Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sebelius: I canít suspend the lung-transplant rules for a dying 10-year-old
Hotair ^ | 06/04/2013 | AllahPundit

Posted on 06/04/2013 6:35:23 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

Portrait of a bureaucratic nightmare: A little girl’s dying from cystic fibrosis and has three to five weeks to live unless she gets a lung transplant before then. The good news is that adult lungs can be modified for a child her age in a way that’ll save her life — except that, because she’s only 10, she’s not eligible for them. The “adult” list starts at 12; everyone younger than that goes to the children’s list, where lungs are much harder to come by. The question is, does Sebelius have the authority to suspend those age limitations and make the girl, Sarah Murnaghan, eligible for an adult transplant?

I honestly don’t know the answer. Murnaghan’s parents say Sebelius’s authority is clear; Sebelius herself claims that HHS’s lawyers have told her she can’t do it. A life hangs in the balance. On one side:

[U]nder existing policy all adults in the region with her blood type will be offered the lungs first, her parents say, even those more stable and with less severe conditions. The girl’s parents called for a change in the policy after their appeal was denied…

United Network for Organ Sharing, also a nonprofit under contract with the government, said a committee would review the policy and the public would have a chance to comment on any proposed changes. But spokeswoman Anne Paschke said any changes most likely won’t come quickly enough to benefit Sarah or others like her.

“The policy development process is not fast,” she said in an email to The Associated Press. “Organ allocation policies are created to transplant as many people as possible overall, result in the fewest waiting list deaths overall and result in the best possible survival overall. In developing policies, committees and the board weigh data, medical evidence and experience, and public input.”

On the other:

Dr. Stuart Sweet from St. Louis Children’s Hospital, who helped write the pediatric transplant system, said the case ‘tugs at his heart’ but that no system is perfect.

He said that if he changed the system for Sarah’s advantage, ‘there’s another patient, very likely an adolescent, who gets a disadvantage‘.

That’s the key question, right? If you waive the rules and bump her up the adult list, does someone else die because they’re forced to keep waiting? And the other question is, why is someone on the children’s list if a modified adult lung would save them? I don’t understand offhand using a fixed age cutoff instead of a qualitative assessment of each patient to maximize their odds of a transplant. If an adult organ would work for her and there are more adult organs to be had, that’s the list she should be on. Sebelius herself seems sufficiently troubled by this to have ordered a review of transplant protocols.

I’m flagging this for you now just because, with the attention paid to it by GOP congressmen in today’s hearing (Tom Price pressed Sebelius on it too) and with Drudge picking it up this afternoon, there’s a chance it’s going to be blow up in the media in the next few days. Now you’re caught up on the background. And no matter what happens, Ace is right that having the head of HHS telling Congress “someone lives and someone dies” is poisonous optics with the public already sour on ObamaCare. Good luck with your 2014 strategy, Democrats.

CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: deathpanel; kathleensebelius; lungtransplant; oldnews; pennsylvania; sarahmurnaghan; sebelius
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-165 next last
To: oincobx

Are you saying any lung can be accepted by the next donor? You seem to lack facts to back this up, and usually there are blood typing and tissue typing issues, you can’t just fix it all with cyclosporin.


101 posted on 06/04/2013 9:11:14 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Whatever promise that God has made, in Jesus it is yes. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: oincobx

donor -> donee


102 posted on 06/04/2013 9:11:26 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Whatever promise that God has made, in Jesus it is yes. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe

You seem to assume things not in evidence. Well if you can invent circumstances so can I. We deal with discrete, real cases, not some grey mush of humanity en masse.


103 posted on 06/04/2013 9:12:19 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Whatever promise that God has made, in Jesus it is yes. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe
Folks as old as you and I need to grow up and recognize health care resources are limited.

And let a bureaucrat make decisions that we should be making with and for our loved ones?

Joe, that's absolutely disgusting!

An insurance company has never been involved in a life and death decision that I've been a part of. Only the doctor, other relatives and myself.

If you're willing to abdicate that decision to the federal government, shame on you. Are you a man? Or a bystander?

104 posted on 06/04/2013 9:13:51 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE --)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Errant

May God bless and keep this little girl. May He also have mercy on all of us for our omissive complicity in permitting the evil which threatens her to persist.


105 posted on 06/04/2013 9:14:57 PM PDT by Ronaldus Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

The real scenario is desperate parents doing everything for their child. They were undoubtedly shot down up the chain of command (so to speak) and are appealing to the public sympathy. I don’t blame them but its not good government nor good policy..


106 posted on 06/04/2013 9:15:54 PM PDT by montanajoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: okie01

Yes it is, and yet joe may/will drone on and on with his hypnotic spell. Beware. At a certain point it becomes clear that discussion is not clarifying anything at all.


107 posted on 06/04/2013 9:16:17 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Whatever promise that God has made, in Jesus it is yes. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Oh sure you can, you f-ing bitch.

