"We'll eliminate you and your family NEXT YEAR, little girl."
Posted on 06/13/2013 4:07:55 AM PDT by tobyhill
The 10-year-old girl at the heart of a national debate over transplant lists that led to a fight on Capitol Hill — and criticism of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius — had successful lung surgery and is recovering well, doctors said Thursday. Sarah Murnaghan, who has cystic fibrosis and was in dire need of a double lung transplant, is in intensive care, but on the road to full recovery, the Daily Mail reported. She only received the surgery after a court ruled that Ms. Sebelius must open the door to place her on an adult transplant list, despite her age. Current law says only those ages 12 or older can be placed on adult transplant lists.
“We expect it will be a long road, but we’re not going for easy, we’re going for possible,” said Sarah’s mother, in a Facebook posting. “And an organ donor has made this possible for her.” She earlier wrote, after receiving news of the organ donor: “God is great. He moved the mountain,” the Daily Mail reported.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Another Obama Death Panel survivor!
"We'll eliminate you and your family NEXT YEAR, little girl."
Praise GOD!!!
So happy to hear this news! Props to her mom for fighting so hard.
Sebelius is officially “Cruella De Vil”.
She will now find a way to TAKE CREDIT for the lifesaving transplant! Watch for it, folks.
here comes the audit....
I will venture a guess that deep down in Sebeius’ dark, Marxist, satanic mind, she was hoping the child would not survive. She is one sick bitxx.
And you can bet that Sebichius and many Dims were/are rooting for the demise of the poor girl to “prove” that Gub’mint knows best...
Wonderful news! And, hope all goes well for this family going forward.
That said, I’m a bit surprised at the level of vitriol directed at Sebellius over this, from so-called conservatives. I don’t think that her intervening in the situation would have been a good thing - it would have risked setting a precedent that people/families who make more noise and are more politically connected get better outcomes. Not a good precedent to set.
In a 2007 study, researchers at the University of Utah examined the risks and benefits of lung transplants for cystic fibrosis patients. They looked at 514 children with cystic fibrosis on the waiting list for a transplant, including 248 who did receive a transplant. Less than 1 percent of the transplant patients benefited from the procedure, the researchers concluded.I'm reminded of an article from Hopkins medicine about ten years ago. The article was an impassioned plea for more money to be given to welfare moms with children with transplanted organs. The gist of it was some welfare skank's kid got a liver transplant, and the liver failed because she didn't alter her lifestyle to purchase the maintenance drugs. So they gave the kid another liver. Same result. So now we're at two livers that could have gone to a productive member of society, but went to someone who IF he had survived would have likely been a permanent welfare recipient anyway. Fortunately for other people on the transplant list the kid died before they could give him a third liver, which plan was in the works. The person writing the article (obviously a liberal) thought that this made the perfect case for giving more money to welfare recipients.About half of the patients in each group died; there was no evidence that those who received transplants lived longer, the researchers said. The average survival time was 3.4 years after the transplant, and about 40 percent lived for at least five years after the transplant.
When your time is up it's up. Sad when it's a kid, but no one lives forever.
Yeah well, just maybe God had other plans for her.
Not when you consider that the supply of organs is always shorter than the list of recipients. What is "wonderful news" for one family is tragic news for another. You hit the nail on the head when you said
it would have risked setting a precedent that people/families who make more noise and are more politically connected get better outcomes.It appears that this is exactly what happened.
You didn't understand a word of what I wrote did you?
If it is possible to modify livers to fit patients, why shouldn't children be given that opportunity. If her doctors, felt it had some chance of success,they I would rather go with what a doctor says than some bureaucrat in Washington.
I’m 100% with you. I think that th judge’s decision sets just as bad a precedent as if Sebellius made it (I didn’t mention that simply because I was commenting on the criticism of Sebellius here).
Of course, I am cognizent of the fact that this girl getting a transplant means that someone else (whose name and story we will likely never know) did not. When I said this is wonderful news, I meant that even if this was the “wrong” process or outcome, it’s good to hear that the surgery seems to have gone well.
I'm with you on that for sure., But first it was lungs, not a liver in this case. That liver business was my example of political correctness and liberal viewpoints in the transplant business, and second was the Bastiat thing that what we see here is the happened in the liver example earlier. With limited resources like transplant organs every one who goes to the head of the recipient list means that someone else doesn't get the life saving organ. Not a decision I'd want to make, but the hard science says that the her mean survival time is only going to be 3.4 years. Is this the best use of the lungs?
I pray she makes a complete recovery.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.