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

[Sunshine]

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

the insurance companies have never had it so good

now that obamacare has passed

$$profits$$

So much for socialized medicine then huh

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

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

 

[jon_berzerk]

the insurance companies have never had it so good

now that obamacare has passed

$$profits$$

So much for socialized medicine then huh

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

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

yup

 

[Katzndogz]

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]

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?

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.

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]

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

Parentsof dying 10 year old girl challenge organ donor rule


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?

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.

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

organs go the other way around

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

 

[Katzndogz]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

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.

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

organs go the other way around

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

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]

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

Parentsof dying 10 year old girl challenge organ donor rule


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?

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.

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

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]

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

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.

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

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?

See post #29, I corrected myself.

Immie

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

Obviously some prisoners do get organ transplants.

Prisoner who raped teen may get transplant - Times Union

 

[Noomi]

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

Parentsof dying 10 year old girl challenge organ donor rule


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?

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.

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

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]

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]

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]

Just sign the damn petition!

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

 

[MeBelle]

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]

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.

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

 

[Esmeralda]

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.

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

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]

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

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.

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

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?

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.