Two articles have caught my eye recently. The first is actually from Toronto. An alcoholic was in need of a new liver, and part of the criteria listed are that a person have six months' sobriety under their belt before they are a viable candidate. Given this man's advanced alcoholism, he never got close to that length of time: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/l ... -1.2934786 The other article I cannot find, but it dealt with presumed consent. Instead of our current laws (which require a person to actively donate their organs, or at least people advised to act on behalf of a dying patient), the law, it argues, should be changed so that you automatically donate unless you choose to opt out while you're still alive: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/hea ... e20705846/ Focus: I don't think we've ever had a discussion on organ donation. Which is a better option: the status quo, or presumed consent? Alt Focus: Should a person's lifestyle dictate whether or not they can receive donated organs? Alcoholics are required to show that they can remain sober prior to surgery. However, what if they can't? Should that preclude them from life-saving treatment? This also applies to drug users, morbidly obese patients, etc.