GOD I hate this damned administration more and more every day.

108 posted on 06/04/2013 9:16:49 PM PDT by Marathoner (Impeach Obama, Holder, Big Sis, and throw in IL Gov Quinn for good measure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe

Patch the leak and fix the system. Why are these mutually exclusive? You seem to be enslaved under the spell of, well, something other than the good Lord, who really would look at everything down to the last detail.


109 posted on 06/04/2013 9:17:27 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Whatever promise that God has made, in Jesus it is yes. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

I wont drone I have no time and little regard for idiots..


110 posted on 06/04/2013 9:18:18 PM PDT by montanajoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
>>>>Are you saying any lung can be accepted by the next donor? You seem to lack facts to back this up, and usually there are blood typing and tissue typing issues, you can’t just fix it all with cyclosporin.

I'm saying that there may be others on the list who are a match for the adult lung and would potentially have a higher success rate. Going back to my example. Do you give the lung to the child with five weeks to live and a 40% chance of success or do you give it to the adult with 3 months to live but an 80% success rate. Is it simply a matter of who is closest to death or do you take survivability into account?
111 posted on 06/04/2013 9:19:00 PM PDT by oincobx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: oincobx

Alright. I see that it is a network, of doctors I am assuming here, working under contract with the HHS, which means that HHS is ultimately in charge in terms of legal authority.

So that says to me Sebelius is the person who decides if the federal regulations are more important than this child’s chance at life. Doctors say go, government says no.

It not only looks bad, it is bad. HHS being involved gives the regs force of law, and that force is essentially what is keeping the child from having access to an adult lung which could be modified.

I see it like this. Since government is involved via the contract, if the government makes the decision that its regulations are more important than giving this child a chance, then they are saying that their regulations are more important than her life, and thus are a death panel.

You ask if its fair to others who may benefit from the same lung? That’s hard to say for certain, fair is subjective, elusive and may not even exist at all. But I ask is it right to deny this girl an opportunity at an adult lung because she doesn’t meet the regulated age requirement? I my answer is no.


112 posted on 06/04/2013 9:19:06 PM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe

By your personal attack you prove what “basis” you are coming from. It is that of hell.


113 posted on 06/04/2013 9:19:07 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Whatever promise that God has made, in Jesus it is yes. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: oincobx

“MAY”

What if there weren’t, though. These clowns seem to be saying “no way it could happen” not “this lung ought to go to this adult that is proven to be able to use it now.”


114 posted on 06/04/2013 9:20:12 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Whatever promise that God has made, in Jesus it is yes. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Ronaldus Magnus

Amen brother, and if it be God’s will, this child will persist. Of that, have no doubt.


115 posted on 06/04/2013 9:20:24 PM PDT by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
The military has a rule to never leave one soldier behind...too bad this "government" has no such rule.

The medical philosophy "First do no harm" was tossed aside, now it's "First do them in and don't even blink", kind of like Mao who just kept murdering. Keep progressing and killing until we reach leftist "utopia".

116 posted on 06/04/2013 9:23:55 PM PDT by Earthdweller (Harvard won the election again...so what's the problem.......? Embrace a ruler today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Alright. I say if there is no adult recipient that matches, then give her a shot. Now back to my question. What if there is an adult that matches and would have a higher rate of survivability. Do you move this girl ahead of that adult?


117 posted on 06/04/2013 9:24:07 PM PDT by oincobx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: oincobx

Well then we have a genuine triage question and that’s another story. But these bureaucrats seem paralyzed from being able to breach a line which... who invented it anyhow? Doctors in private practice?


118 posted on 06/04/2013 9:26:26 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Whatever promise that God has made, in Jesus it is yes. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: chris37
This is the other side of the "let granny die" coin. All the talk has centered around Obamascare cutting off old folks; however, it will greatly curtail expensive medical treatment for children.

When Obama's members of the likely "death panel" were listed, I read some of their comments. Both Cass Sunstein and Ezekial Emanuel (Rahm's dr. brother) are on the same page. I can't remember which said it, but think Sunstein was the one.

Paraphrased, he said expensive procedures could not be wasted on children before adolescense because the state did not have enough invested in them to make it good policy to spend a lot to save them--just like old people are too old to be worth it. Gr. Britain already denies dialysis to children and to adults over 55. However, they have foundations that help provide it for as many children as they can until they get a transplant. In this case, however, it is the govt. policy of prioritizing the organs that throws this little girl out.

Expect more of this.

vaudine

119 posted on 06/04/2013 9:26:46 PM PDT by vaudine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: oincobx; HiTech RedNeck
What if there is an adult that matches and would have a higher rate of survivability. Do you move this girl ahead of that adult?

If I may, I say it would depend upon a number of factors. Match and etc., but especially which one is in the most danger at the time an organ became available.

120 posted on 06/04/2013 9:28:27 PM PDT by Errant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-165 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson