healthetank

My understanding was always that Canadian media is dominated by American creations in the art world. The regulations were put in place to subsidize the Canadian artists to help create a national identity separate from the US.

I could be off, but I seem to remember that the requirements for ventilation are less if there is no combustion engine + exhaust fumes present. I'll see if if I can dig up the actual design standards.

Doesn't even have to be solely trains, but a few lanes of busses would help with shorter/End of Line trips as well.

Though this is worth noting that ventilation concerns with tunnels are always a nightmare (one of the reasons there aren't tons of tunnels). Its now turning into an issue where roads cross our 400 series highways, and one of the reasons they're often bridges. As the highway reaches ~4lanes each way, they need to install ventilation of some kind, which has caused problems and forced design adjustments. Look at Barrie where they have a few roads running under the 400. Now that they're trying to widen to 8 lanes, all those crossings are extending into "tunnel" category and have additional requirements. They've been forced to split the highway with an open air section in the middle over those roads in order to ensure proper airflow. This means more land acquisition and higher pricing to build.

Good. I feel like pointing out ties to the top execs of O&G industries miiiight help take the shine off this guy's "man of the people" schtick he's trying to pull? Hopefully?

I mean, moving beyond the loan part, (not a grant, meaning that we will get the money back), is this not what the Canadian population wants? The govt investing money to provide alternative options to the big 3 for internet?

Call me jaded, but I imagine they'll get bought up in 5-10 by Robellus, but it's a step in the right direction.

Beyond that, do we really want our critical infrastructure tied to a company with such a shoddy and unpredictable "face man"?

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.