Should Sara Murnaghan have died in favor of the person before her?

[LoneLaugher]

As a medical profession I will share with you all the truth about how this works.

Most people mistakenly think that it's a 1st come, 1st served situation. That is incorrect. The waiting list for donor organs is more of a triage situation. They are sorted according to need and urgency.

It was determined that this girl's need was greater than the others. that's how the situation works. Of course that doesn't help the person who is bumped, but it's the only fair way that we have to do it.

Medical professionals know that the term is medical professional.

 

[PredFan]

As a medical profession I will share with you all the truth about how this works.

Most people mistakenly think that it's a 1st come, 1st served situation. That is incorrect. The waiting list for donor organs is more of a triage situation. They are sorted according to need and urgency.

It was determined that this girl's need was greater than the others. that's how the situation works. Of course that doesn't help the person who is bumped, but it's the only fair way that we have to do it.

Does this apply even for those who will not benefit from the transplant? What if the next person in the proverbial triage, and is the worst off, happens to be 70 years old?

There is no "Next person in the triage". When a donor organ becomes available, each patient is assessed as to his or her need and the person who gets the organ is determined. EVERYTHING, is considered, especially who will benefit most.

 

[PredFan]

As a medical profession I will share with you all the truth about how this works.

Most people mistakenly think that it's a 1st come, 1st served situation. That is incorrect. The waiting list for donor organs is more of a triage situation. They are sorted according to need and urgency.

It was determined that this girl's need was greater than the others. that's how the situation works. Of course that doesn't help the person who is bumped, but it's the only fair way that we have to do it.

Medical professionals know that the term is medical professional.

Typo, nit wit.

 

[PredFan]

For the girl and her family, I'm happy she's alive.

But I am HORRIFIED that her care was the object of a political process. This is a harbinger of what government run health care (rationing of scarce supply) will entail:

Politically connected and politically visible patients will get preference over the powerless and the anonymous.

This is not a good thing.

I don't think that this is what happened, but your point in general is valid.

What happened was Kathleen Sebelius conducted the first publicised Death Panel of obamacare. Many many more are to come.

You are right! She conducted a death panel. And the kid is now dea.........uh.......er......wait!

You really are a loud mouth fool. If the judge hadn't inervened, the kid would be dead.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I don't think that this is what happened, but your point in general is valid.

What happened was Kathleen Sebelius conducted the first publicised Death Panel of obamacare. Many many more are to come.

You are right! She conducted a death panel. And the kid is now dea.........uh.......er......wait!

You really are a loud mouth fool. If the judge hadn't inervened, the kid would be dead.

Are you going to sit there with a straight face and tell us that you think that Kathleen Sebelius was conducting an Obamacare death panel regarding this case?

Is that your opinion as a medical profession? You imbecile.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Enough of this. I now know where everyone stands. I will gladly take up the banner as the minority opinion in this issue. Men have their advocates, and children should have theirs also. So be it.

The problem is this opened the floodgates for government determining who lives and who dies based on what qualities that the government prefers. It's not a coincidence that a high-profile EMOTIONAL EMOTIONAL EMOTIONAL (the communist masters use emotional stories to gain INITIAL SUPPORT to set precedent) before the full implementation of the IRS-run Obamacare.

It's bad enough that the elites (like Dick Cheney) can already rig the system in their favor. Now, you'll get a IRS questionnaire, what is your religion, your beliefs, your affiliation, etc, and they'll rig it AGAINST YOU so they can cull the herd.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Enough of this. I now know where everyone stands. I will gladly take up the banner as the minority opinion in this issue. Men have their advocates, and children should have theirs also. So be it.

The problem is this opened the floodgates for government determining who lives and who dies based on what qualities that the government prefers. It's not a coincidence that a high-profile EMOTIONAL EMOTIONAL EMOTIONAL (the communist masters use emotional stories to gain INITIAL SUPPORT to set precedent) before the full implementation of the IRS-run Obamacare.

It did? When was this protocol developed and by whom?

 

[auditor0007]

For the girl and her family, I'm happy she's alive.

But I am HORRIFIED that her care was the object of a political process. This is a harbinger of what government run health care (rationing of scarce supply) will entail:

Politically connected and politically visible patients will get preference over the powerless and the anonymous.

This is not a good thing.

I don't think that this is what happened, but your point in general is valid.

What happened was Kathleen Sebelius conducted the first publicised Death Panel of obamacare. Many many more are to come.

