Sebelius Won't intervene in Dying girl's Transplant case

reply to post by BubbaJoe

Actually, not being on the adult list makes her chance - and the chance of other children - for getting a transplant far less than most people. What about that do you not understand?

Originally posted by Maluhia
reply to post by BubbaJoe

 

Actually, not being on the adult list makes her chance - and the chance of other children - for getting a transplant far less than most people. What about that do you not understand?

I understand perfectly, her being a child, makes her more important than a father or mother, that with a lung transplant, will make them a productive member of society. While I feel for the family losing a child, this child has a genetic defect and will never live a "Normal" life. For some reason you want to make her have higher priority, this I do not understand. If this makes me cold hearted, so be it, I am a cold hearted humanist, we are all born to die.

reply to post by BubbaJoe


Nevemind

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
I'm sure there are at least 100 10 year olds a day that gets killed they can take the lungs from. The problem is People are Selfish.

edit on 5-6-2013 by JohnPhoenix because: sp

Or religious. Do you know what happens to a body once it is dead? After death care? Oh man is it a fricking mess. If people only knew The organs that come in a bag is SUCH a waste.

reply to post by Maluhia


I hope something will be done.

A child deserves a transplant more than older people, as she has all her life ahead.

Overally I believe 3 things should be taken account in order to maximise the effect of the transplant, life left after getting it

1) Age - younger people first
2) Medical history - people with cleaner medical record (less other diseases) first
3) Condition - if one has 3 weeks left, other a year, the first one is preferred

In that order.

Originally posted by BubbaJoe

Originally posted by Maluhia
reply to post by BubbaJoe

 

Actually, not being on the adult list makes her chance - and the chance of other children - for getting a transplant far less than most people. What about that do you not understand?

I understand perfectly, her being a child, makes her more important than a father or mother, that with a lung transplant, will make them a productive member of society. While I feel for the family losing a child, this child has a genetic defect and will never live a "Normal" life. For some reason you want to make her have higher priority, this I do not understand. If this makes me cold hearted, so be it, I am a cold hearted humanist, we are all born to die.

In other words, or more blatantly, she would be a burden no matter what. And it would make matters only worse unfortunately. Sorry but it is a sad fact. Very sad.

Originally posted by Cabin
reply to post by Maluhia

 

I hope something will be done.

A child deserves a transplant more than older people, as she has all her life ahead.

Overally I believe 3 things should be taken account in order to maximise the effect of the transplant, life left after getting it

1) Age - younger people first
2) Medical history - people with cleaner medical record (less other diseases) first
3) Condition - if one has 3 weeks left, other a year, the first one is preferred

In that order.

Age? This is a really bad system. So you are saying that a child that is young and does not have a chance should be considered before an adult that does? That is really messed up.

Medical history? You kind of nulled that with your first condition. A child can have 20 life threatening incidences but an adult can't have one or three because of age? You have nulled your whole concept.

Condition? Ummm that is not even logic to contend with. A person with botulism looks dead and can recover in 2 days but dies with the wrong immunities intact, but a person with AIDS never will with the right drugs. So what the hell do you even mean?

I would seriously rethink your methodology here. And really REALLY hope that you are not into the medical or life saving fields.

Originally posted by Maluhia
reply to post by opethPA

 

The argument is not really about pushing one patient ahead of another - This is about a dying child not being allowed to go on the Adult organ list where her chances of getting an organ improve. Any child in such a situation should be given that chance.

That is the issue here that now doctors have the ability to transplant adult lungs into someone under 12. When the law went into effect the odds of survival for the child was very low. So regardless of her other problems she may have in the future the law itself is outdated and should be changed to reflect our medical abilities.

This situation is about as tough as it gets. We all want to believe any child can grow up to be what they'd like. That's most fair, right?

But this gets complicated when considering chances of survival. CF is a vicious and unforgiving disease.

However, people require transplants every day. Moms, business owners and friends who may not know anyone working at a tv station, or who may not be comfortable with publicly airing their vulnerability.

According to this article this "exception" is to last only ten days. If no life-saving surgeries commence within those ten days, this little girl returns to the children's list. I wonder if anyone has considered how to manage a lung becoming available on day 11...

I thought transplants had to go to 'healthy' people ... meaning people who weren't expected to turn around and die anyways in a year or two?? Isn't this disease at this stage fatal .. new lungs or not?

I feel bad for the family. Especially for the little girl. Every minute of every day is a struggle to get air. I wish peace for her .. and for her family. VERY SAD.

(I don't understand why a loving God lets children and families suffer like this .. but I guess that's a subject for a different thread)

reply to post by FlyersFan


I thought I read that too someplace that a candidate is one who has a greater chance of a good recovery.

I agree the policies need to be changed or at least seriously re-examined.

As a parent, I dont want my child to get that lung transplant if I know it will only give them a few years of sub standard life and they will die anyway.. i'd want my child to die and give that lung to someone who can make better use of it.

( A loving God BTW sets things in motion and gives Man the intelligence and free will to make proper dicisions - otherwise, we do not have Free Will. Don't blame God, he's not doing this)

I wonder if we aren't getting as caught up in the emotions of this to miss the underlying principle involved here? First, I cannot fault the parents for trying. In good conscience, I simply cannot. If my boy was dying, I'd write the President, the Pope and God himself if I thought it might make a difference. Anything it took...and then some.

However, that doesn't mean anyone should respond to it. Unless there are viable transplant lungs out there going to waste otherwise and the lung they would see her get is one that would simply be buried with the dead if she weren't the one to get it? Then what gives her the right to condemn others to die? This is a zero sum game in every literal sense of that phrase. If someone "wins", it's by someone else "losing". The demand is high, the supply is never enough and those without will simply die for it.

