# Parents of dying 10-year-old girl challenge organ donor rule



## FA_Q2 (May 31, 2013)

Parentsof dying 10 year old girl challenge organ donor rule 



> Sarah Murnaghan, who has only weeks to live, is eligible for adult donor lungs, but because of her age, she can only receive them after all adult candidates  regardless of the seriousness of their condition  have the chance to receive them.


I was surprised to learn this and really wondering why such a rule exists.  I would think that by default a child would receive transplants before adults, not the other way around.  That is, at least, what seems right to me.  Does anyone know if there is a reason for this like increased complications or something of that nature?  Further, do you disagree or agree with this rule?


----------



## strollingbones (May 31, 2013)

organs should go to the best match...period....it is hard enough with a good match....why make it harder by setting guidelines that do it any other way


----------



## Noomi (May 31, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Parentsof dying 10 year old girl challenge organ donor rule
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A child should always come first. If she needs the lungs more, she should get them. I had no idea there would be a law like this.


----------



## Grandma (Jun 1, 2013)

No.

See, a child is not as good a match for adult lungs as an adult. There's an increased probability that the operation would be unsuccessful. 

As rare as transplant organ availability is, doctors have no choice but to go with the most likely to be successful match.



Did all of you sign your donor cards? I certainly did.


----------



## Immanuel (Jun 1, 2013)

strollingbones said:


> organs should go to the best match...period....it is hard enough with a good match....why make it harder by setting guidelines that do it any other way





Noomi said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Parentsof dying 10 year old girl challenge organ donor rule
> ...



Seems to me that the organs should go first to the person that is in the most need of them and then to the person with the best match regardless of age.  

This 10 year old should not be excluded from receiving the lungs because of her age, but neither should she jump to the front of the line simply because she is 10.   If there are people who are in as dire straits as she is, they should not be skipped simply because a 10 year old also needs the lungs.

Immie


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 1, 2013)

Grandma said:


> No.
> 
> See, a child is not as good a match for adult lungs as an adult. There's an increased probability that the operation would be unsuccessful.


Do you know this as a fact?  I am unaware that there is a difference in the success rate if the donor is an adult and the receiver is a child.

As the article points out, match and severity are not determining factors when a child is on the adult list.  Adults come first regardless of best match or severity.


Grandma said:


> As rare as transplant organ availability is, doctors have no choice but to go with the most likely to be successful match.
> 
> 
> 
> Did all of you sign your donor cards? I certainly did.


 Of course.  That is why I asked if anyone knew if there were further complications.  Possibly a cite?


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 1, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> Seems to me that the organs should go first to the person that is in the most need of them and then to the person with the best match regardless of age.
> 
> This 10 year old should not be excluded from receiving the lungs because of her age, but neither should she jump to the front of the line simply because she is 10.   If there are people who are in as dire straits as she is, they should not be skipped simply because a 10 year old also needs the lungs.
> 
> Immie



Need and match should weigh heavily but I disagree that an adult should not be passed up when a child is in need.  If the severity is similar and the match the same, the child should get the transplant 100 percent of the time. 

Adults have lived, children have not.  For me it is as simple as that.  I do not think that a 40 or 50 year old person should continue to live at the expense of a 10 year old.  That is just my opinion.


----------



## Granny (Jun 1, 2013)

strollingbones said:


> organs should go to the best match...period....it is hard enough with a good match....why make it harder by setting guidelines that do it any other way



I think this is right.  These transplants should be as close to a perfect match as possible. And what other factors might there be that weighed in for the transplant going to another person instead of the girl?  Did her overall physical size create a problem? If she was very small and frail and would it been a mistake to try to insert adult size lungs into a body too small to receive it? The impact of adult lungs on her smaller child size organs?

I'm sure these parents have been through hell with the condition of their child and to have an almost date certain death looming over them has to be just horrific. I can understand them wanting their child to be the recipient.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 1, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Parentsof dying 10 year old girl challenge organ donor rule
> 
> 
> 
> ...



wait until the death panels get fired up

better yet 

wait until the trusted IRS is responsible to hand out health care


----------



## strollingbones (Jun 1, 2013)

granny that i think is normally judged on size more than age...

two of my friends have had kidney transplants....even with good matches they have struggled with the side effects of anti rejection meds...

and yes, i am an  organ donor


----------



## strollingbones (Jun 1, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Parentsof dying 10 year old girl challenge organ donor rule
> ...



what the hell are you talking about....so called 'death panels' have existed for a long time...mainly employed by insurance companies to decide treatment.....

are you just a  idiot or do you play one on message boards?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 1, 2013)

strollingbones said:


> granny that i think is normally judged on size more than age...
> 
> two of my friends have had kidney transplants....even with good matches they have struggled with the side effects of anti rejection meds...
> 
> and yes, i am an  organ donor



true 

i am a organ donor myself 

my nephew did good with his transplants 

what took him out was tripping on something 

and hitting his head on his gun safe


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 1, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Parentsof dying 10 year old girl challenge organ donor rule
> ...



This is not an Obamacare thread.  Please do not interject that into this conversation.  Keep it on the girl, her situation and the rules that are preventing her from obtaining a lung.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 1, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



you shouldnt be surprised adult lungs are a mismatch for a child


----------



## Sunshine (Jun 1, 2013)

Any scenario in which the better match were to be passed over would be unethical regardless of age.


----------



## t_polkow (Jun 1, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Parentsof dying 10 year old girl challenge organ donor rule
> ...



yea jon, the death panels like the insurance companies, you know the 10 dollar an hour little dweeb sitting in the corp office of the insurance company denying claims, so they can make more profit... that death panel


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 1, 2013)

t_polkow said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



the insurance companies have never had it so good 

now that obamacare has passed 

*$$profits$$*


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 1, 2013)

strollingbones said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



An idiot likely, a partisan hack for sure.


----------



## t_polkow (Jun 1, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



So much for socialized medicine then huh 

What is very troubling is that a child may die do to some arcane rules .


