We’re longtime fans of Lou Reed (“Walk on the Wild Side” is the ringtone for our phone) so we were happy to hear that he survived his liver transplant last month. His wife, performance artist Laurie Anderson, just talked about the surgery in a UK paper. Former Velvet Underground singer Reed, 71, had mysteriously canceled all his April appearances and Laurie said he was “dying” before the transplant was done in a Cleveland hospital. Reed has always been open about his long battles with alcohol and drugs. Which, of course, brings up the ethical dilemma: do people who self-indulgently destroy their own livers deserve to compete for the scarce liver transplants with sick children and adults who did nothing wrong? And where does fame fit into all of this?
About The Author
Fame and or money buy you an organ, end of story. My friend’s sister died a few weeks ago, waiting for a lung transplant. My own opinion is that no, if you willfully destroyed your body you should go to the bottom of the list but I’m sure many do not agree with me. More people should sign up to be organ donors for sure.
I agree with Palermo I believe they do get special treatment. There is a cut off age but that doesn’t seem to matter. Just like Cheney received a new heart also. I just don’t think it is fair. You destroyed your organ and now someone may die because they picked you.
Well hopefully he learned his excesses,and I wish him well in his recovery.
Walk on the Wild Side.
Agree with Palermo.
Larry Hagman got a liver transplant, and he liked to party. Maybe it’s the money factor.
If you have money, there will be somebody willing to sell. It’s an age old saga that will never change.
……..and a bottle of Vodka.
agree with Palermo.
I’ve always loved Laurie Anderson, she’s so smart! And you bring up some good ethical questions JC . . . glad he’s recovering well anyhow.