Notice how her own comment contradicts itself.
“I would suggest, sir, that, again, this is an incredibly agonizing situation where someone lives and someone dies. 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.”
Oh really?
Well how about this, you ass, the chances of this girl surviving without a transplant are...ZERO!
Good God in Heaven, what a monster such people are. Trying to throw all of this illogic at us and just have it be accepted.
I am willing to bet if it were her ten year-old daughter, or grand-daughter, the rule would be waived somehow...bercaue, you know, they are the "beautiful" people, who are meant to rule over us.
This attitude is going to catch up with these people in psades some day. As far as I am concerned, the sooner the better.
Also, I’m betting that the parents’ voter registration isn’t conducive to her receiving the lung transplant.
” Good God in Heaven, what a monster such people are. Trying to throw all of this illogic at us and just have it be accepted. “
Worse than Al Capone, and Obamacare will make Capone look benign by comparison.
It’s not just about the little girl’s life, but also the person who gets line jumped based on emotion laden media optics.
Should an organ be given to a person with a 10% chance at success over another person with a 70% chance of success just because the former is child and the latter is an adult.
Sorry, but this decision should be obvious. Cruel, but obvious.