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 1, 2013)

t_polkow said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > t_polkow said:
> ...



arcane rule 

not hardly 

she needs lungs appropriate to her size 

t is one of the criteria to meet


----------



## Sunshine (Jun 1, 2013)

t_polkow said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > t_polkow said:
> ...



Children die every day.  The sole criterion should be the who is the best match.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 1, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



yup


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 1, 2013)

I feel so badly for these parents.  I've been following the reports on this story, the problem are that adult lungs are not a good match for children.  The adjustments that must be made to fit adult lungs into a child's body might not work as the child grows, the organs grow, and the fittings made for lungs that will not grow no longer match.   Then too, the transplanted organs from an adult to a child won't stop aging.  40 year old lungs in a ten year old's body will someday be 80 year old lungs in a 50 year old body.  The liver is the only organ that regenerates.  The rest do not.


----------



## syrenn (Jun 1, 2013)

Noomi said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Parentsof dying 10 year old girl challenge organ donor rule
> ...




why?  why should she "just becasue she is a child" come first? Its very possible adult lungs wont fit into her chest cavity. 


everyone on  the waiting list for lungs....needs them more. The sympathy card should not play into who gets what organs.


----------



## syrenn (Jun 1, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> > organs should go to the best match...period....it is hard enough with a good match....why make it harder by setting guidelines that do it any other way
> ...



organs go the other way around

best match...first. Then to who is in the most need.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 1, 2013)

I am NOT an organ donor.   I don't agree with the concept of organ donation.  However, I fail to see a purpose behind giving organs to prisoners serving a life sentence and denying that organ to a child if there is any possible way it could be made to be successful.


----------



## Immanuel (Jun 1, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Seems to me that the organs should go first to the person that is in the most need of them and then to the person with the best match regardless of age.
> ...



Suppose the adult is 30?  Who determines when the adult has outlived his or her usefulness and the child's life is more valuable?  The government?  

In my humble opinion, age should not be a determining factor unless it is to exclude a recipient based on the fact that the recipient cannot survive the surgery and thus the transplanted organ would be lost if attempted.

Immie


----------



## Sunshine (Jun 1, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> I am NOT an organ donor.   I don't agree with the concept of organ donation.  However, I fail to see a purpose behind giving organs to prisoners serving a life sentence and denying that organ to a child if there is any possible way it could be made to be successful.



I have worked in prisons.  Where I worked they don't get organ transplants.  The state is 100% responsible for payment for medical/psychiatric treatments and I can tell you they aren't going to pay $100K+ for a prisoner to have a transplant.


----------



## Immanuel (Jun 1, 2013)

syrenn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > strollingbones said:
> ...



You're right. I switched those around. My mistake. The best match is and should be considered first.  Just because Joe needs a heart NOW does not mean he should get the heart that is not a good match for him but is a better match for Jolene.

Immie


----------



## Esmeralda (Jun 1, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> > organs should go to the best match...period....it is hard enough with a good match....why make it harder by setting guidelines that do it any other way
> ...



The person who is the best match makes the most sense. What is the point of giving them to the one most in need if that person's body rejects the organ? Then two people lose.  That makes no sense.  Seriously, don't people think the medical profession has put a  lot of thought and experience into this issue?


----------



## Immanuel (Jun 1, 2013)

Esmeralda said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > strollingbones said:
> ...



See post #29, I corrected myself.

Immie


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 1, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > I am NOT an organ donor.   I don't agree with the concept of organ donation.  However, I fail to see a purpose behind giving organs to prisoners serving a life sentence and denying that organ to a child if there is any possible way it could be made to be successful.
> ...



Obviously some prisoners do get organ transplants.

Prisoner who raped teen may get transplant - Times Union


----------



## Noomi (Jun 1, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> > organs should go to the best match...period....it is hard enough with a good match....why make it harder by setting guidelines that do it any other way
> ...



Sorry, but if this kid and a 50 year old with lung cancer were the only matches, she should get the lungs. The smoker shouldn't even be considered.
How long does she have to wait for lungs when the adults getting them probably don't even deserve them?


----------



## Noomi (Jun 1, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> I feel so badly for these parents.  I've been following the reports on this story, the problem are that adult lungs are not a good match for children.  The adjustments that must be made to fit adult lungs into a child's body might not work as the child grows, the organs grow, and the fittings made for lungs that will not grow no longer match.   Then too, the transplanted organs from an adult to a child won't stop aging.  40 year old lungs in a ten year old's body will someday be 80 year old lungs in a 50 year old body.  The liver is the only organ that regenerates.  The rest do not.



I did not even consider this. How sad.


----------



## Politico (Jun 2, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> I was surprised to learn this and really wondering why such a rule exists.



Really you're surprised that big people's lungs don't work in little people's bodies?


----------



## MeBelle (Jun 2, 2013)

*Just sign the damn petition!*

http://www.change.org/petitions/opt...nts-of-adult-lungs-based-on-medical-necessity


----------



## MeBelle (Jun 2, 2013)

Based on a 2000 ruling by the US Department of Health and Human Services, which mandated that organ allocation policies must be based on medical necessity rather than waiting time, OPTN implemented a new allocation system based on the severity of a patient's illness (the Lung Allocation Score, or LAS), rather than the amount of time served on the wait list in 2005. This reduced the number of deaths among patients awaiting lung transplant, ensured lungs were allocated to those with less stable diagnoses, and dramatically reduced the average wait time from over two years, and reduced the wait list by half. This new approach only applied to patients over the age of 12.

 Despite the fact that many pediatric patients can use a partial lobar transplant from an adult donor, these young patients are only offered adult donor lungs after all adult patients, regardless of the severity of the child's illness.


----------



## Kooshdakhaa (Jun 2, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Seems to me that the organs should go first to the person that is in the most need of them and then to the person with the best match regardless of age.
> ...



What about a 20 year old person?  Do you think the 10 year old should have preference over the 20 year old?


