The child doesn’t fit the criteria of the adult list to begin with. The cut off age of 12 is because the average adult lung does not fit the average child under the age of 12.
They didn’t pick that criteria out of thin air and the courts have no business second guessing the expertise of the transplant board.
apparently there have been medical advances since 2005 when the boards standards were last updated.
>> the expertise of the transplant board.
What a good Obamacare tool you’ll make.
It was bureaucracy that took it on the chin, not the experts.
Yes there are criteria based on averages and norms. However, the doctors responsible for this 10 years and 9 months old girl have deemed that she is capable of receiving an adult lung. Medically, it is deemed not a problem. The issue is bureaucratic and a "we have rules" mentality. It is what happens when government takes over health care.
There is a reason why the Secretary of HHS has wavier authority, i.e., to make common sense exceptions. Would you be saying the same thing if the girl was 11 years and 9 months old? And the exception is just to get her on the list. Then other criteria govern when she would get a lung.
They didn’t pick that criteria out of thin air and the courts have no business second guessing the expertise of the transplant board.
You are missing the point. The court is just getting her on the list so the transplant board can make a decision. Right now, the transplant board is not in the picture.
These kind of decisions will be made under Obamacare in much the same way they are done in the UK's NHS. You reach a certain age and you are no longer eligible for a hip transplant. I would prefer that the patient be the one rationing health care and not a government bureaucracy. There are ways to do that in patient centered system where the patient has control over the resources and must decide what is in their best interests, medically and financially.