Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS News)   It took a court order, but a 10-year old girl with only weeks to live is now allowed to receive adult lungs   (cbsnews.com) divider line 153
    More: Strange, lung transplant, court orders, adult lungs, suspend the rules, Robert Bales, lungs, Lou Barletta, Kathleen Sebelius  
•       •       •

4570 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Jun 2013 at 1:00 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



153 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-06-06 11:46:55 AM  
And the person who is going to die because they aren't getting those lungs? What's that person's name?
 
2013-06-06 12:05:13 PM  

DamnYankees: And the person who is going to die because they aren't getting those lungs? What's that person's name?


Joey.  But nobody likes Joey, so it's okay.
 
2013-06-06 12:10:00 PM  

DamnYankees: And the person who is going to die because they aren't getting those lungs? What's that person's name?


Ted.
F*ck Ted.
 
2013-06-06 12:13:56 PM  
There is no guarantee yet she'll get lungs before she dies.

But honestly, shoehorning too-big adult lungs into a child that may not even be able to use them to leave an adult or even possibly an OLDER child to die is so much more humane, right?

/not

I grieve for the child and parents, but truly, medicine is not perfect, and life sometimes sucks. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and kicking others down to claw your way over them is not really in the spirit of life.
 
2013-06-06 12:14:41 PM  

DamnYankees: And the person who is going to die because they aren't getting those lungs? What's that person's name?


She didn't get bumped to the top of the list, only put on it based on the severity of her illness. Prior to this ruling, she was deemed ineligible because of her age. I doubt she'll end up being saved and then we'll have to deal with those people biatching that she should have been first in line.
 
2013-06-06 12:16:34 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: DamnYankees: And the person who is going to die because they aren't getting those lungs? What's that person's name?

She didn't get bumped to the top of the list, only put on it based on the severity of her illness. Prior to this ruling, she was deemed ineligible because of her age. I doubt she'll end up being saved and then we'll have to deal with those people biatching that she should have been first in line.


I understand that, but by being put on the list at all, she's displacing everyone who would go below her. I feel very badly for this girl and her family, but I also feel badly for everyone else on the list. I'm not sure why this person is getting precedence.
 
2013-06-06 12:21:41 PM  

DamnYankees: And the person who is going to die because they aren't getting those lungs? What's that person's name?


She didn't get bumped up the transplant list, you know. There's no guarantee they will even find a donor in time to save her.

On the other hand, it was pointed out that the rule existed because there was no guarantee the 10 year old's chest would be large enough to be able to accommodate an adult's lungs.

Asking the DHHS to intervene though was stupid. They don't make the rules, IIRC. The transplant foundations do.

DamnYankees: I understand that, but by being put on the list at all, she's displacing everyone who would go below her. I feel very badly for this girl and her family, but I also feel badly for everyone else on the list. I'm not sure why this person is getting precedence.


Probably because her condition is all but curable with a transplant, and she's a 10 year old child, which means she's much more likely to survive the surgery than the 70 year old guy who smoked for 40 years.
 
2013-06-06 12:26:01 PM  

hardinparamedic: Probably because her condition is all but curable with a transplant, and she's a 10 year old child, which means she's much more likely to survive the surgery than the 70 year old guy who smoked for 40 years.


This is why we let doctors and transplant boards make these decisions. Not judges, not you and not me. There's a reason about age cutoffs, and it shouldn't be overturned by a judge.
 
2013-06-06 12:30:09 PM  

DamnYankees: This is why we let doctors and transplant boards make these decisions. Not judges, not you and not me. There's a reason about age cutoffs, and it shouldn't be overturned by a judge.


The problem is that, as pointed out in TFA, the rule was made a long time ago, and may no longer be valid thanks to advances in organ procurement and selection. The arbitrary age range may also be flawed as well.

I do agree with you, though, that the courts intervening create a dangerous president for anyone who has enough money to take transplant boards to court.
 
2013-06-06 12:31:41 PM  

hardinparamedic: The problem is that, as pointed out in TFA, the rule was made a long time ago, and may no longer be valid thanks to advances in organ procurement and selection. The arbitrary age range may also be flawed as well.