----------



## Esmeralda (Jun 2, 2013)

Kooshdakhaa said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Don't you guys get it? It doesn't have anything to do with age or with who 'deserves' the lung. It has to do with the body rejecting or accepting the lung. It's pretty damn simple. Do you really think the doctors are all conspiring against little kids?  Seriously?

Do you give the lung to someone who has a 90% chance of rejecting it or to someone who has a 90% chance of accepting it? Do you think it is easy for doctors to make these decisions? That they really discriminate for no good reason against kids just because they are kids?


----------



## Kooshdakhaa (Jun 2, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > strollingbones said:
> ...



Just because someone has lung cancer doesn't mean they are a smoker.  Nonsmokers get lung cancer, too.  And besides, smokers are human beings, also, if they get sick they deserve medical care just like anyone else does.

What do you mean, the adults getting them probably don't even "deserve" them?  The more objective this process is, the better, because when we start getting all subjective and talking about who "deserves"  or "doesn't deserve" the transplant, the door opens for great evil in the form of little tyrants making life and death decisions based on their own personal viewpoints.


----------



## Kooshdakhaa (Jun 2, 2013)

Esmeralda said:


> Kooshdakhaa said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



I hope when you say "don't you guys get it?" you are not including me in that.

I was asking FA_Q2 a question, not agreeing with him.  I asked him that specific question for a reason.

I'd be careful who you're directing those eyerolls at, they might be your intellectual superior.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 2, 2013)

Esmeralda said:


> Kooshdakhaa said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



Would you mind actually reading the posts that you are quoting rather than going off in entirely random directions that have already been covered.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 2, 2013)

Kooshdakhaa said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> > Kooshdakhaa said:
> ...



In general, yes I do &#8211; as long as the severity and match are the same.  You could continue to reduce that to absurdity though, what about 10 and 11, or 10 and 10.5 so I know that hard lines have to be drawn somewhere but in general I feel that a child should get an organ before an adult is given one when all other things are the same.  (survivability, match, success rate, etc.)

I would imagine that such a scenario is extremely unlikely though.  It is more likely that a medical reason can be found to decide who should get the organ.  The cited article however states that ALL adults get the organ regardless of anything else before the child.  Do none of you really understand what that means?

Lastly, the viability and size has been mentioned but nothing actually showing that this is a medical problem.  I hope that there is a medical reason that the child does not received the lung before the adult but there has been nothing linked that shows such a thing is true.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 2, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Kooshdakhaa said:
> 
> 
> > Esmeralda said:
> ...




i prefer best match for the donation


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 2, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Kooshdakhaa said:
> ...




*sigh* 

HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT  ONLY WHEN MATCH IS EQUAL IS THIS AN ISSUE.

Everyone prefers the best match.  That was never in question.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 2, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...




it is simply not that easy so many variables 

i wish it was


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 2, 2013)

My husband was on the liver transplant list at Cedars Sinai Transplant Center.   He didn't live long enough to make it through the evaluation process but I did learn a lot about qualifying for a transplant.  

The first criteria is how sick the person is from the condition caused by the failing organ.  If a person has life threatening conditions aside from the failing organ they will not be considered for transplantation unless those conditions can be cured first.   The second is the expectation of a successful transplant, the third is the expectation that the recipient will be able to follow post op instructions for the rest of their lives.   Then you get to best match.   There is no rule that says ALL adults get an organ before a child.  The rule is that children under 12 get pediatric organs and children over 12 are eligible for adult organs.  The lives of children are not considered more important than adults, nor is who is the most deserving a consideration.  The reason for the rule is the second criteria, the possibility of success.  A chances of a successful transplant from an adult into a child are not as great as they are from an adult into an adult.  If the questionable transplant is performed and fails, it isn't thought of as an operation that at very least gave the child a chance and it didn't work out, too bad.  The person who might have had a successful transplant is going to die.    While our sympathies are with the mother of this dying child, I can plainly see that this mother is motivated purely by her emotions.   Her child should have this opportunity, no matter how remote the chance of success.   Everyone feels that way, the family of the person that is going to die because a questionable transplant was given to a child with less of a chance of success is going to feel exactly the same way.  Maybe worse, they have an absolute right to be furious.   If the operation putting an adult organ isn't successful, the child will die, and so will the person that could have had a successful transplant.


----------



## Esmeralda (Jun 2, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> My husband was on the liver transplant list at Cedars Sinai Transplant Center.   He didn't live long enough to make it through the evaluation process but I did learn a lot about qualifying for a transplant.
> 
> The first criteria is how sick the person is from the condition caused by the failing organ.  If a person has life threatening conditions aside from the failing organ they will not be considered for transplantation unless those conditions can be cured first.   The second is the expectation of a successful transplant, the third is the expectation that the recipient will be able to follow post op instructions for the rest of their lives.   Then you get to best match.   There is no rule that says ALL adults get an organ before a child.  The rule is that children under 12 get pediatric organs and children over 12 are eligible for adult organs.  The lives of children are not considered more important than adults, nor is who is the most deserving a consideration.  *The reason for the rule is the second criteria, the possibility of success.  A chances of a successful transplant from an adult into a child are not as great as they are from an adult into an adult.  If the questionable transplant is performed and fails, it isn't thought of as an operation that at very least gave the child a chance and it didn't work out, too bad.  The person who might have had a successful transplant is going to die.*    While our sympathies are with the mother of this dying child, I can plainly see that this mother is motivated purely by her emotions.   Her child should have this opportunity, no matter how remote the chance of success.   Everyone feels that way, the family of the person that is going to die because a questionable transplant was given to a child with less of a chance of success is going to feel exactly the same way.  Maybe worse, they have an absolute right to be furious.   If the operation putting an adult organ isn't successful, the child will die, and so will the person that could have had a successful transplant.


This was exactly my point.  What I put in bold.  The chance of success.  You don't put a healthy organ into someone when the chance of success is low and not give to someone when the chance of success is high. In the end, they both lose.  

Also, I do not think doctors who deal in this area discriminate; they make the best decisions they can based on all the criteria.  Trying to make this issue anything other than the direct, straight forward issue it is--that's what isn't very intelligent.


