Since the transplant board sets the criteria, they are most certainly in the picture. It is their criteria that is being set aside.
The point you don’t get is that organ transplants are not like other types of medical care in that transplants are a zero sum game. Organs aren’t rationed, they are allocated if/when one becomes available. It’s not some procedure that can be rescheduled another day with a different widget that is made by 3 different manufacturers.
You sound like some automaton incapable of thought. Their criteria has not been set aside. This girl as been on the pediatric list since 2011. It was only recently that the parents learned that there were two lists--one for children and one for "adults" 12 and above. The judge has just ordered that she be placed on the adult list. The criteria used to determine who will get a transplant will be applied to her just like any other person on the list. The only criterion "being placed aside" is age. Again, would you say the same thing if she was 11 years and 11 months old?
Her doctors who have been treating her say that she can accept an adult lung. The HHS Secretary has wavier authority to address such instances.
The point you don’t get is that organ transplants are not like other types of medical care in that transplants are a zero sum game. Organs aren’t rationed, they are allocated if/when one becomes available. It’s not some procedure that can be rescheduled another day with a different widget that is made by 3 different manufacturers. ,
I am well aware of how the organ transplant system works. The issue is really the following:
In their motion, the Murnaghans challenged an OPTN rule that distinguishes between pediatric and adult transplant recipients. The existing rule says that children younger than 12 can receive organs matched for size and age from other children, with sickest kids receiving top priority. But the rule also says that organs from adult and teen donors must be offered to all patients older than 12 from Sarah’s region first -- even if Sarah is sicker than the other recipients.
The parents contended that the under-12 rule violates the command of the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984, which allows for “equitable” distribution of organs that address “the unique health care needs of children.”
They said that Sebelius’ refusal to set aside the rule and allow Sarah and others in her rare situation to compete for organs based on the severity of their illness, not their age, is “arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion.”