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

[Kooshdakhaa]

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?

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]

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?

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]

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?

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.

In general, yes I do – 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]

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?

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.

In general, yes I do – 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.

i prefer best match for the donation

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

In general, yes I do – 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.

i prefer best match for the donation

*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]

In general, yes I do – 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.

i prefer best match for the donation

*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.

it is simply not that easy so many variables

i wish it was

 

[Katzndogz]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

HHS secretary is challenging the rule as of this morning

 

[Katzndogz]

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]

HHS secretary is challenging the rule as of this morning

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

--LOL

always looking for another stepping stone