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.
Your reply has multiple factual errors.
She has not been denied a transplant. She doesn’t meet the criteria for the adult list, she is on the pediatric list.
The criteria are medically and scientifically developed by the Organ Board and Sebelius is right to not interfere in their operation and the judge is wrong to do so.
The Organ Board is a life panel, not a death panel. They make transplants possible. Otherwise, since you can’t exactly run out to the corner organ store to pick up a lung or liver, you die.
I’m sad that Rush has not appropriately used half his brain to think this through clearly and is simply using it as a target of opportunity to bash the administration.
Oh please, the transplant board predate Obama by 30 freaking years.
I’m tired of the wrongheaded partisanship that is throwing the baby out with the bathwater on this issue.
Sebelius should be fired, put out pasture!!! Instead of Freepers giving their opinions....blah, blah, blah......they should be united in efforts to bring this dangerous Obama witch down!!!
Just look at your kids or your grandkids, and put yourself in the position that little Sarah and her family are in. Sebelius is no public servant of the people. She is cold hearted, not compassionate at all, and could care less if this innocent girl and others live or die!!! But.....in life, “whatever goes around comes around”!!! The acorn of the Obamabots tree does not fall far from Obama himself. This disgusting, uncaring woman belongs in the temple of worship with the likes of Hitler and company!!!
I have notified both my USA senators to call for her job termination, immediately, without severence or accumulated benefits or pension. Her outright refusal to assist this family and her neglect in notifying them or refusing to meet with them is shameless, cold, calculating, indifferent to life itself!!! I suggest, rather than rant your viewpoints, you send a message to the tyrants that now control our nation, that you will no longer tolerate their tyranny!!! Call for Sebelius to be fired, NOW!!!
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.
Now this makes more sense. I am taking it there is no actual "line jumping" going on since she is now in the adult pool?
She has a tough fight ahead, that is for sure...
For clarification. There could be five patients in a region that are all equally A1 graded. If an organ becomes available it then comes down to which of the five is the best match to the donor. Blood type, weight, height, and organ size then become the determining factor.
Technically yes. My right lung was removed due to cancer. I’ve been living cancer free with one lung for five and a half years.
It was major life changing surgery. They had to cut through ribs and muscles. It’s still painful every day, and I expect it always will be. With only one lung, I don’t take in as much oxygen, which causes another set of problems. The surgery is extremely risky. I don’t know the percentage of people who die from it, but the day I got my surgery there were two others there getting the same procedure. They both died that day. I nearly died because of a leak at the incision.
I doubt that any ethics panel would approve the donation of a lung by someone expected to go on living. The risk to the donor is too great.
I applaud your bravery in asking the obvious question. The short answer is: No one knows. Oh, sure, there's tons of rules that govern the donation list, but an empowered and motivated transplant team can make all the difference in someone getting the transplant they need, and going without.
The longer answer is much more positive. Thousands will live because of this little girl's plight. Organ donation is something a lot of families struggle with each year. Sometimes it is easy, the donation has already been agreed to by the person. Many times, it is a family struggling with sudden tragedy. Every time a story goes up about some death row inmate getting an organ transplant, it curbs donations. And every story like this one about a small girl fighting for a chance at having a life increases them.
And I think that if you asked those who are at the top of the donation list if they'd be willing to step aside for someone like this little girl, they'd probably agree, which is precisely why the rules don't allow that.
All in all, this ruling is a net win for those on the transplant list.
From what I heard today, opening up the Transplant Program to Children will add just 20 people to the Adult Donor list.
If there is not a Medical reason for not using an Adult Lung, why are Children on a separate Donor list in the first place?
There are currently 1600 people on the Adult Donor list.
Let me add, it is amazing that a couple of Drunks, (the late) Larry Hagman and David Crosby got new Livers to replace their (self inflicted) Alcoholic diseased Livers.
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.
Ah the “death panels” argument.
but lobbing politicians could be good too. if you used a catapult ot trebuchet...
Thank you...this though will get tricky I think with the media involved etc.
I am still confused how the government and now a judge are involved in making this decision. This will quickly become a national debacle, it is stunning.
>> Oh please, the transplant board predate Obama by 30 freaking years.
And Roe v Wade established for 40 years. So it must be good.
>> I’m tired of the wrongheaded partisanship that is throwing the baby out with the bathwater on this issue.
Concerned about throwing out the babies, but not the little girls. Aren’t you the level-headed guardian of life.
Bureaucracy doesn’t adapt well to the real world. Stop defending it at the expense of hope and possibilities.
Yes it is stunning...and should not have come to this IMO. Now people will surely be ‘seeking the media’ to carry their plights..and the media “Decides” who gets heard or not..and thus become the deciders in a sense.
Frankly I have a problem with the parents. This is so out of hand. Why ‘show’ your “Dying” daughter and blowing bubbles in a room full of them celebrating...I don’t get that. ...she’s still dying.
It’s becoming a “show” ...and if she gets this lung..it’ll be one photo shoot after another. If she doesn’t and dies...then the funeral and the outpouring of flowers etc. will be.
It’s pretty awful to see this all become as it’s playing out...or the potential...I say this because of all the dying children who haven’t had this “show” of their plight. Really sad.
My original question was, are you comfortable with federal death panels?
Or do you believe that bureaucrats, politicians, judges, lawyers, IRS agents and the like will not be instrumental in deciding who lives and who dies?
And do you not agree that what we see here is not so much that a judge did a no-no, bad judge, but that the can of worms was going to bed opened like this anyway? That it was inevitable?
And that we are SCREWED by this monstrosity that is headed our way?
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.”
That’s kind of a dingbat question. Nobody ordered that she get the transplant in question. The order only specifies that she be considered as a recipient, totally subject to the normal medical selection process.
The government would not allow her to be even considered medically. The judge changed that. But cheer up, she can and likely will still be rejected for any of the numerous reasons other people are. However, they can no longer point to her age as the only reason they reject her.
Your argument makes no sense unless you argue that even if she is a fine match medically, has a fine chance for success, and is also the most in dire need of all possible recipients, that she should be excluded solely based upon her age.
You are right. If we had more donors this would be less of an issue.
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.