Ok, but once again, this is an appeal to make to the transplant board. Not a judge.
 
2013-06-06 12:34:18 PM  

DamnYankees: Ok, but once again, this is an appeal to make to the transplant board.


And when that transplant board refuses to re-examine it's policies in light of peer-reviewed, and available evidence on the advancement of organ procurement and typing based on patient body size and cavity capabilities?
 
2013-06-06 12:35:50 PM  

hardinparamedic: DamnYankees: Ok, but once again, this is an appeal to make to the transplant board.

And when that transplant board refuses to re-examine it's policies in light of peer-reviewed, and available evidence on the advancement of organ procurement and typing based on patient body size and cavity capabilities?


I'm not sure what the claim would be that (i) they are doing this, since what possible reason would they have for doing so and (ii) you have any sort of enforcement right against them in court. You're basically arguing its bad policy, and you can do that, but I don't know what basis a court has to intervene. Appeal to Congress to change the law.
 
2013-06-06 12:38:19 PM  

DamnYankees: You're basically arguing its bad policy, and you can do that, but I don't know what basis a court has to intervene. Appeal to Congress to change the law.


I would assume the jurisdiction of the courts, in that event, would fall under the Fifth Amendment Due Process clause, especially if federal or state funds were being used to pay for the girl's treatment.
 
2013-06-06 12:39:09 PM  

DamnYankees: Appeal to Congress to change the law.


It's not a law. It's a transplant foundation policy. Congressional law delegates the delegation of organs to needing patients to the regional transplant authorities. The only thing the law addresses is for-profit buying and selling of organs.
 
2013-06-06 12:39:39 PM  

hardinparamedic: DamnYankees: You're basically arguing its bad policy, and you can do that, but I don't know what basis a court has to intervene. Appeal to Congress to change the law.

I would assume the jurisdiction of the courts, in that event, would fall under the Fifth Amendment Due Process clause, especially if federal or state funds were being used to pay for the girl's treatment.


Ok, but my understanding is not that the court struck down the entire system on a due process claim, but that they just made a special exception for this girl. Is that not right?
 
2013-06-06 12:40:35 PM  

DamnYankees: Ok, but my understanding is not that the court struck down the entire system on a due process claim, but that they just made a special exception for this girl. Is that not right?


Not really sure. I'll do some research on the matter. I would assume if they made a "Special Exception" for the girl, it was as an emergency order because the court felt that it would not be able to wait for them to re-examine the policy.
 
2013-06-06 01:04:04 PM  

hardinparamedic: DamnYankees: I understand that, but by being put on the list at all, she's displacing everyone who would go below her. I feel very badly for this girl and her family, but I also feel badly for everyone else on the list. I'm not sure why this person is getting precedence.

Probably because her condition is all but curable with a transplant, and she's a 10 year old child, which means she's much more likely to survive the surgery than the 70 year old guy who smoked for 40 years.


The person below her may not be a 70-year-old guy who smoked for 40 years. It may be a 14-year-old girl who has similar health problems to her.
 
2013-06-06 01:04:59 PM  

DamnYankees: And the person who is going to die because they aren't getting those lungs? What's that person's name?


why does that matter? Did she skip to the head of the line or is this ruling just a matter of her not being forced to the back of it?
 
2013-06-06 01:05:38 PM  
So then the doctor who thought it would be safe to say, "dammit, I could fix this right NOW if only the law allowed this type of procuedure!  <sigh> I'm sorry.", might have to admit that it can't be done.
 
2013-06-06 01:06:16 PM  

DamnYankees: hardinparamedic: The problem is that, as pointed out in TFA, the rule was made a long time ago, and may no longer be valid thanks to advances in organ procurement and selection. The arbitrary age range may also be flawed as well.

Ok, but once again, this is an appeal to make to the transplant board. Not a judge.


So..... Death panels
 
2013-06-06 01:06:20 PM  

DamnYankees: I understand that, but by being put on the list at all, she's displacing everyone who would go below her. I feel very badly for this girl and her family, but I also feel badly for everyone else on the list. I'm not sure why this person is getting precedence.


