A partial liver transplant wasn't viable for someone this sick, so when the partial transplant failed, they would have to resort to a full transplant from a dead donor, or she would die in operation.

Since she wasn't eligible, a partial transplant was just a death sentence.

Takes up valuable hospital times

Well, stopped drinking when she got the diagnosis, not before, didn't comply with medical advice to stop drinking before hospitalization, and as they said in the article there are a lot of criteria for a living donation, and it's only an option if you otherwise qualify for a donation because of the possibility of rejection requiring an urgent transplant.

A different article said they were trying to raise funds to get the transplant done at an unspecified European hospital, so "yes". I think it's telling that they didn't go to the US, a north American country, or specify the country.
It's worth remembering that the only people who can talk freely are the people who were decided against and are talking about suing.

No one wanted her to die, but with organ transplants it's a case where you're more or less picking who will die. Phrasing it as being punished for bad behavior is unfair to the people who need to decide which people are likely enough to benefit, which isn't easy.

Jesus Christ that’s fucked up. Only 36 too and stopped drinking…

From the article:

Amanda Huska died Aug. 15 after spending six months in an Oakville, Ont. hospital.

and:

Huska, he said, stopped drinking as soon as she was diagnosed with Alcohol Liver Disease on March 3

So that sounds like she was immediately admitted (which implies she was already very sick) and only was sober in the hospital. In my opinion, that doesn't qualify for "stopped drinking" and unfortunately she didn't get a chance to prove whether or not she was actually able to stop.

I was reading through the article and I think the policy in question is this

Transplant guidelines in Ontario and much of Canada require patients with ALD to first qualify for a deceased donor liver. If they don't meet that criteria, they aren't considered for a living liver transplant, even if one is available.

Also this

"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.

As for why that is, I'm not familiar. I've asked someone else and I'll edit in more if I learn more

In Canada, drinking more than 3 drinks per week is medically considered "high alcohol use" for a woman... (6 for a man). This limit keeps getting lower year after year

If this can prevent you from getting organ transplants, then it encourages lying to your medical doctor about your current habits... That lady was not considered alcoholic, she just used alcohol in greater amount than the limit considered acceptable by doctors.

Latest stats show that almost 4 out of 5 people has exceeds that limit at some point in their life. This woman died only because she was honest with her doctor about her alcohol use. (Note that the article says her partner was a compatible donor but the system refused to accept him because she used alcohol. It's not about lacking donors.)

I'd be inclined to agree, except that her partner wanted to donate HIS liver and was prohibited from doing so as a living donation due to the alcohol use determination.

In my country, everyone is an organ donor unless they specifically opt out. Usually due to religion.

I've been seeing organ transportation ambulances near my city's hospital from time to time. It's weird to see, but a good thing.

And for good reason, really. The supply of livers is too small to save everyone who needs them, so they give them to the people most likely to have a successful outcome. Basically every lived given to one person is sentencing another person to death. That's just reality with supply being what it is.

Honestly I find that the opposite of grim, I wish more problems were solved in a cold and calculated way.

Or maybe read the article?

Occasional alcohol use won't put you in this situation (hopefully you'll never be in this situation for any reason)

However, of the reason you need a liver is that you wrecked your own with booze; you are unlikely to get another one

It's not super clear, but the article makes it sound like if a partial graft from a live donor fails, then the recipient is automatically fast tracked for a new transplant from a deceased donor.

If that's the case then maybe policy should be changed in the case of alcohol abuse.

Surgeon time is precious as well.

This isn't what happened though. She was addicted to alcohol, per her partner, got diagnosed with needing a new liver, she immediately quit alcohol, and they denied her anyway even though quite a bit of time had passed while she was sober. I am unaware if her liver disease was because of the previous regular alcohol use. It wasn't just 1 drink though.

Yes, organ donation is messed up. I met a girl dying in hospice once. She needed a new kidney. Genetic stuff, and then when she was 15 she tried to kill herself with Tylenol. She got her first transplant before the suicide attempt. She was denied a second one due to the suicide attempt itself. There are only so many organs in the world. She died in agony in hospice, young and covered in calcium deposits.

We punish substance use and mental health so harshly in this country. No one deserves the death penalty for previous substance use, especially for alcohol which is ancient af. It's horrible she was denied when there was a liver already available.