Posted on 06/05/2013 4:00:15 PM PDT by The Looking Spoon
If anyone needs an example of how big government literally kills people they need go no further than HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius's refusal to waive a federal regulation (or rather a ban) on lung transplants for children under 10, even though doctors say this particular 10 year old would survive the procedure. The answer she gave is particularly galling...
“I would suggest, sir, that, again, this is an incredibly agonizing situation where someone lives and someone dies...”
We should expect nothing less from the party of moral bankruptcy. Whether or not her hands are truly tied is not the point, the regulation in question shouldn't exist in the first place!
why the HELL should this little girl’s life, or anybody’s, be decided by the Federal Government of the United States of America (whether Sibelius, the Death Panels once they get them fully in place, or the courts)?
there’s something very very wrong with this picture...
very wrong...
Having the US feral government decide this stuff is the LAST thing we should be asking for if we really want to dismantle UbamaCare.
I agree with other comments. We do NOT want Sebellius or some stupid judge choosing between people waiting for transplanted organs.
Actually, that it a very fair and accurate picture. It is what Obamacare is about. It is what Sarah Palin warned about (and the corrupt MSM scoffed). It is what socialism is all about. It is what Americans voted for — twice.
So Palin was right about the death panels.......
So allow me to ask what solution you would come up with given the following circumstances:
A limited number of lungs available for transplant and a far larger number of people who need to have a lung to live. How do you decide who gets the lung and lives? Because the default is that someone is not going to get a lung and they will likely die.
Because from media accounts this kid appears to be in very high (top-of-the-list) need with mere days to live, except for the fact that her age prevents her from being given an adult lung and being put on top of the list.
Do you know why the medical guidelines do not call for giving a lung to someone of her age? The simple fact is that there is a higher mortality rate for this type of procedure in children than adults.
So the risk is give her a lung and it still fail to save her life. It is a lower risk to supply the lung to an adult. Give the lung to her and you condemn some adult to die without it. Hard choices, but that is the reality.
Good question. I trust the doctors a lot more than Washington, D.C. Not a perfect path but preferable. There are risks with the doctors lf course but there are grave added risks to putting our very lives in the control of Washington politicians or bureaucrats. Just my view. Thanks.
Good luck sir, when your death panel time comes. Myself? I’ll trust my doctor with my health, not some stinky lying appointed unaccountable desk sitting paper pushing regulation burping donut eating computer tapping air wasting excuse for a human.
You show disdain for death panels. Understandable. However the question remains. How does society decide who will receive a limit supply or critical organs?
Lets hear your alternative.
I told you that in my first post. That decision belongs in the hands of the doctors, Not ‘society’, not in the hands of socialists. Doctors.
Ok, but here is the problem. Doctors don’t have a supply of lungs sitting in their office. They can’t just run down to the nearest hospital and pick up a lung.
Someone has to die, be an organ donor, and a match to someone who needs a lung needs to be found. The current procedure that has been worked out by doctors, is to have a list of patients waiting to receive the lung (or other body part). Certain conditions would exclude someone from the list. Sometimes these conditions are because the patient would not survive transplant. The order of who is on the list is determined by their expected survival of the procedure.
The little girl in question was much lower on the list because of the poor changes for survival. That is based on the medical profession’s opinion and her doctor’s assessment. Sucks but those are the facts. If we leave it up to doctors only, the little girl will most likely die. If we bump her up the list, the person that would have received that lung instead will die and it is still very possible that the little girl will die.
So given those facts, how would you change the system to distribute scarce but life saving resources or would you keep the system as is, controlled by the doctor established protocol?
Listen. There IS a ‘supply’ chain of organs. And yes they can be scarce. And yes someone must have died (in most cases) to provide an organ so that another may live.
That is all a given.
So the problem involves the distribution of said organs to those that need them. A further problem stems from the first if those in need are greater in number than the organs available.
Again, ad nauseum, no non-doctor GOVT type should ever have a say. It should always be the doctor and/or the patient.
It would be inconceivable for me to be eligible to get that lung if I knew a child who needed it would die because I got the lung he or she needed.
Doctors, not bureaucrats. THAT is my answer, THAT is what I propose. NOT unelected unaccountable power mongers.
Thanks for asking.
I believe that you and I agree. Though that does not appear to be in the majority here on FR.
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.