Replies

Here’s what bugs me about this:

“Please, suspend the rules until we look at this policy,” Rep. Lou Barletta, R-Pa., asked Sebelius during a House hearing Tuesday on behalf of Sarah Murnaghan, a 10-year-old girl who needs a lung transplant. She can’t qualify for an adult lung transplant until the age of 12, according to federal regulations, but Sebelius has the authority to waive that rule on her behalf. The pediatric lungs for which she qualifies aren’t available.

“I would suggest, sir, that, again, this is an incredibly agonizing situation where someone lives and someone dies,” Sebelius replied. “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].”

That quote is from the excerpt in Morgana’s recent post of this story near the top of FR:

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3027413/posts

If it is federal regulation blocking this from going forward, and if indeed the parents are asking that the reg be set aside for all children, not just theirs, even though theirs would obviously likely benefit or not benefit soon considering her state, then Sebelius must decide what is more important, a chance at a child’s life or regulations.

This brings in a larger question, at least to me, does the government have any business at all in issuing medical regulations such as this or any business in medicine at all? To me the answer is no. It should be up to the child’s doctor. If there is an adult lung available, she should in the very least have a chance at getting it instead of being regged out, and especially so considering her time is almost out.