----------



## Politico (Jun 3, 2013)

Esmeralda said:


> The chance of success.  You don't put a healthy organ into someone when the chance of success is low and not give to someone when the chance of success is high. In the end, they both lose.



Exactly. I offered up one of my mine yesterday. You may even hear about it later on the mass I only care about ratings media. I told them all they have to do is respond to me in this thread and I will cough up a lung for her. We will wait to see if anyone does. But no one is going to take me up on the offfer because they won't fit her.


----------



## DarkLion (Jun 3, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Need and match should weigh heavily but I disagree that an adult should not be passed up when a child is in need.  If the severity is similar and the match the same, the child should get the transplant 100 percent of the time.
> 
> Adults have lived, children have not.  For me it is as simple as that.  I do not think that a 40 or 50 year old person should continue to live at the expense of a 10 year old.  That is just my opinion.



How about an adult of say...25? Have they "lived" enough?

It's not your place, or anyone elses, to determine whether someone has "lived" enough or not. The person who's name if first on the list, should get first crack at the organ.


----------



## Politico (Jun 3, 2013)

Semantics. It does not matter if they lived 'enough'. THe family has been offered a lung for her. Let's see if they they take it.


----------



## Noomi (Jun 3, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Need and match should weigh heavily but I disagree that an adult should not be passed up when a child is in need.  If the severity is similar and the match the same, the child should get the transplant 100 percent of the time.
> ...



Have it like this:

If you are 50 and under, you get first dibs. Over 50's come last.
If you have been a smoker, or a drinker, you come dead last, no matter how severe your condition. Because a 50 year old smoker with lung cancer does not deserve those lungs over a 20 year old with cystic fibrosis.


----------



## Noomi (Jun 3, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> How about an adult of say...25? Have they "lived" enough?



I am 29 years old. If I knew that there was a young child who was also a match for the lungs that I was about to receive, I would allow him/her to take them first. I may be young, but I have seen a lot more of life than a young kid.


----------



## DarkLion (Jun 3, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Have it like this:
> 
> If you are 50 and under, you get first dibs. Over 50's come last.
> If you have been a smoker, or a drinker, you come dead last, no matter how severe your condition. Because a 50 year old smoker with lung cancer does not deserve those lungs over a 20 year old with cystic fibrosis.



I can agree with that. My cousin died of cirrhosis of the liver at only 38. She was the heaviest drinker I have ever seen. The doctors would not put her on a list for a transplant, and even as much as I loved her, I agreed.


----------



## DarkLion (Jun 3, 2013)

Noomi said:


> DarkLion said:
> 
> 
> > How about an adult of say...25? Have they "lived" enough?
> ...



Well, I'm 28 and I wouldn't. You and I are both still young enough to have a great deal left to offer the world. I would be so quick to toss that away, and neither should you.


----------



## strollingbones (Jun 3, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > DarkLion said:
> ...





gee i still feel that way at nearly 60....i wonder how this goes down when we look at the accomplishments of people over 50?  i wonder why the age of 50 is chosen?  so many questions for the fresh young minds...why not 40?


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 3, 2013)

Age is not a factor that is considered.  Neither is the relative "worth" to the world of the recipient.   The first criteria is not best match, or need.  The first criteria is the success of the transplant.   That is why adults get adult organs and children get children's organs.   No matter how many children's lives you want to save, the organs of a 29 year old won't be transplanted into a young child.  The lives of young children can only be saved by the deaths of more young children.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 3, 2013)

HHS secretary is challenging the rule as of this morning


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 3, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> HHS secretary is challenging the rule as of this morning



That's because she is a democrat and an idiot, but I repeat myself.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 3, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > HHS secretary is challenging the rule as of this morning
> ...



--LOL

always looking for another stepping stone


----------



## Esmeralda (Jun 3, 2013)

strollingbones said:


> DarkLion said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Many  young people think people past 50 are just sort of throw aways. Little do they know. If you look at history, much of the great things that have been done in art, literature, science, world leadership, etc., have been done by people over 50.  Youthful arrogance sometimes knows no bounds.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 3, 2013)

That's because democrats want to make decisions based on feelings.  Let's give a child an adult organ because it feels good, like we're doing something to help the children.  "It's for the chuuuuurrrrlllllldddrreeennnn".   If it's bad science, or bad medicine, who cares.  It looks good on paper.  It shows that your heart is in the right place.  It's another reason why the secretary of HHS needs to be replaced.


----------



## strollingbones (Jun 3, 2013)

bush as gov of texas signed a bill allowing children to die....not just the democrats there kat


----------



## strollingbones (Jun 3, 2013)

okay lets toss another moral issue....organ buying


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 3, 2013)

How about organ theft?


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 3, 2013)

I'm sooo glad I'm not a donor.


----------



## DarkLion (Jun 3, 2013)

strollingbones said:


> gee i still feel that way at nearly 60....i wonder how this goes down when we look at the accomplishments of people over 50?  i wonder why the age of 50 is chosen?  so many questions for the fresh young minds...why not 40?



You have just as much right to life as anyone else, no matter the age. I was just making a point


----------



## finebead (Jun 3, 2013)

I think the medical ethicists do a great job, and they have it right in this case.  This is not about politics, its about doing the best thing we can do, all factors considered.



> The OPTN network guideline do this not because of &#8216;ageism&#8217; however. They set these strict rules based on medical conditions up so that transplantation candidates have reasonable chance of survival. Adult lungs are larger and more difficult to transplant into children, even if they are tissue matched. Keep in mind that transplantation of new lungs into cystic fibrosis patient will not cure Sarah; it will only postpone the inevitable. Lung transplantation into a cystic fibrosis patient has only a 50% chance of survival past 5 years &#8212; not counting the additional complications of mismatching the size of the lungs.
> 
> The issue of Sarah being essentially curable long-term is important,  because another patient with another disease that might be more curable with lung transplantation will not get one.
> 
> Don&#8217;t forget, if we save Sarah that necessarily means someone else is left to die. Someone who might be saved. Someone who matches the donor lungs better. Someone else&#8217;s loved one.


