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.
However, before leaving here's an idea to help with your continuing discomfort evidenced by your inability to behave in a rational manner: I suggest a healthy dose of Colon Blow or something similar to improve your disposition. It may also provide some relief from what you are clearly quite full of.
Here's hoping you feel better real soon ...
She doesn’t get to go ahead of anyone in line. She just gets to be added to the adult donor list which under the rules has not been allowed.
The little girl isn’t getting a lung transplant by order of the judge. She is only getting added to the adult transplant list by order of the judge. She will still have to wait her turn on the adult transplant list.
I so tired of typing this but the judge didn’t order her to get a lung transplant. He ordered that her name be allowed to go on the list to wait her turn for a transplant. Until now she has not been allowed on the adult transplant list because of her age even though her doctors say she is capable of receiving adult lungs. She isn’t taking lungs from some other recipient.
There is a reason - MEDICAL reason, why doctors have created the two separate lists. Children respond much better to child size lungs and have a lower mortality rate when receiving child sized lungs.
It is a very poor thing indeed to have politicians, bureaucrats and judges deciding medical treatment. And contrary to your statement, if she does get an adult lung, someone else on the adult list has to way longer and may possibly die before they get the next available lung. In effect, she is “taking” the next available lung.
The judge did not order her to get the next lungs and the judge did not decide medical treatment for her. That is up to her doctors and the transplant board. The judge only decided to allow her on the list so that she would be in line with everyone else competing for donated lungs. The transplant board will have to make any further decisions about her receiving lungs that become available. The child has been denied due to her AGE only and nothing to do with medical reasons. If she is denied a transplant based on her actual SIZE after being reviewed by the transplant board THAT decision will be based on a medical reason. The only thing the judge has allowed is a chance for her to be considered as a recipient of adult lungs.
I would guess that her mortality rate would be much improved by getting an adult lung versus dying while waiting for a pediatric lung.
You said ‘And contrary to your statement, if she does get an adult lung, someone else on the adult list has to way longer and may possibly die before they get the next available lung. In effect, she is “taking” the next available lung.”
You say an adult may have to wait longer. EVERY adult is pushing this child off the list. Even ones less critical than her. All they want is her to have a chance on the adult list like every other person. If she is given lungs it will be because she qualified for them and not because she is “taking” them from some other recipient. If we want to play semantics then the same could be said that the adult is causing her to have to wait longer.
It’s a very dangerous precedent that anyone other than a DOCTOR has any say whatsoever in this! Even the fact she’s on the adult list means rules were arbitrarily broken, rather than examined and changed, as the direct result of pressure tactics.
Allowing the appearance that a larger “cheering section” gets you any edge at all will be the downfall of the system. I, who would have accepted the risks of being written off for parts and checked the box accordingly, will be removing my name from the list come next renewal because the idea of someone “cute” getting a leg up on a nobody disgusts me.
Organ donation by “likes”...
Oh, I don't know. Lobbing politicians could be great. Think of pumpkin chunkin on a larger scale.
You are incorrect. She's not going to the "top of the list" but rather just getting on the list. She was denied a spot on the "list" before because she was only 10 years old and the "list" is for those 12 and older regardless of their need. That was a government imposed list and her doctors fought for her and other children to be added to the "list". I believe the medical decisions should be decided by the doctors not by government "rules".
If you can’t understand it, I can’t help you. She isn’t getting a higher place on the list. She is just getting on the list which she was denied before because of the rules. All this does is put her on the list until the rules can be reviewed in light of today’s medical advances. She was denied being put on the list because of her age not because she isn’t big enough to receive adult donor lungs. The doctors are the only one having the say in whether or not she will receive a transplant. The only say the judge had was putting her on the list so she could be considered to receive the lungs. I will try to say it one last time for clarity. SHE ISN’T GETTING LUNGS BECAUSE OF THE PRESS. SHE IS JUST GETTING THE SAME CHANCE EVERYONE OVER 12 YEARS OLD IS GETTING.
I understand perfectly well. It is you who does not. The mere fact she is on the adult list now means she has been given a higher chance than before by legal diktat.
Hard cases make for bad law, and this isn’t the time or the way for them to go making changes in the policy.
Should the policy be reexamined with the advances? Very possibly yes, since moving the line could improve chances on both sides of it. This was still the worst possible way to go about it.
“She doesn’t get to go ahead of anyone in line. She just gets to be added to the adult donor list which under the rules has not been allowed.”
Her being added to the list, outside of established protocols, will indeed and in fact bump someone else lower, in one way or another.
Protocols should be changeable as medical knowledge and knowhow improves, of course. But to change the rules because someone is cute and getting a good media campaign is cruel. Protocols should be established fairly, not emotionally. There are not enough lungs to go around.
One of the reasons that 10 year olds are not put on this list is, that at this point, the failure rate is higher. Thus it is more likely that the donated lung will fail in her than in a 12 year old or a 20 year old without a media campaign. Thus, the lung is more likely to be wasted. This is wrong.
I wish the child every happiness but I wish it to whoever got bumped, too.
This ruling only allowed her to go on the list temporarily while the rules was reexamined. I think this was the perfect way to go about it. An arbitrary age of 12 years old is a stupid rule. My daughter was fully grown and developed before 12 years old. If a rule that applied to age and not her specific size or medical conditions was going to be the reason my daughter did not get a needed transplant, I would move heaven and earth to have this stupid rule reexamined.
This ruling allows this girl to be considered for a lung. The arbitrary age is what was unfair. No one is saying this girl should be given a lung that is not compatible with her size and medical condition. She now gets the chance that a teen or adult has, a chance for consideration.
This girl would not even be considered for transplant if the lungs came from a teen. You can keep arguing that hard cases make for bad law but the bad law was already in place and I thank God that this hard case made someone reexamine it.
“This ruling only allowed her to go on the list temporarily while the rules was reexamined. “
I am glad to hear that, at least.
‘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.’
Second paragraph in the article.
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.