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.
yes. it is a curse. but, i want this innocent child to have a chance, as i would my own. peace to you.
Why shouldn’t this girl have the same chance as anyone else? All she was asking for was to get on the list like other people are. She’s not guaranteed to get a transplant.
they can cut lungs down...
I was full adult height and almost weight at age 11, again the “older adult” weight is another issue.
Amen! With God in control, she will make it. :)
There is a place for judges and rulings like this in our society. Seems to me this judge did exactly what he was supposed to do.
Point taken ;)
Sounds to me you are "blessed" as such, too.
I agree......I want to get the government out of all medical decisions.
I posted similar in another thread.
Who created ‘the list’? Government or medical personnel?
==
It is difficult to argue that government needs to intercede if the list is via medical personnel.
That puts us right into the middle of the Obamacare argument — that government [in this case, a federal judge] knows betters than the medical profession does.
What is the reason for the minimum age requirement? Could it be that those younger than the ‘minimum age’ has little success with such transplants? And what of the person who would have received this particular organ under regular circumstances?
==
I have empathy for the little girl and her family. I am just not comfortable with a judge or the HHS officials making medical decisions.
My point is that judges and politicians shouldn't be needed. This was a judge making a decision about a law regulating transplants.
This particular judge's decision doesn't affect my point. Why should the government be involved at all? Can you not see that?
People live everyday with one lung.
A child can receive a partial adult lung.
That would be true no matter who got the lung. There are a lot of people needing them and few being donated.
Yes, I get it. But I also know the difference between the world as it is and world as I would like it to be. In this case I am glad there was a judge available to undo a wrong and give this little girl a chance at life.
“My question is, who is going to die instead of this girl, if she gets their lung?”
You have been flayed like a mule for asking this question, which is entirely reasonable to ask.
First off, nobody is advocating this girl die - you certainly aren’t.
What folks fail to grasp because it’s an uncomfortable question (and it’s easier to beat on the guy asking the question than think about answering it) is that with many, if not most transplants somebody (or group) has to decide who gets what organs.
People are excluded all the time, and presumably end up sicker or dead than they otherwise would be. There is a reason why - even if people may not agree with it.
What people are having trouble accepting is that the best move is to save as many lives with the organs available. It is entirely possible that this girl may not fit the description of someone who has a good chance of being saved. As dehumanizing as that sounds, that’s the type of decision this is.
Keeping the press and politics out of it is the best course. That is not the course for this young lady - it’s politicized already.
One hopes that she gets an organ that would otherwise go unused, but you have to accept the possibility that someone who is just as worthy - but not able to generate press attention will die simply because someone didn’t care enough to raise awareness so a nameless, faceless patient could compete for an available lung.
Those that cheer for the young lady are not thinking about this. they are thinking only about her, which is fine, but it doesn’t mean there isn’t a nameless, faceless, possibly less photogenic person out there that could possibly die for want of a lung that a non-politicized process would have made available to them.
That was your point, I believe. It’s a valid one.
I wonder how many in this thread felt the same way about the Terry Schiavo case.
yes. there is something about this child, this story. may she be blessed of God. may her story resonate. Amen.
Okay, who should be running the Donor Organ system; Walgreens, Walmart and RiteAid??? The Sisters of Mercy, the LDS??
Ebay, so they can sell to the highest bidder?
The government set up a Board full of doctors and transplant experts to make these decisions. Why is it good that a judge now questions their expertise based on a single sympathetic case?
I vehemently agree with the decision and just as vehemetly disagree with letting a judge decide medical care.
Sorry Mrs Schlabotnik, Judge Judy says you can’t have that hysterectomy.
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.