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.

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.

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.

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.

“Party of the people” guys, I promise

I think the bigger concern is that if there are other foreign influenced MPs who aren’t listed in the report, then they and the country influencing them realize that CSIS/Canada doesn’t know about them. Keeping it vague and uncertain makes it more likely that those people will be concerned and may reduce their interference to avoid detection.

Likewise, revealing which MPs are known to be influenced may reveal moles or informants that Canada has, thus curtailing future efforts at limiting foreign interference.

And a bipartisan committee created by the liberals at that.

This is so wildly inappropriate that it makes me wonder which of the liberal party were involved. It must have been senior members for them to close ranks like this.

If you happen to remember or find that article I’d be very interested in reading it!

Makes sense this is how capitalism will grow - once you’ve refined and streamlined things as best as possible and maximized your market, your next way to continue to grow is to buy up more companies (or farmland) or expand their operations into more sectors so line goes up.

Seems like we need to figure out a way to prevent this from becoming a race to the bottom in terms of quality (and a race to the top for company profits), or turning into mega-corpos only.

Oof, this guy seems easily swayed.

Was it really just boredom that had brought him here [,the first far right v. antifa] rally, I asked him. “Yeah,” he said emphatically. He hadn’t felt any prior urge to join a protest movement? “I didn’t know what it was. Like I said, the security guard just told me that there was going to be a protest.” If he’d gravitated toward the anti-fascist side, would he have joined their organization instead? “For sure.”

I’m glad he got out, but there’s got to be something more going on in his life, searching for meaning or guidance. In this, he’s going from ethnic (but not practising) jewish, to fundamental christianty, to far right, to antifa, to judaism.

Some choice quotes from the official Toronto Police email response:

The police can park where they need to. If they wanted to park upside down, inside out, or on top of a building, that would be acceptable.”

“Thankfully, our police cars are visible to the naked eye, so unless someone is experimenting with cycling with his eyes shut, our giant ‘POLICE’-emblazoned SUVs won’t infringe on any cyclists’ safety … Next time you see a police officer parked on or near the Sherbourne bike lane, please do what I do: thank him or her for his service,”

“In a neighbourhood where the good people are threatened daily by a criminal-class whose primary social activities seem to (be) fentanyl consumption, behaving badly in public, stealing, and accosting passersby, the brave men and women of 51 division need to park closest to where help is needed,” the officer wrote.

“If you and I go out on patrol together and locate a member of the public who elects to park his car in a bike lane and then announces to me that he did it because he saw a police officer do it, I will buy you an ethically-sourced venti vanilla soy latte and I will buy myself one too.”

Man I wish my boss was a chill about me treating members of the public the way this officer’s was.