Your statement is comical. Kathleen Sebelius left the decision in the hands of those who should be making it, those in the medical community rather than issuing a government decree. What she did was leave the decision between the patient and the doctors. In the end, an overzealous judge made the final decision which goes against everything you people want, but you are happy. Your hypocrisy has no limits, does it?

I don't care that you are happy for the girl, but to use this as an example of government intervention in a life and death healthcare decision is one of the most idiotic statements I have heard. It goes to show you have no clue what it is that you actually support.

 

[auditor0007]

Enough of this. I now know where everyone stands. I will gladly take up the banner as the minority opinion in this issue. Men have their advocates, and children should have theirs also. So be it.

The problem is this opened the floodgates for government determining who lives and who dies based on what qualities that the government prefers. It's not a coincidence that a high-profile EMOTIONAL EMOTIONAL EMOTIONAL (the communist masters use emotional stories to gain INITIAL SUPPORT to set precedent) before the full implementation of the IRS-run Obamacare.

It's bad enough that the elites (like Dick Cheney) can already rig the system in their favor. Now, you'll get a IRS questionnaire, what is your religion, your beliefs, your affiliation, etc, and they'll rig it AGAINST YOU so they can cull the herd.

There was no government action in this case, until the judge got involved and made a decision. Sebelius made the correct call in deferring the decision to the medical professionals, and yet conservatives against Obamacare screamed like little pigs that she didn't save the little girl's life, and then when the judge makes the call, they are all happy about it but say this is what we have to look forward to with Obamacare. What a bunch of hypocritical nitwits.

 

[Katzndogz]

The girl didn't really bump anyone. Instead of a court ruling had she had her 12th birthday she was sick enough to be at the top of the list. As a child adults, no matter the level of need, got the lungs first. That includes those who have years of illness before them.

If the rules need to be changed because medical technology has advanced then the rules need to be changed. It is certainly unfair that a dying child be denied a transplant because it went to an adult not nearly as sick. That was Sarsh's situation. Lungs were going to adults far less in need than she was. Use some common sense and don't put the lungs of a 50 year old into a two year old with a cough.

 

[NLT]

I hear a lot of debates going on about how this little girl displaced other "more needing patients" when she was admitted to an adult donors list by a judge's order. So would you have rather she died instead? We can play the "who's life is more important game" all we want, but this exercise is foolish. I feel sorry for those who didn't get those lungs, and for the ones who died in donating them. But why take it out on her?

Reverse the situation. How would you feel if a judge decided that an adult go before a child on the donor list?

Do I rather she died instead? Do YOU rather that an adult died so she could live? If so, please walk up to the parents and family of that adult and explain to them that the life of their loved one is worth nothing compared to the life of an 11 year old girl.

Answer the fucking question Noomi. Don't evade me. Don't lecture me. Don't question me. What do you have against children? So she should have died, no questions asked? Why? Who or what taught you not to have any compassion for youngest amongst us?

I would assume that there was a separate list for children. Unfortunately there isn't, Noomi, I would see that as a tragedy in and of itself.

Noomi would rather have seen her aborted.

 

[PredFan]

You are right! She conducted a death panel. And the kid is now dea.........uh.......er......wait!

You really are a loud mouth fool. If the judge hadn't inervened, the kid would be dead.

Are you going to sit there with a straight face and tell us that you think that Kathleen Sebelius was conducting an Obamacare death panel regarding this case?

Is that your opinion as a medical profession? You imbecile.

I'm telling you as a fact that that was one of the first of many death panels in obamacare. The fact that you don't like what it says about your president and his healthcare takeover doesn't make me wrong.

 

[PredFan]

For the girl and her family, I'm happy she's alive.

But I am HORRIFIED that her care was the object of a political process. This is a harbinger of what government run health care (rationing of scarce supply) will entail:

Politically connected and politically visible patients will get preference over the powerless and the anonymous.

This is not a good thing.

I don't think that this is what happened, but your point in general is valid.

What happened was Kathleen Sebelius conducted the first publicised Death Panel of obamacare. Many many more are to come.

Your statement is comical. Kathleen Sebelius left the decision in the hands of those who should be making it, those in the medical community rather than issuing a government decree. What she did was leave the decision between the patient and the doctors. In the end, an overzealous judge made the final decision which goes against everything you people want, but you are happy. Your hypocrisy has no limits, does it?

