Posted on 06/05/2013 2:34:10 PM PDT by blueyon
Edited on 06/05/2013 2:46:14 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary to suspend existing organ allocation rules to give a 10-year-old Pennsylvania girl a better chance at a life-saving lung transplant.
U.S. District Court Judge Michael Baylson told Kathleen Sebelius to direct the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, or OPTN, to make an exception to the so-called "Under-12" rule as it applies to Sarah Murnaghan, who has end-stage cystic fibrosis, for at least 10 days, until a hearing on June 14. That move means that the girl can be considered more quickly for organs as an adult, instead of being limited to the pediatric transplant list.
The ruling, which grants a temporary restraining order, applies only to Sarah, although Baylson indicated that he would consider a similar move for another child in Sarah's circumstances, if a family presented the case in court.
Good...prayers answered. Now we can just hope and continue to pray that a suitable donor is found in time.
Almost all organs harvested in sparsely populated areas are sent to biggest city hospitals,, and are not made available locally to the many hospital programs that could use them effectively. Worse, some cities like NYC train their EMS on thinking “potential donor” instead of “patient”.
NO way I would sign my card. It’s nuts to give them the slightest incentive to go ahead and write you off. If a person wants to donate, the best way is to tell trusted next of kin and let them decide when you really are beyond recovery.
Great News...According to my Bible, Jesus loved children above all others...too many Scriptures to even begin to list...
So the idea that adults would trump children???
Have they never been on a ship...Women and Children first etc
I wonder if they will appeal?
Do you not understand that this is a TERRIBLE precedent? Now anyone who can rabble-rouse loudly enough can bully their way into higher chances than someone who can’t score as many “likes” and “upvotes”.
It should be an open market. Whoever can pay should get. None of this sacred-cow queuing by who applied first stuff.
Exactly how do you plan to have a market in human organs without government involvement and oversight?
On one hand you say that the parents were the ones who brought in the government, but on the other hand your second statement tacitly assumes that the government already has involvement and oversight. Which is it? The two statements are not coherent..
The first question that occurred to me when I saw this story is why the parents of a child have to beg a government bureaucrat like Kathleen Sebelius for permission to save their child's life.
Here is the Selected Statutory and Regulatory History of Organ Transplantation from the Government Alphabet Agency HHS. Where there are laws and regulations there are going to be attorneys and courts. When bureaucrats have the power to make life and death decisions then people have the right to challenge those decisions in a court of law. If you want the government involved then the courts are inevitably going to be involved as well.
Cordially,
The ruling simply places her on the list. There is no guarantee of a set of lungs. She still has to meet the other requirements, and compete with other patients. Your comment is, in my opinion, offensive.
Bookmarked. A page of history is worth a volume of logic. Thank you.
Cordially,
I overheard one lawyer (who probably hadn’t had time to read the full opinion)say they DID use age discrimination and that the judge’s opinion was based on the 14th Amendment.
My point is, the transplant system is not a part of Obamacare and has nothing to do with the monstrosity headed our way.
Continually conflating the two and trying to use the one to bash the other is the worst sort of obvious partisan gamesmenship.
Obamacare sucks rocks, but it has nothing to do with how the OPTN operates.
The judge ruled she should be put on an adult lung donor list. She doesn't knock someone else off the list she is added at the bottom and gets a lung when all others above her gets their lung, assuming the others have a match before she does. Since a person can survive on one lung, many people donate lungs to their relatives,not all donors are dead.
After reading through this thread, I think a lot more facts/info. are in order:
http://www.unos.org/donation/index.php?topic=patient_brochures
http://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov
(Both started in 1984)
http://www.organdonor.gov/about/data.html
You might need a law degree for this link:
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title42/42cfr121_main_02.tpl
One can survive with one lung, but live lung transplants are almost never done.
>> the worst sort of obvious partisan gamesmenship
You’re singing like the arrogant liberal hack that assumes the role of the even-handed adjudicator. Cut the diversionary BS and wake up to the fact that an Obama healthcare czar is indeed controlling the process of survival. And furthermore, it is not in the scope of your influence to determine the limits others have to life saving care. You, like the rest of us, are merely an observer to a pathetic system entangled in govt bureaucracy; a system that does NOT have the patient’s ultimate well-being in mind.
It is not to the expense of another person this child is included a broader candidate pool. This child is also a person that deserves every possible chance at survival. The limits you’re embracing are simply unnecessary and helpful to no one.
Does a judge have that authority. That sets a very bad precedent.
This decision should NOT be in the hands of judges and Cabinet Secretaries, but rather in the hands of DOCTORS. THIS is the very problem with ObamaCare.
I can think of little more proper than lobbing politicians. Just make sure you lob them where they won't come back...
Seriously, prayers up for this young lady!
every transplant involves a “death panel”, both for the recipient and the donor
there is rationing because there are not enough organs for everyone, so someone has to be the decider
Maybe you havent been involved upclose as we were when a family member became a donor.
It was an agonizing process of deciding when recovery was no longer possible and death had occurred clinically if not physically
the doctors wanted to treat the child
the federal govt said “no”
in this case the judge was the good guy, he sided with the doctors
“obamacare” wins when bureacrats like sebelius, not judges, make life and death decisions and tell the doctors how to treat or whether to treat at all
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.