Little Sarah Murnaghan's Needed Lung Transplant: Why Gov't Should Not Intervene - The Brenner Brief | The Brenner Brief 

The rules were made that way by people with a lot more knowledge than most of us have, including me, and to overturn the rule, you should make a good case for it.  I have not seen that case.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 3, 2013)

finebead said:


> I think the medical ethicists do a great job, and they have it right in this case.  This is not about politics, its about doing the best thing we can do, all factors considered.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is a very well written and reasoned article.  I don't blame Sarah's mother.  She would do anything to save her child.  Her child's life is the most important life in the world to her.   If she could, she'd give up one of her own lungs to save her child's life.   Did they ever do a match test by the way?    A mother's emotional plea cannot be used as the basis for medical decisions that go way beyond the personal affect on her and her family.


----------



## FireFly (Jun 3, 2013)

The best way to help & make a difference is to sign up here to be an organ donor when you die. On average each donor saves 8 lives.


----------



## Kooshdakhaa (Jun 3, 2013)

FireFly said:


> The best way to help & make a difference is to sign up here to be an organ donor when you die. On average each donor saves 8 lives.



But, really...I'm 60.  Does anyone really want 60-year-old organs?  And the way some people talk about "people over 50," as though they come last and don't matter as much...well, I say fuck you.  My organs are going in the crematorium with the rest of me.


----------



## Kooshdakhaa (Jun 3, 2013)

Noomi said:


> DarkLion said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



Okay, God, whatever you say.


----------



## Kooshdakhaa (Jun 3, 2013)

Someone brought up a good point.  Why doesn't the mother donate a lung for her daughter?  People can live with one lung.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 3, 2013)

Kooshdakhaa said:


> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> > The best way to help & make a difference is to sign up here to be an organ donor when you die. On average each donor saves 8 lives.
> ...



You got ten years.  Over 70 and organs are no longer acceptable.

I find organ donation entirely too creepy to participate.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 3, 2013)

When my husband was under going the transplant evaluation we were assigned a transplant survivor to be our guide.  It was a woman.  I asked her what it was like living with the knowledge that the only reason you lived was because you were cobbled together out of the body parts of a corpse.

She said she didn't think about that part.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 4, 2013)

Sebelius said no change to help this girl.  It is a medical decision.  There are other children just as sick.  Sebelius asked for a review of the policies but will not go further than that.

Sebelius: I Can?t Step Into Girl?s Transplant Case « CBS Philly


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 4, 2013)

finebead said:


> I think the medical ethicists do a great job, and they have it right in this case.  This is not about politics, its about doing the best thing we can do, all factors considered.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Finally, a good cite that explains everything.  Thank you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 4, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Grandma said:
> 
> 
> > No.
> ...



Not being a doctor, I could miss something, but lungs would have to be cut down in order to go from a normal adult to a 10 year old child. This increases the complexity if the operation and exposes the lungs themselves to further trauma. I can see why they would prefer to avoid this. I know they can't put an adult heart in a child who needs one if it is too large.


----------



## finebead (Jun 7, 2013)

> June 5, 2013
> *Judge's order makes Sarah Murnaghan, who has end-stage cystic fibrosis and just weeks to live, eligible for an adult lung.
> *
> A federal judge Wednesday ordered that a dying 10-year-old suburban Philadelphia girl be placed temporarily on an adult transplant list for a new lung.
> ...


Judge orders dying Pa. girl put on transplant list 

OK, 1 more week to 6/14 for a review, ordered by the judge.  I think the doctors know best, and the rules have anticipated all the possibilities, but one short term review doesn't seem to hurt.  But, a 75% chance she gets a lung transplant in that time?  I had no idea the odds would be so good of getting a lung that quickly.  If she does, will someone else necessarily die waiting on the next lung?


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 7, 2013)

A boy in the same hospital just had his parents get the same judge to sign the same order for him.  

Judge's ruling puts 2nd child in line for adult lungs - CNN.com

Once these decisions escape medical care and become legal matters, the entire transplant process is threatened.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 7, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> A boy in the same hospital just had his parents get the same judge to sign the same order for him.
> 
> Judge's ruling puts 2nd child in line for adult lungs - CNN.com
> 
> Once these decisions escape medical care and become legal matters, the entire transplant process is threatened.



Why?

The rules were pretty straight forward  they dont get a lung unless there are NO ADULTS that need it.  I dont see how that threatens anyone at all.

It is also why it is rare for that to even work.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 7, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > A boy in the same hospital just had his parents get the same judge to sign the same order for him.
> ...



That wasn't what the judges order said.

Keep in mind that every single time anyone gets a lung transplant someone else on the list dies, and that doctors estimate that, even with the transplant, this girl will not live long enough to have a Sweet 16 party. Do you honestly want judges interfering with the process in order to put people who have more money, or a better sob story, ahead of others?

The process is already screwed up in that it is biased in favor of people who are sicker, and thus less likely to survive. There is no way to make it fair, so the best thing to do, in my opinion, is develop rules that make sense, and then ignore the people that cry about how unfair it is. 

Life sucks, then you die.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 7, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Interesting.  I did not gather that when I read the link.  I thought he was just allowing the child onto the list, not screwing with the priority.  That being the case, I would agree.  I dont think a judge, as a non-medical professional, should have anything to do with how patents are categorized.  I guess that would even be the case if all he had done was put her on the list as well then so I guess you are right.

That does bring another thing to the floor though  do you think that anyone in her position should get a lung anyway?  The condition is not curable so in essence the lung is essentially wasted.  It gives her another 5 years where it could give another patent decades.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 7, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



This is where it gets tough. The rules were developed to give everyone equal access, so the disease that caused the underlying problem is usually ignored, which is probably not the best approach, but I wouldn't want to tell someone who has cystic fibrosis that they cannot get a life extending operation because they will end up dead faster than a person who doesn't have the disease. 