She's not, only being allowed to be placed on the list. You seem to think that when a new person is added to the list, they automatically go to the end of the line, that's not true. A person who is going to die in a matter of weeks isn't placed behind somebody that has a few years to live.
 
2013-06-06 01:06:28 PM  
I was afraid this would be Schiavo'd.

I'm glad it's not.
 
2013-06-06 01:06:39 PM  

hardinparamedic: it was as an emergency order because the court felt that it would not be able to wait for them to re-examine the policy.

they were tired of listening to the media ask them to make an exception for this girl.

//if we're honest.. There were almost certainly better candidates with a longer-term recovery prognosis, but the kid got the media attention.
 
2013-06-06 01:06:45 PM  
Another reason that it doesn't pay to be an ugly malcontent: all the charismatic stories and characters get everything while they'll let you die.

Seriously though, I feel bad for the kid but worse for the person they edged out
 
2013-06-06 01:06:57 PM  
I sense a burgeoning practice for myself in the field of "organ donation procurement law." If done right, it could mesh well with the criminal defense practice I already have going.
 
2013-06-06 01:08:16 PM  

skullkrusher: DamnYankees: And the person who is going to die because they aren't getting those lungs? What's that person's name?

why does that matter? Did she skip to the head of the line or is this ruling just a matter of her not being forced to the back of it?


From what I've read, the ruling places her on the list as if she were 12 years old and eligible to receive an adult pair of lungs. That means if she gets a pair of adult lungs, somebody else necessarily will not get those lungs, and that someone else will almost certainly die from not getting a transplant.
 
2013-06-06 01:09:13 PM  
Does it average out to where we can consider her legal, or how does that work?
 
2013-06-06 01:12:04 PM  

SecretAgentWoman: There is no guarantee yet she'll get lungs before she dies.

But honestly, shoehorning too-big adult lungs into a child that may not even be able to use them to leave an adult or even possibly an OLDER child to die is so much more humane, right?

/not

I grieve for the child and parents, but truly, medicine is not perfect, and life sometimes sucks. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and kicking others down to claw your way over them is not really in the spirit of life.


Um....what?
www.biography.com
 
2013-06-06 01:12:24 PM  
If it saves just one life, amirite?
 
2013-06-06 01:12:54 PM  

Somaticasual: There were almost certainly better candidates with a longer-term recovery prognosis, but the kid got the media attention.


You do realize this only places her on the list, right? The same list that everybody else goes on when they need a lung transplant.
 
2013-06-06 01:13:38 PM  
"This is an incredibly agonizing situation where someone lives and someone dies," said Sebelius.

"Based on their age," responded Barletta. "Based on their age."


Or, you know, based on the fact that someone that young that's already in end-stage CF failure is going to get maybe another 6 months of life out of the lung (CF... kind of keeps going even after transplants iirc) whereas the older patient that would otherwise get it would potentially live until they died of old age (well, lungs are a dodgy one, so about 5 years on average... but still).

Or based on the fact that transplant rejection in general is frequently higher in very young patients like this.

Basically, you're outright murdering someone that would be near-guaranteed survival with this transplant so that you can give the kid a long-shot chance of prolonging her sickness a few months before dying anyhow.

So... good job.

CBS News spoke to a leading specialist who said these rules may be out of date and that there is no medical reason why a child cannot receive an adult lung if it is the right blood type and size.

Must be legit if they won't even name their source on that.  Not like decades of expertise went into current policy, I'm sure if one anonymous source claiming unverified credentials says it it must be true.  This is how I know that 9/11 was an inside job, the moon landings were faked, and JFK was actually killed by the Martian Manhunter using mind bullets from the grassy knoll.
 
2013-06-06 01:14:25 PM  
What odds are they giving in Vegas that she croaks before suitable donor lungs are found?
 
