Someone lives and someone dies

[Mavric]

A federal judge has ordered Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to allow Sarah Murnaghan, a 10-year-old in Pennsylvania dying of cystic fibrosis, to be moved to the adult lung transplant list. Normally federal policy prevents children younger than 12 from receiving donated adult lungs, but Sebelius has been under pressure to change the policy.

Politico

[broganreynik]

I personally believe it's the right thing to do to review the rule. If a person is deemed capable of accepting an adult transplant, there is no reason they should not be on that list, abiding by the same rules as everyone else (seniority, severity, etc.).

 

The fact that she is being excluded from the list because of her age, not because of her medical eligibility is ridiculous. The rule is ridiculous and needs reviewed.

 

Some may say this is all about politics, yadda, yadda, but if it changes this regulation based on somewhat arbitrary factors, NOT medical eligibility, I say it's worth it.

[TGHusker]

The bigger picture is that we are reliant on judges and federal administrators to make these decisions. Here a judge gets involved. So, in the future will we have everyone running to judges to try to get moved to a list or moved up in order? Seems like there got to be a better method -

[carlfense]

A federal judge has ordered Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to allow Sarah Murnaghan, a 10-year-old in Pennsylvania dying of cystic fibrosis, to be moved to the adult lung transplant list. Normally federal policy prevents children younger than 12 from receiving donated adult lungs, but Sebelius has been under pressure to change the policy.

Politico

Interesting. Now we have a W. appointed judge insisting that the federal government get more involved in choosing who lives or dies.

 

Is this bizzarro world?

[BigRedBuster]

A federal judge has ordered Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to allow Sarah Murnaghan, a 10-year-old in Pennsylvania dying of cystic fibrosis, to be moved to the adult lung transplant list. Normally federal policy prevents children younger than 12 from receiving donated adult lungs, but Sebelius has been under pressure to change the policy.

Politico

Interesting. Now we have a W. appointed judge insisting that the federal government get more involved in choosing who lives or dies.

 

Is this bizzarro world?

 

 

What difference does that make?

[knapplc]

A federal judge has ordered Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to allow Sarah Murnaghan, a 10-year-old in Pennsylvania dying of cystic fibrosis, to be moved to the adult lung transplant list. Normally federal policy prevents children younger than 12 from receiving donated adult lungs, but Sebelius has been under pressure to change the policy.

Politico

Interesting. Now we have a W. appointed judge insisting that the federal government get more involved in choosing who lives or dies.

 

Is this bizzarro world?

 

 

What difference does that make?

 

The death panels were supposed to be Obama's idea.

[BigRedBuster]

I guess you are living under the notion that judges follow the politics of the President who appointed them? I'm sure that isn't a hard fast rule.

 

Or....are you telling me that all judges that Obama appoints WILL follow his political views and goals?

 

Also, does a judge or the President who appointed them have control over what case comes before them?

[Junior]

4. She declines - stating: “I would suggest, sir, that, again, this is an incredibly agonizing situation where someone lives and someone dies,”

 

 

 

In what way is this statement untrue? If we take the available lung for a 10 year old girl, someone else loses it and they die instead. Someone lives (or has a chance to live - but doesn't necessarily live) and someone will die. It isn't an easy situation but emotion needs to be removed from the equation. The rules were set years ago by doctors, I suggest they be followed. We can all sit here and say, that 10 year old should live! But what about the 25 year old who doesn't get a lung because of this? Should HE live? And what if the girl dies because the transplant failed? Then who's head has to roll because they made an exception for her and it didn't work, and the other guy is dead now too?

 

Emotion has to be removed from the equation and protocol should be followed. That protocol was established for a reason.

[rawhide]

If you find fault in the protocol; fine, change it. If there is no real issue, it shouldn't be changed on a case by case basis.

 

I've watched pediatric patients die and I've watched geriatric patients die. Neither is an easy thing to do. One is not sadder than the other. One is not a greater loss than the other.

[carlfense]

What difference does that make?

Because looking at who appointed a particular judge will often give you a rough idea of where their politics will lead them.

[carlfense]

I guess you are living under the notion that judges follow the politics of the President who appointed them? I'm sure that isn't a hard fast rule.

 

Or....are you telling me that all judges that Obama appoints WILL follow his political views and goals?

 

Also, does a judge or the President who appointed them have control over what case comes before them?

See above. It's not hard and fast . . . there are definitely exceptions that prove the rule.

[carlfense]

4. She declines - stating: “I would suggest, sir, that, again, this is an incredibly agonizing situation where someone lives and someone dies,”

 

 

 

In what way is this statement untrue? If we take the available lung for a 10 year old girl, someone else loses it and they die instead. Someone lives (or has a chance to live - but doesn't necessarily live) and someone will die. It isn't an easy situation but emotion needs to be removed from the equation. The rules were set years ago by doctors, I suggest they be followed. We can all sit here and say, that 10 year old should live! But what about the 25 year old who doesn't get a lung because of this? Should HE live? And what if the girl dies because the transplant failed? Then who's head has to roll because they made an exception for her and it didn't work, and the other guy is dead now too?

 

Emotion has to be removed from the equation and protocol should be followed. That protocol was established for a reason.

+1

[NUance]

One problem is that people don't make provisions for their organs while they are still alive. Most people, that is. LINK

[knapplc]

One problem is that people don't make provisions for their organs while they are still alive. Most people, that is. LINK

That seems unnecessarily cumbersome. I'm an organ donor, and frankly I don't care who gets my organs when I die. Stipulating that it goes to my descendants or family seems harsh. What are the odds that someone in my family will need them immediately upon my death?

 

I do think he's smart in stipulating that all costs associated with the use of my organs be covered by a third party. I shouldn't bankrupt the survivors of my family because I want to provide life for someone else.

[NUance]

One problem is that people don't make provisions for their organs while they are still alive. Most people, that is. LINK

That seems unnecessarily cumbersome. I'm an organ donor, and frankly I don't care who gets my organs when I die. Stipulating that it goes to my descendants or family seems harsh. What are the odds that someone in my family will need them immediately upon my death?

 

I do think he's smart in stipulating that all costs associated with the use of my organs be covered by a third party.

Ha ha! Admittedly this guy isn't just some ordinary Joe. He's a law professor who has done research and written papers on the topic.

.

.

I shouldn't bankrupt the survivors of my family because I want to provide life for someone else.

I believe he inserted that penalty to prevent family members from ignoring the terms of his organ bequest.