The underlying problem is the supply of organs. Most organ donor cards are useless for organ transplants because very few people are thoughtful enough to die in a hospital in such a way that their body keeps functioning after they are legally dead. Even if organ donation was made mandatory the supply of organs would still be limited to people who die of brain trauma inside a hospital.

This is a pretty good piece which delves into some of the problems.

Sick Girl May Get a Lung but It's Not a Happy Ending - Bloomberg


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 7, 2013)

New York has a program that will dispatch organ preservation ambulances to cases like accidents, strokes or heart attacks.   The problem is, when that ambulance arrives, you have no idea whether it's to save your life or make sure you die with viable organs. 

The first criteria in considering a transplant is the success of the operation. Five years of extended life is considered the success because no one is going to live forever.   Even though Sarah won't live to see Sweet 16, if her doctors think she will make it to 15, that's enough of a success.   Someone else getting a lung transplant might live to old age.  This too is not a consideration.   My husband was 70 when we were undergoing the evaluation for a liver transplant.   The evaluation alone takes over a year.  We were only 8 months in when he passed.


----------



## Immanuel (Jun 7, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



While I agree with the points you make, the 5 years thing does raise one question though... what if in 3.5 years someone comes up with a cure for the disease she has and those extra 5 years would have bought her enough time to defeat this disease?

I do not believe she should get the lungs at the expense of another candidate who would have gotten those lungs under the transplant rules, but I can sure as heck understand her parents doing everything they can think of to fight for her cause.

I pray the best for them.

Immie


----------



## Kooshdakhaa (Jun 7, 2013)

Noomi said:


> DarkLion said:
> 
> 
> > How about an adult of say...25? Have they "lived" enough?
> ...



Big talk.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 7, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



That's the big hope.  Hang on and maybe there will be a cure.  

I don't blame her parents, I'd do the same thing myself.  This case has no winners, only varying degrees of losers.  Right now her parents are praying for the death of some innocent person who would be a match.


----------



## Kooshdakhaa (Jun 7, 2013)

I asked this before and no one commented:

Someone brought up a good point. Why doesn't the mother donate a lung for her daughter? People can live with one lung.

I know that people can live with one lung, but is there a particular reason they won't replace two diseased lungs with one good lung?  That would kind of help with the space issue in a child.

I Googled a bit and couldn't find an answer to this specific question.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 7, 2013)

Judge allows 10 year old to receive adult lung for transplant | WJLA.com


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 7, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> New York has a program that will dispatch organ preservation ambulances to cases like accidents, strokes or heart attacks.   The problem is, when that ambulance arrives, you have no idea whether it's to save your life or make sure you die with viable organs.
> 
> The first criteria in considering a transplant is the success of the operation. Five years of extended life is considered the success because no one is going to live forever.   Even though Sarah won't live to see Sweet 16, if her doctors think she will make it to 15, that's enough of a success.   Someone else getting a lung transplant might live to old age.  This too is not a consideration.   My husband was 70 when we were undergoing the evaluation for a liver transplant.   The evaluation alone takes over a year.  We were only 8 months in when he passed.



I was being generous, the doctors say it will give her two to three years. I think she should be excluded from consideration under those circumstances, but I didn't write the rules.


----------



## syrenn (Jun 7, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



that person is on the transplant list. If the lung in question is the best match for someone even if they are going to die, and no one is on the list_ in front of them_ then they should get the lung.  

wasting a lung is not an option. So if it goes into someone who is going to die anyway, it still matches and buys them 5 years.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 7, 2013)

*Why does this little girl have to die?  In fact, why do hundreds of people die everyday waiting for transplants?  The answer is pretty simple.  There are just not enough organs to go around.  If you have not done so, consider being a donor and giving the greatest gift you can give, the gift of life and it won't cost a single cent.

organdonor.gov | Becoming a Donor *


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 7, 2013)

Kooshdakhaa said:


> I asked this before and no one commented:
> 
> Someone brought up a good point. Why doesn't the mother donate a lung for her daughter? People can live with one lung.
> 
> ...



The mother might not be a match.  Even so a transplant from a living donor is very dangerous for the donor.  My husband's daughter wanted to donate liver tissue and they wouldn't do it.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 7, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > New York has a program that will dispatch organ preservation ambulances to cases like accidents, strokes or heart attacks.   The problem is, when that ambulance arrives, you have no idea whether it's to save your life or make sure you die with viable organs.
> ...



Where did you hear two to three years?  In all my classes, two or three years expected and she would never make the list at all.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 7, 2013)

A judge has ruled that she'll get her lungs. I posted it hours ago.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 7, 2013)

Political Junky said:


> A judge has ruled that she'll get her lungs. I posted it hours ago.



not really 

thr judge ruled that she can compete for lungs 

from the adult pool


----------



## syrenn (Jun 7, 2013)

Political Junky said:


> A judge has ruled that she'll get her lungs. I posted it hours ago.




and judges should have zero say in medical issues of this kind. 

sad to say they have set a bad precedent.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 7, 2013)

Flopper said:


> *Why does this little girl have to die?  In fact, why do hundreds of people die everyday waiting for transplants?  The answer is pretty simple.  There are just not enough organs to go around.  If you have not done so, consider being a donor and giving the greatest gift you can give, the gift of life and it won't cost a single cent.
> 
> organdonor.gov | Becoming a Donor *



If organ donation was mandatory people would still be dying because most people die outside a hospital without massive brain trauma.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 7, 2013)

Political Junky said:


> A judge has ruled that she'll get her lungs. I posted it hours ago.



A judge ruled that she be put on the adult list, we have been discussing that since yesterday when it happened. That does not mean she will get lungs, there are 146 adults on the list who have been there just as long.


----------



## Noomi (Jun 8, 2013)

Also, if she does get the transplant, what about the other kids on the list? Do they also move up above an adult? After all, if you let one child go first, its only fair to allow the other children to go first, as well...


