For once I will agree with Sebelius, that this is a medical decision. It is also the “rowboat” paradox.
Giving an adult lung to a child is less likely to work than giving it to an adult. Giving it to a cute little girl with a terminal disease means that some (over 14 years old) “adult” who could have lived will likely die.
The median predicted age of survival of children with CF is the mid-30s. They will likely have other serious internal organ problems, not just lungs.
So, here is a gun. In front of you are two cute girls. One is 10 years old, with a terminal disease, the other is 14 years old, who maybe doesn’t have a terminal disease. You decide which one to shoot.
I would seriously consider shooting the person who gave me the gun.
The problem is that this is not being treated as a medical decision. It is a bureaucratic one.
Her doctors say that an adult lung transplant would be successful. The government says that she cannot get onto the waiting list.
If this were being treated as a medical decision, then she could get on the organ transplant list and her suitability for any transplants would be determined if and when any donated lungs become available. On any organ transplant list, it is not simply a matter of being next in line but whether you are the best match on the list for any organs that become available. Factors include your genetic compatibility with the donated organ, your health and likelihood of surviving the transplant at the time an organ becomes available, and how close you are to the donor who just died. Generally, there is a window of no more than a couple of hours between the time an organ donor dies and a transplant is made, so there is a lot of pre-qualification screening that has to take place.
Since this is being treated as a bureaucratic decision, however, she simply needs to accept the fact that she is going to die regardless of whether or not her doctors say that she can be saved.