2013-06-06 01:15:34 PM  

Serious Black: skullkrusher: DamnYankees: And the person who is going to die because they aren't getting those lungs? What's that person's name?

why does that matter? Did she skip to the head of the line or is this ruling just a matter of her not being forced to the back of it?

From what I've read, the ruling places her on the list as if she were 12 years old and eligible to receive an adult pair of lungs. That means if she gets a pair of adult lungs, somebody else necessarily will not get those lungs, and that someone else will almost certainly die from not getting a transplant.


right but my understanding is that she is not being pushed to the head of the line, she is merely not forced to wait until there are no adult recipients waiting for lungs. I haven't seen any indication that she is being given priority - she is just not being held back from receiving them until all others have had a shot.

So, of course she is taking lungs that might go to someone else but that's the case for anyone of any age on the recipient list.
 
2013-06-06 01:15:55 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Or, you know, based on the fact that someone that young that's already in end-stage CF failure is going to get maybe another 6 months of life out of the lung (CF... kind of keeps going even after transplants iirc) whereas the older patient that would otherwise get it would potentially live until they died of old age (well, lungs are a dodgy one, so about 5 years on average... but still).


You do realize 5 years is longer than 6 months, especially for a child, right?

And the lung transplant DOES eliminate the Pulmonary problems that come from CF, which are the "most likely to kill me" problems.
 
2013-06-06 01:18:04 PM  
As the weather warms the potential for organ donors increases.

t1.gstatic.com
 
2013-06-06 01:20:56 PM  

SecretAgentWoman: There is no guarantee yet she'll get lungs before she dies.

But honestly, shoehorning too-big adult lungs into a child that may not even be able to use them to leave an adult or even possibly an OLDER child to die is so much more humane, right?

/not

I grieve for the child and parents, but truly, medicine is not perfect, and life sometimes sucks. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and kicking others down to claw your way over them is not really in the spirit of life.


Lemme guess - you are a liberal Democrat...

/What do I win?
 
2013-06-06 01:21:12 PM  

skullkrusher: Serious Black: skullkrusher: DamnYankees: And the person who is going to die because they aren't getting those lungs? What's that person's name?

why does that matter? Did she skip to the head of the line or is this ruling just a matter of her not being forced to the back of it?

From what I've read, the ruling places her on the list as if she were 12 years old and eligible to receive an adult pair of lungs. That means if she gets a pair of adult lungs, somebody else necessarily will not get those lungs, and that someone else will almost certainly die from not getting a transplant.

right but my understanding is that she is not being pushed to the head of the line, she is merely not forced to wait until there are no adult recipients waiting for lungs. I haven't seen any indication that she is being given priority - she is just not being held back from receiving them until all others have had a shot.

So, of course she is taking lungs that might go to someone else but that's the case for anyone of any age on the recipient list.


What do you think the organ donation list is? It's a priority queue. By being considered as if she is 12 years old instead of 10, she jumped ahead of a lot of other people on the list. Just because she may not be (almost certainly isn't) priority #1 doesn't mean she isn't being prioritized ahead of a lot of other people now because of the change. And if she does get a set of lungs because of this reprioritization, somebody else inevitably will not get them.
 
2013-06-06 01:21:21 PM  

Walker: DamnYankees: And the person who is going to die because they aren't getting those lungs? What's that person's name?

Ted.
F*ck Ted.


He still owes me money!
 
2013-06-06 01:23:31 PM  
The age cutoff is based on the fact the we don't know as much about pre-adolescent risk/survival as we do about adult risk/survival, because pre-adolescent transplant cases are rare.  "Don't know enough" would have been a good reason not to try the first transplant, I guess.
 
2013-06-06 01:23:36 PM  

Serious Black: What do you think the organ donation list is? It's a priority queue. By being considered as if she is 12 years old instead of 10, she jumped ahead of a lot of other people on the list. Just because she may not be (almost certainly isn't) priority #1 doesn't mean she isn't being prioritized ahead of a lot of other people now because of the change. And if she does get a set of lungs because of this reprioritization, somebody else inevitably will not get them.


but the reason she was in the back of the list was an arbitrary rule about adult lungs in younger patients. It'd be like saying the red-heads have to wait until all others have been given a shot at an available organ and then changing that policy (even if only in one instance at the moment) and then saying that that ginger is jumping ahead of people. Technically, yes, but not unfairly so.
 