----------



## Politico (Jun 8, 2013)

Flopper said:


> *If you have not done so, consider being a donor and giving the greatest gift you can give, the gift of life and it won't cost a single cent.*


*

Or be a live donor and don't wait for later.*


----------



## Kooshdakhaa (Jun 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Kooshdakhaa said:
> 
> 
> > I asked this before and no one commented:
> ...



They do kidney transplants from living donors all the time.  They take diseased lungs out of living people all the time.  So why can't you take a healthy one out and give it to someone else.


----------



## Kooshdakhaa (Jun 8, 2013)

Politico said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > *If you have not done so, consider being a donor and giving the greatest gift you can give, the gift of life and it won't cost a single cent.*
> ...


*

Actually, if my financial situation doesn't start improving soon, I'm tempted to sell a kidney.*


----------



## Noomi (Jun 8, 2013)

Flopper said:


> *Why does this little girl have to die?  In fact, why do hundreds of people die everyday waiting for transplants?  The answer is pretty simple.  There are just not enough organs to go around.  If you have not done so, consider being a donor and giving the greatest gift you can give, the gift of life and it won't cost a single cent.
> 
> organdonor.gov | Becoming a Donor *



I became a donor at the ripe old age of 11 - with my parents permission. Nearly 20 years on, I carry my organ donor card everywhere.


----------



## Noomi (Jun 8, 2013)

Kooshdakhaa said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Kooshdakhaa said:
> ...



You wouldn't be able to accept payment if that were to happen - if you did, only the rich could afford a kidney.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 8, 2013)

Immanuel said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



We have to go on what we have, not what might happen.  

I also do not fault her parents.  They are her parents.  If I knew that killing you would save my son, there is no question as to whether or not I would do so.  It might not be ethical, moral or even right but we do strange things for our children.  Particularly if they are in danger.

What her parents are doing is right for them to do.  They are trying to give their daughter the longest and fullest life possible.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 8, 2013)

syrenn said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Well, of course.  From what I understand though, that is unlikely.  There are a lot of people looking to get a small number of lungs.  I doubt that they are going to find some that only fit her and no one else on the list.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 8, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Kooshdakhaa said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Payment?  That line of quote was in reference to the mother in order to buy her daughter some more time. Payment has nothing to do with it.

Further, your supposition makes no sense.  That would not lead to the rich being the only ones that get organs.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 8, 2013)

Political Junky said:


> A judge has ruled that she'll get her lungs. I posted it hours ago.



Not quite.  The judge can't order lungs to be provided.  He ordered that she be put on the adult list as well as the pediatric list.   The order is good for ten days.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 8, 2013)

Kooshdakhaa said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Kooshdakhaa said:
> ...



Every surgery carries an inherent risk.  Someone with a diseased lung is already at risk of dying.   When a diseased lung is removed, the risk of keeping it is worse than the risk of removing it.  Removing a lung from a healthy person exposes them to a risk of something going wrong that they would not be exposed to without the surgery.   Lungs are not carburetors.  They are part of a heart/lung circulatory system making removal exceedingly dangerous.  

A kidney removal is  laparoscopic surgery.  Lung removal is open chest surgery.  Lung transplants require not one, but two living donor raising the risk of rejection.

Living donor kidney transplant.
Q & A for Kidney Donors

Living donor lung transplant

Living-Related Lobar Lung Transplant


----------



## syrenn (Jun 8, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Also, if she does get the transplant, what about the other kids on the list? Do they also move up above an adult? After all, if you let one child go first, its only fair to allow the other children to go first, as well...



no child should be moved up to the adult list. Period. 

what you suggest is exactly what other desperate parents will want and try to do now. 

MY child needs it more then YOU.


----------



## syrenn (Jun 8, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Kooshdakhaa said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



and that is why it is illegal to sell organs.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 8, 2013)

Why it's illegal to sell organs.

British schoolgirl 'murdered for her organs' in India, family claim - Telegraph

http://rt.com/news/serbs-murdered-for-their-organs-in-kosovo-new-evidence/

murder of people for organs | Guide to Surgery in Latin America

Falun Gong Practitioners Systematically Murdered for Their Organs: Refuting the Chinese Regime's "Death Row" Explanation, Chapter VII


----------



## Flopper (Jun 8, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > *Why does this little girl have to die?  In fact, why do hundreds of people die everyday waiting for transplants?  The answer is pretty simple.  There are just not enough organs to go around.  If you have not done so, consider being a donor and giving the greatest gift you can give, the gift of life and it won't cost a single cent.
> ...


I wonder how long they have to harvest the various organs.  I suspect that there are a lot of people that sign up and loose their donor card.  I think they indicate a donor on drivers licenses now.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 9, 2013)

syrenn said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Also, if she does get the transplant, what about the other kids on the list? Do they also move up above an adult? After all, if you let one child go first, its only fair to allow the other children to go first, as well...
> ...



Already happened:
Judge orders second sick child onto adult organ transplant list - Washington Times

Same judge, exact same circumstance.  I could see parents in this situation moving and/or doing anything else to get their childs situation herd by this judge to wave the rules.


----------



## syrenn (Jun 9, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...


there ya go. Sad the judge is caving to the sympathy card. 

can i blame the parents for trying anything to save their child...no.  Can i blame the judge for meddling in medical decisions...yes.

what would be funny as hell...is if the boy gets his lungs first!!!


----------



## Noomi (Jun 9, 2013)

syrenn said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Also, if she does get the transplant, what about the other kids on the list? Do they also move up above an adult? After all, if you let one child go first, its only fair to allow the other children to go first, as well...
> ...



Exactly. If you allow it to happen once, there is no reason not to allow it again, which is why this child needs to wait for a child lung.


----------



## Noomi (Jun 10, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



While I know that these kids have much more life left in them, its like the judge is saying that the adults - likely with spouses, children of their own - don't matter as much.


