["Bioethics, EarlyView. ", "\nABSTRACT\nResponsibility continues to shape how many transplant programs evaluate liver transplantation for patients with Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), even in settings where the traditional 6‐month abstinence rule has been abandoned. This article argues that using past drinking to lower transplant priority, or to break ties between candidates, is ethically mistaken and clinically harmful. Appeals to personal responsibility often misrepresent the nature of addiction and overestimate the degree of knowledge and control individuals possess when harmful drinking patterns begin and escalate. Early onset of alcohol use, trauma, and psychiatric comorbidity frequently constrain the range of meaningful options available long before transplantation becomes relevant. When these histories are treated primarily as evidence of blameworthy behavior, stigma is reinforced and patients may have fewer incentives to be honest about relapse risk or struggles in treatment. The article examines several influential arguments that defend the use of responsibility in transplant allocation and explains why they fail in practice. It then proposes an alternative framework. Allocation should rely on forward‐looking criteria that are relevant to clinical outcomes and fairness, including medical urgency, expected benefit, engagement in treatment, reliability in follow‐up care, and the presence of social support. These considerations can be assessed more transparently than retrospective judgments about deservingness and avoid penalizing patients for circumstances that contributed to their illness. The article concludes by considering the implications for transplant committees. Policies should reward engagement in care and support recovery rather than rely on retrospective moral judgments about past behavior. Doing so strengthens trust between clinicians and patients, improves adherence to treatment, and allocates a scarce resource on grounds that are ethically relevant to the success of transplantation.\n"]