One Woman Death Panel: Sebelius Won’t Allow Dying Girl to Have Transplant

life news ^ | Steven Ertelt

[Morgana]

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is refusing to intervene in a case of a young girl who needs a lung transplant as doctors have only given her weeks to live.

From a local news report:

The Newtown Square girl has been hospitalized for three months with end-stage cystic fibrosis.

Sarah is not giving up hope. She wants to be a singer, but needs a lung transplant to live. Her parents have been with her constantly while she waits at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

“She worries that she’s dying, because she’s not — she’s a smart kid. And she says to me, ‘Mommy, will I wake up tomorrow morning?’” said Janet Murnaghan.

Organ donation rules require adult lungs to be offered first to people over the age of 12. Sarah’s parents say that’s not fair.

“Rules are meant to be broken. My child is not a statistic. She’s a person,” said Janet.

Sebelius says she doesn’t want to intervene in the transplant case when other sick children are dying, but Sarah’s family says hey want the policy changed for all children awaiting a lung transplant, not just Sarah.

Sarah’s aunt Sharon Ruddock says older children should be eligible for adult lungs because so few pediatric lungs are available.

She says that would add just 20 children to the 1,600 people on the adult waiting list.

Sebelius has called for a review of transplant policies, but the Murnaghans says Sarah doesn’t have time for that

Sarah’s parents have launched a public relations campaign to try to get the rules changed and an online petition in support of Sarah has been created with thousands of supporters.

Congressman Patrick Meehan stepped in and sent a letter to the Secretary of Health and Human Services requesting that she address the tragic unfairness and act to give Sarah a chance at life.

Meanwhile, members of Congress asked Sebelius during a congressional hearing about Sarah’s case:

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius rebuffed an appeal from Rep. Lou Barletta, R-Pa., on behalf of a girl who needs a lung transplant but can’t get one because of a federal regulation that prevents her from qualifying for a transplant.

“Please, suspend the rules until we look at this policy,” Rep. Lou Barletta, R-Pa., asked Sebelius during a House hearing Tuesday on behalf of Sarah Murnaghan, a 10-year-old girl who needs a lung transplant. She can’t qualify for an adult lung transplant until the age of 12, according to federal regulations, but Sebelius has the authority to waive that rule on her behalf. The pediatric lungs for which she qualifies aren’t available.

“I would suggest, sir, that, again, this is an incredibly agonizing situation where someone lives and someone dies,” Sebelius replied. “The medical evidence and the transplant doctors who are making the rule — and have had the rule in place since 2005 making a delineation between pediatric and adult lungs, because lungs are different than other organs — that it’s based on the survivability [chances].”

[Forward the Light Brigade]

Cold heartless Liberal-—using a procrestian Bed as an excuse- the old French had a saying—all good laws, have exceptions, only bad laws are rigid.

[VeritatisSplendor]

There are two separate issues that need to be distinguished from each other. One issue is whether it is ok to get an exception made to a good rule, and the other is whether it is ok to challenge a bad rule. You can’t judge the situation and distinguish between the two cases, unless you are willing to actually evaluate the specific rule.

There used to be rules saying there had to be separate blood banks for black people and white people. It was eventually decided by the courts, after expert testimony, that this rule was not actually necessary and it was causing harm due to the lost opportunities for matching donors to recipients, and discriminating illegally.

Now there is a rule saying there have to be separate organ banks for adults and children, and it is claimed that this rule is also not actually necessary and causes harm due to the lost opportunities for matching donors to recipients, and discriminating illegally.

These situations are exactly parallel structurally. That doesn’t mean they must reach the same result, because the medical facts may be different enough to change the result, but there is just as much moral right to challenge the rule in court as there was to challenge the old rule about separate blood banks.