----------



## syrenn (Jun 10, 2013)

Noomi said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



actually... the don't have much life left in them. 

and that is why they are tying to scam the system with a sympathy card.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 10, 2013)

Judges should never make these kinds of decisions.  Do we really want people to have to prove in a court of law that they deserve to live more than someone else.  How about transplant by petition.  You get one if you get more votes than the next one on the list.

How about just wheeling the patients into an arena where we could give thumbs up or thumbs down?


----------



## syrenn (Jun 10, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Judges should never make these kinds of decisions.  Do we really want people to have to prove in a court of law that they deserve to live more than someone else.  How about transplant by petition.  You get one if you get more votes than the next one on the list.
> 
> How about just wheeling the patients into an arena where we could give thumbs up or thumbs down?



i know.... whoever gets the most likes on facebook gets the organs.... even if they don't match!!!


----------



## Noomi (Jun 10, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Judges should never make these kinds of decisions.  Do we really want people to have to prove in a court of law that they deserve to live more than someone else.  How about transplant by petition.  You get one if you get more votes than the next one on the list.
> 
> How about just wheeling the patients into an arena where we could give thumbs up or thumbs down?



Sometimes I wonder if that is what will happen one day.


----------



## finebead (Jun 12, 2013)

> Report: *Sarah Murnaghan Gets Lung Transplant*
> 6/12/2013
> 
> via TWITTER:
> ...


Report: Sarah Murnaghan Gets Lung Transplant | The Philly Post


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 12, 2013)

Great news someone died!

As I heard this "happy news", I cannot help but wonder how the family of the deceased feels at the joy being expressed that their loved one is dead.

If it's such happy news, and there is such jubilation because someone died, why not have a national registry so that when an organ is needed, the person who is a match can just be taken off the street and harvested without having to wait for accidental death to spread such joy?


----------



## Roadrunner (Jun 12, 2013)

I'm wondering how the guy/gal kicked down the list in her favor is feeling.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 12, 2013)

Interesting.  I did not think that this would happen so fast or that her chances were even that good.  Apparently she was more than placed on the recipient list.  Looks like she was bumped to the front as well.


----------



## Roadrunner (Jun 12, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Interesting.  I did not think that this would happen so fast or that her chances were even that good.  Apparently she was more than placed on the recipient list.  Looks like she was bumped to the front as well.





Some people live, some people die.

I am sure that is great comfort to those bumped off the list in favor of the little girl.

My advice, get a good PR agent if you need a transplant or any kind.

American Idol Nation is a sucker for good PR.


----------



## tjvh (Jun 12, 2013)

The precedent being set here is that when you don't like the system use the media against it -which is hardly fair to others who the system already places higher on the list. Until the system is changed, and those on it currently are grandfathered people need to accept the fact that life isn't always fair even if it involves children.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 12, 2013)

She wasn't bumped to the front of the list, the seriousness of her condition put her on the front of the list.   That was the whole argument.  Sarah was #1 on the pediatric transplant list.   If she was on the adult list, she'd be #1 there too.  She was put on the adult list and someone died, so her family is happy.


----------



## Politico (Jun 13, 2013)

Roadrunner said:


> I'm wondering how the guy/gal kicked down the list in her favor is feeling.



They just were handed a death sentence bought and paid for by the media. I imagine pretty damn shitty.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Jun 13, 2013)

Sure. Just let her die. Nobody here would have cared anyways.


----------



## Noomi (Jun 13, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Sure. Just let her die. Nobody here would have cared anyways.



You don't really care about the adult on the list who may have died, do you?

No, you don't give a shit about them.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 13, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Sure. Just let her die. Nobody here would have cared anyways.



She is STILL going to die, likely in around 3 years.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Jun 13, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Sure. Just let her die. Nobody here would have cared anyways.
> ...



Is there any medical text contraindicating such? Well, had the doctors not believed that she wouldn't have lived a long healthy life, I might agree that it was pointless. But the opposite seems to have been true. Hey, I was not there, nor could I stomach it.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Jun 13, 2013)

Oh yes, she had been waiting for 18 months for a pair of lungs! Let's not leave that little fact out.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Jun 13, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Sure. Just let her die. Nobody here would have cared anyways.
> ...



Doctors are saying that the disease will not recur in these new lungs, since it is genetic though, there's a chance it could affect other organs.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 13, 2013)

...


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 13, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Great news someone died!
> 
> As I heard this "happy news", I cannot help but wonder how the family of the deceased feels at the joy being expressed that their loved one is dead.
> 
> If it's such happy news, and there is such jubilation because someone died, why not have a national registry so that when an organ is needed, the person who is a match can just be taken off the street and harvested without having to wait for accidental death to spread such joy?



as sad as it is my brother and sister in law feel good about the donations given 

by their daughter my niece at the time of her unexpected death 

they have met some of the people the donations helped


----------



## TemplarKormac (Jun 13, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> ...



Is there something wrong?


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jun 13, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Yes, there was.  The post I placed there was not fully researched yet so I replaced it.  Should have just deleted but it is too late now.  I dont want to speak out of ignorance so when I get the time, I may comment further.  Just making sure that I dont eat my own words


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 13, 2013)

jon_berzerk said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Great news someone died!
> ...



My mother died in 1983.  I chased the organ procurement facilitator down the hospital hallway screaming "GHOUL, GRAVE ROBBER, FRANKENSTEIN".  She ran like a jackrabbit too.   I probably screamed too loud for the hospital hallway, but it got my message across.  They might have had delusions of having a donee family address me directly but I had already scared the shit out of them.   They took the yelling, maybe would have drawn the line at exposing someone to actual physical violence.

I felt pretty good about it too.

Then, oddly enough, in 2010 I found myself in a transplant center as my husband was undergoing an evaluation for a liver transplant.

No one ever knows.


----------



## finebead (Jul 15, 2014)

I was curious how this case would turn out, given the medical community initially recommended against the transplant of adult lungs into a young child, but she is doing well!  



> *Sarah Murnaghan Pedals Forward After Lung Transplant
> March 17, 2014*


Sarah Murnaghan Pedals Forward After Lung Transplant - ABC News


----------