So, to give her a lung....out of normal physical context, placement on the list and way the whole system has been built to function would be outright wrong for those in authority.

Think of this way. If that little girl's last name was Bush or Soros or Koch or Kennedy and such a request was made to the level of becoming a public matter of discussion, there wouldn't be much for sympathetic argument. That's more true on this site than most, I believe. The fact she isn't wealthy or powerful doesn't change the improper nature of the request, if acted upon, for the attempt it makes to play on emotion and public pressure.

Show the photograph of the person who will die in her stead, for not having received the lung she would. That isn't hyperbole, THAT is honest and it's what we'll never see happen ....probably shouldn't, to be realistic. It's what we should never forget in considering it though. I feel for the parents...I truly do. Life is a cruel thing at times.

reply to post by Maluhia


Sebelius doesn't have to intervene. The adult lung has been approved for her. Doesn't mean she will get one for 100% certain but she is in line now.

Judge Gives Girl Who Needs New Lungs A 'Fighting Chance'

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Show the photograph of the person who will die in her stead

I'm not sure why everyone assumes we have a donor shortage for lungs and that anyone would die because she gets a new lease on life. Why don't we debate the real issue of law that was keeping her from a transplant instead of jumping on the death panel bandwagon. I predict that not only will she get her lung but her other conditions will go into remission. and she grows up to look back at her life in the hands of the government.

reply to post by newcovenant


Yes, but that directive only came through yesterday, after weeks of petitioning Sebilius to intervene to change the rule. It was a separate avenue of approach.

reply to post by deadeyedick


I'd considered a sarcastic or biting reply to that...but this topic is too serious and the outcomes too tragic to make any light of, whatsoever. The shortage of organs is real, profound and lethal to those who need them. It's never a case of excess supply when it comes to lungs and lungs in particular....as it happens.

Between 1988 and 1993, the number of lung transplants performed worldwide increased dramatically from 89 to 1160 annually (figure 1) [5]. Between 1993 and 2000, the number of transplants reported to the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) Registry increased modestly as activity appeared to plateau around 2000 procedures annually [5]. However, there has been a steady growth in the number of procedures performed annually since 2000, and over 3000 transplants were reported in 2009 [5]. While part of this increase may be attributable to greater participation in the ISHLT Registry, the rapid rise in activity since 2005 suggests that the lung allocation system implemented in the US in 2005 has increased the number of transplants performed.

Donor lung shortage has been the major limiting factor to the number of transplants performed. Lung organ procurement rates from deceased donors have consistently been substantially lower than kidney, liver, and heart procurement rates. Lungs are harvested from only 15 percent of all cadaveric donors, whereas kidneys and livers are harvested from 88 percent and hearts from 30 percent of deceased donors [6].

Source

The technology that makes it possible to do is a wonder of humanity and medicine. The shortage of donor organs is a tragedy of human shortsightedness and lack of consideration for the ability to give, where religious or other concerns aren't the primary factor.

Prior to suggesting that availability isn't a very serious and pressing issue around the world....I'd ask something. Are you a registered and clearly identified organ donor without restriction?

For this little girl to get hers...someone will NOT get theirs. That isn't a hunch, that's statistical fact.

Just as with heart transplantation, demand for donor lungs is greater than the supply. In 1998, 3144 people were on the waiting list for a lung transplant; 498 (16%) died before getting a donor organ. In the United States, people may wait 18 months or longer for a donor lung.

Because of such demand, systems have been developed to make sure that the sickest people are first to receive donor organs. Donors are carefully screened to make sure that only healthy lungs are transplanted. Because of the severe shortage, bilateral lung transplants are rare. Most patients receive a single lung.

Source

The issues here run a lot deeper than our emotional response to the needs and tragic story of just one little girl. There are many others who won't get this special consideration. That is what makes this wrong, IMO.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
. Don't blame God, he's not doing this)

It's hard not to. He could stop it if He wanted to.
It's frustrating and things like this really test my faith.
But like I said .. that's for another thread.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I proud of you for not taking the lower road. You still have missed the point of this thread and debate. It has never been about any shortage this was a law that was keeping her from getting into a line that was set up to bring an order to the process. That law was excluding viable candidates from even getting in the line in which all the factors are weighed against other candidates and availability. At no point have they asked to receive an organ that was bound for another patient. Now your arguments may have weight in a thread about the way the list is formed and such.

As far as people not wanting to be a donor the list to give would definitely grow if it was not compiled by the dept. of transportation. Not many people can get past having the same people that we try our best to avoid getting caught without our seat belts on and such. If it means that average people that have lost respect for authority at some point would have to go to the police headquarters in order to sign up to be a donor then the donors will be few.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

There are many others who won't get this special consideration

I'm wondering why you see this as special consideration because the rule right now prohibits children under 12 from receiving adult lungs period. She is not asking to jump ahead of others - just to widen the scope of donors available to her.

Originally posted by Maluhia
reply to post by newcovenant

 

Yes, but that directive only came through yesterday, after weeks of petitioning Sebilius to intervene to change the rule. It was a separate avenue of approach.

Yes, but it did come through and I imagine Sebilius was trying to protect herself as well as the other people waiting for transplants, and weigh the consequences of such a broad change in the rules. Even this is only for this little girl. No others. There is sound medical reasoning behind it. You can't waste lungs by giving them to people who will reject them. I don't see why the vitriol? If she had made a swift decision, people awaiting transplants, and whomever was bumped, (or their families) might have sued that department for lose of life.