Doctors make decisions as to treatment based on likely prognosis all the time.
My point is not that patient A, Hep-C positive, should be denied a liver transplant. It's whether he should receive the liver that 9 other people also need, all of whom have a better likelihood of the transplant being successful.
I thought this was a very large factor in the difference between liberals and conservatives. We recognize there are no solutions, only tradeoffs, whereas liberals insist there are no hard choices that have to be made. They believe we can have zero pollution, total sexual freedom, a booming economy and social justice all at the same time, without any negative side effects.
If George gets the liver, Sally won't. We don't have the choice of giving a liver to each of them, we only have one liver.
From what you wrote, I get the impression that you think HCV is obtained only from hedonistic practices. I assure you, that is not the case. Or perhaps I misunderstood.
In any event, I maintain that if they limit liver transplants to only non-HCV positive people, that doesn’t guarantee that the they will thrive any more than those with HCV. There are so many factors.
I am not liberal in my views, but staunchly stand up for the right to life. Government or “death panels” playing God never ends well—see Germany for one example.