesn't want to share. They posted a net income increase of ~500mil last year.

Why we keep trying to build more highways to alleviate congestion is beyond me.

Its an idea that has been consistently and thoroughly debunked since the 80s. No one who studies traffic has ever suggested highway upsizing to decrease congestion as anything more than a very temporary stop gap. Single or dual occupancy vehicles cannot continue to be the primary way we commute to work in a dense area like Toronto. It simply will not work, full stop. We can fight against the idea, but we're wasting our time and money.

We need high density solutions. TTC line 1 was built in the 50s. Line 2 in the 60s, which comprise 64km of the current 70km in use. Line 3 was added in the 80s, but has been decommissioned due to maintenance costs and poor performance, but even that was only 6km. Why have we barely expanded the system since the city consisted of 30% of the current population?

We used to have more rail lines running throughout the province, mostly privately owned. They have since been discontinued with the advent of trucking. Why have we not reintroduced rail service? Canada as a whole is low population density, but the Niagara-Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor has more than enough people to justify a regular rail line.

The Bradford Bypass and Highway 413 are an estimated 8-10$ billion, on the low end. Combine with his current proposed cuts to transit funding of ~$150 million, and it paints a clear picture of his priorities.

I feel like the rest of the sentence is important for those skimming for the important bits -

together made 52.6 per cent of all corporate capital gains reported in Canada between 2018 and 2022.

That's a stupidly large percentage of the capital gains reported. The argument that capital gains tax stifles innovate is argued against in the report as well

The report also finds there's no historical correlation between capital gains taxes and business investment in machinery, equipment and intellectual property.

Interesting start, and I hope they receive more funding, but I can't see how a two year (max participant length of 4yrs) period is near long enough to confirm that these changes are solely due to age and not some other, personal factors or generational factor.

For those interested in the actual study (non-paywalled) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7301912/

Fair enough, but if they wind up misusing the power it won't be long before someone makes a big stink and brings it to the human rights tribunal claiming they violate due process, and then it will be up to the courts to decide. I'd be surprised if it did, since historically our committees and groups like this tend to do less, rather than more, but it may happen.

It won't punish 'free thinkers' but it will punish those who have used online spaces as a free space to incite hatred, as it has been defined in Supreme Court hearings, which involves it being hatred targeted towards "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability." Based on this definition, it cannot be used against those who hate Trudeau/make jokes about him for things he has or has not done, as he is not distinguished by colour, race, religion, etc.

I would also point out that we already have " public encitment of hatred" as a law, and Canada has set bars or things that something must meet in order to classify. Adding the same crime to online places shouldn't be that wild.

For sure, but that applies to literally everything - decarbonization of the energy grid/moving away from gas is a huge factor for literally every aspect of life, particularly farming and red meat. The energy involved in creating meat is significantly higher than any other foods, which is why I disagreed with your point. We have an alternative for meat, but there isnt one for concrete. Using it as a comparison is a poor argument.

Arguing that conditionally essential amino acids are not found elsewhere is a misleading argument. In addition to the fact that all of those three can be created by your body, Taurine is found in lentils, a staple of many vegan diets, seaweed can contain creatine, and carnitine can be found in trace amounts in most foods. None of them are as dense as meat, for sure, but there are numerous sources, plus supplements.

To reduce the environmental impact of food, which applies to all food and not just meat, we need to accept the idea of not having excess of everything. We don’t need 5 different cuts of meat from 3 different brands. We don’t need 5 different kinds of apples. We don’t need a whole shopping isle filled with… Goodness knows how many different kinds of cereal.

Definitely agree with this, but its probably just as hard a sell, and much less feasible to do on an individual level.

I mean the difference is that concrete has a function and is largely irreplaceable. The argument most vegans make is that animals are not functionally needed in order to fulfill the "food" requirement of living. Concrete is, by large, used for houses and structures which provide shelter, and there are no viable alternatives.

"Party of the people" guys, I promise