I don't care that you are happy for the girl, but to use this as an example of government intervention in a life and death healthcare decision is one of the most idiotic statements I have heard. It goes to show you have no clue what it is that you actually support.

You are talking out of your partisan hack ass. Sebelius denied the girl and the judge intervened. It's pretty simple.

 

[PredFan]

Enough of this. I now know where everyone stands. I will gladly take up the banner as the minority opinion in this issue. Men have their advocates, and children should have theirs also. So be it.

The problem is this opened the floodgates for government determining who lives and who dies based on what qualities that the government prefers. It's not a coincidence that a high-profile EMOTIONAL EMOTIONAL EMOTIONAL (the communist masters use emotional stories to gain INITIAL SUPPORT to set precedent) before the full implementation of the IRS-run Obamacare.

It's bad enough that the elites (like Dick Cheney) can already rig the system in their favor. Now, you'll get a IRS questionnaire, what is your religion, your beliefs, your affiliation, etc, and they'll rig it AGAINST YOU so they can cull the herd.

There was no government action in this case, until the judge got involved and made a decision. Sebelius made the correct call in deferring the decision to the medical professionals, and yet conservatives against Obamacare screamed like little pigs that she didn't save the little girl's life, and then when the judge makes the call, they are all happy about it but say this is what we have to look forward to with Obamacare. What a bunch of hypocritical nitwits.

100% bull shit. The doctors had already decided and Sebelius blocked it. The judge told her to fuck off and allowed the kid to get it.

You don't have a clue.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

If we didn't throw away millions of usable organs, the question need never to be asked.

Why isn't organ transplant common?

If we all were donors, it would be and we would never have to choose between a little girl and someone else.

Those who are not donors ... I would really like to know why.

 

[PredFan]

If we didn't throw away millions of usable organs, the question need never to be asked.

Why isn't organ transplant common?

If we all were donors, it would be and we would never have to choose between a little girl and someone else.

Those who are not donors ... I would really like to know why.

I'm not a donor simply because for some reason I don't like the idea of them taking my organs. I'm not sure I even have a rational explanation for that.

 

[Papageorgio]

No one...I repeat...no one is killing any child. It is the disease. You, in your sickness, lash out at the policies that were put in place for very logical reasons.


Too bad, for your sake, there are no brain transplants possible yet. You're terminal.

I'm lashing out at people like you, who would rather see her die, for the sake of another person who's situation is nowhere as dire as hers. You can insult me all you want, but those policies wound up saving her life. For that I am thankful, and I weep for those who had to die to make her life possible.

So if the adult on the list had one week to live instead of 48 hours like Sarah did, they are just not as sick?

That is just...wrong.

You have no idea what the scenario was.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No one...I repeat...no one is killing any child. It is the disease. You, in your sickness, lash out at the policies that were put in place for very logical reasons.


Too bad, for your sake, there are no brain transplants possible yet. You're terminal.

I'm lashing out at people like you, who would rather see her die, for the sake of another person who's situation is nowhere as dire as hers. You can insult me all you want, but those policies wound up saving her life. For that I am thankful, and I weep for those who had to die to make her life possible.

So if the adult on the list had one week to live instead of 48 hours like Sarah did, they are just not as sick?

That is just...wrong.

DO NOT put words in my mouth. Secondly, the whole idea is the person whose situation and need are the greatest amongst the entire list gets first dibs. Nobody dies as a result, because they are assessed on a situational basis.

Nothing wrong about it. It's wise to educate yourself on how the system works before you jump to conclusions.

 

[Noomi]

If we didn't throw away millions of usable organs, the question need never to be asked.

Why isn't organ transplant common?

If we all were donors, it would be and we would never have to choose between a little girl and someone else.

Those who are not donors ... I would really like to know why.

I'm not a donor simply because for some reason I don't like the idea of them taking my organs. I'm not sure I even have a rational explanation for that.

Would you accept an organ from someone else if you needed it?

 

[LoneLaugher]

If we didn't throw away millions of usable organs, the question need never to be asked.

Why isn't organ transplant common?

If we all were donors, it would be and we would never have to choose between a little girl and someone else.

Those who are not donors ... I would really like to know why.

I'm not a donor simply because for some reason I don't like the idea of them taking my organs. I'm not sure I even have a rational explanation for that.

You don't have one. It stems from your natural proclivity toward greed and stupidity.

The opt out system would make this far less of a supply problem.

Nutters think they'll be drinking wine with jeebus after they die so they'll need their kidneys and such.