George Best

You clearly know nothing at all about medical ethics, so, by default, mine.

 

And you clearly work from the assumption that medical ethics are by default correct - medical ethics work for the patient (no?) - so there can be no judgment of what the patient does after treatment (pls correct me if Im wrong, I am no doctor). In this case medical ethics go against morality. Its a dificult balance, but Im firmly in the 'waste of an organ' camp here.

Maybe he should have been identified as untreatable? If he hadnt gone private could this have happened? Who knows?

 

Urm, have you got a time machine or an ability to see into the future? I thought not.

That's just a TAD presumptuous saying "you or I", when NO-ONE knows what they, or anyone else can or will do in the future. You might not think you'll achieve the same greatness (supposed - I don't follow football so wouldn't know if he was really talented or not!) as GB, but you can't say I, Lamboy, or anyone else here or elsewhere won't go on to do great things one day in life just because you don't expect yourself to.

I could have the answer to world peace for example (I know I don't, but you don't know that).

One thing I *can* tell you is that if I was given a new internal organ, I'd treat it properly - whether I'd abused the first one or not.

 

If I told you that all chronic liver diseases recur in the grafted liver, would that be of any interest to you?

 

Nope, because it would be wildly off topic. But interesting nonetheless.

 

At the City match it was mainly Liverpool shouting, the 'legends' on the side of the pitch were all blue. I'm told the reason some Liverpool fans booed was that United fans booed the Hillsborough silence. Like I've said it's all very unnecessary, Georges death was not a national issue, and those that wanted to observe should have done, the rest of us shouldn't have had it foisted upon us.

 

If you can't understand why that information is relevant, then this conversation may be brought to a close.

 

Well it's certainly of interest to me. Blast it! I was counting on 60 years of moderate drinking from my first liver and another 50 years from my second.

 

Agreed, its about morality not livers.

Closed.

 

Dom I've met you. Trust me, neither you nor I are not going to touch as many people's lives as best did. Get used to it. It will make your mundane existance far more palatable.

Amusing attempt at an arguement though.

 

Thats a bit harsh isnt it?

 

Damn right... As I say, have you got a time machine? I didn't say I *would* do better than someone like Best, but that doesn't mean I won't or couldn't.

If you want to sell yourself short, go ahead, but don't try to do it to me. No-one's future's set in stone after all.

For example, that man who made himself into a human bridge in the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster was a normal person with a "mundane existence" until that moment. He then went on to save 3 people's lives, and died in the process (IIRC). That's a f*** sight more than Best did. All IMHO of course.

 

Good point. If I had a time machine I would already be responsible for as many significant inventions of the last millenium or two as I could think of, thus making me the richest, most powerful, most loved and adored etc etc blah blah blah. Of course, I'd give a lot of the money to charity.....ha ha ha. I'm fairly confident that if I had a time machine, I could comfortably eclipse George Best on a lot of levels, but not on a football pitch. Or drinking. I'm not sure about women, as having that much money and power would make me more attractive to some women, and perhaps my extra confidence would pay off also.

On a more serious note, your point on the ferry disaster hero is ridiculous.

 

No, it's realistic. It would be harsh if I said it to a minor.

Aw come on! Even you can't remember the guy's name! Little chance of it raising a smile in Korea is there?

 

If one accepts the premise that alcoholics don't deserve liver transplants, then it follows that we shouldn't treat smokers, the obese, those with sports injuries, or have any mountain rescue teams.

 

This whole "shouldn't have been given a liver" argument is another example of the Neo Puritanism that rears it head on this board every so often.

There are several important points to remember in all of this that imo should have led to a deep and undisturbed silence being observed on saturday.
1) George Best was in essence a thoroughly nice chap.
2) He was, undeniably, an incredible footballer.
3) He was afflicted with an awful disease which led to the more questionable aspects of his behaviour.
4) The above points result in a tragic story of a lost legend and wasted life and talent.

This wasn't just a case of a life of excess and a selfish catatonic existence, its a case of an afflicted man unable to fight against the negatives that gripped his life.

To turn your back (literally) on this is just plainly wrong and ignorant. You have to accept that addiction is not just something you can 'snap out of' especially when you have the pressures of being under intense scrutiny from a witch hunting media.

The story of Marco Pantani the cyclist is similar, great talent thrown away due to cocaine addiction and another great personality lost from a sport.

In the end these stories are simply tragic and saddening.

 

I don't know - many people go on to achieve greatness later on in life

True - unless one of the people he saved was a Korean

 

Thank god I didnt say that!

You'll be praising that Geordie tyke Gazza next. After all, these really good footballers cant do anything wrong.

 

Afflicted with an awful disease? Children with Leukaemia are afflicted with an awful disease - it's not their fault they have it and it takes a little more than simple self control to cure it.

Best, on the other hand, decided to start drinking, became addicted and didn't have the self discipline to stop. Tony Adams found himself in the same boat - tragic alcoholic who ended up in prison - but had the strength of character to change for the beter - Best was weak by comparison.

My take on him generally is that he appears to have been a really nice, decent bloke when he was sober but a real a-hole when p1ssed. Unfortunately he seems to have spent over half of his life as a drunken tw@t.

I also think that because he had such natural talent, he never had to work particularly hard and so when faced with something that required a lot of hard work and dedication - namely staying off the booze - he was exposed as a rather weak and pathetic man.

Matt.

 

I'm not praising him...I'm saying he had a disease, I'm saying its tragic. Some of you seem to think alcoholism is a case of giving yourself a good talking to and snapping out of it, as the wise words of Matt show below. I've no experience of it but I recognise that theres a hell of a lot more to it than that. Maybe you should ask yourself if you fully understand it before passing judgement.