2013-06-06 01:24:29 PM  

skullkrusher: Serious Black: skullkrusher: DamnYankees: And the person who is going to die because they aren't getting those lungs? What's that person's name?

why does that matter? Did she skip to the head of the line or is this ruling just a matter of her not being forced to the back of it?

From what I've read, the ruling places her on the list as if she were 12 years old and eligible to receive an adult pair of lungs. That means if she gets a pair of adult lungs, somebody else necessarily will not get those lungs, and that someone else will almost certainly die from not getting a transplant.

right but my understanding is that she is not being pushed to the head of the line, she is merely not forced to wait until there are no adult recipients waiting for lungs. I haven't seen any indication that she is being given priority - she is just not being held back from receiving them until all others have had a shot.

So, of course she is taking lungs that might go to someone else but that's the case for anyone of any age on the recipient list.


Gotta agree with skullkrusher here. The point is that there should not be an arbitrary limit. Triage still applies. The lung she needs would still have to be small enough and the right blood type, and it would still be allocated based on severity of need. All this ruling really does is allow those standards to be applied to her, rather than a rubber-stamp "Not Eligible For Transplant" ruling.
 
2013-06-06 01:26:07 PM  
There are machines that can be used to keep a child alive with no heart (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57489521/experimental-pump-kee ps -children-alive-to-receive-heart-transplant/ ) and machines to clean blood for kidney patients....but no machine that can add oxygen to the blood stream....enabling some to live without lungs for a while?
 
2013-06-06 01:26:19 PM  

Walker: DamnYankees: And the person who is going to die because they aren't getting those lungs? What's that person's name?

Ted.
F*ck Ted.


tvseriesfinale.com
What the hell dude? Everyone likes Ted.
 
2013-06-06 01:26:53 PM  

SecretAgentWoman: There is no guarantee yet she'll get lungs before she dies.

But honestly, shoehorning too-big adult lungs into a child that may not even be able to use them to leave an adult or even possibly an OLDER child to die is so much more humane, right?

/not

I grieve for the child and parents, but truly, medicine is not perfect, and life sometimes sucks. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and kicking others down to claw your way over them is not really in the spirit of life.


No. A line does not have to be drawn. There need to be some rules guiding the precedence of patients in the transplant list - there does not need to be a line over riding medical judgement and the other rules based solely on an arbitrary age threshold.

RTFA.
 
2013-06-06 01:27:15 PM  

KiltedBastich: skullkrusher: Serious Black: skullkrusher: DamnYankees: And the person who is going to die because they aren't getting those lungs? What's that person's name?

why does that matter? Did she skip to the head of the line or is this ruling just a matter of her not being forced to the back of it?

From what I've read, the ruling places her on the list as if she were 12 years old and eligible to receive an adult pair of lungs. That means if she gets a pair of adult lungs, somebody else necessarily will not get those lungs, and that someone else will almost certainly die from not getting a transplant.

right but my understanding is that she is not being pushed to the head of the line, she is merely not forced to wait until there are no adult recipients waiting for lungs. I haven't seen any indication that she is being given priority - she is just not being held back from receiving them until all others have had a shot.

So, of course she is taking lungs that might go to someone else but that's the case for anyone of any age on the recipient list.

Gotta agree with skullkrusher here. The point is that there should not be an arbitrary limit. Triage still applies. The lung she needs would still have to be small enough and the right blood type, and it would still be allocated based on severity of need. All this ruling really does is allow those standards to be applied to her, rather than a rubber-stamp "Not Eligible For Transplant" ruling.


exactly
 
2013-06-06 01:27:24 PM  

DamnYankees: hardinparamedic: Probably because her condition is all but curable with a transplant, and she's a 10 year old child, which means she's much more likely to survive the surgery than the 70 year old guy who smoked for 40 years.

This is why we let doctors and transplant boards death panels make these decisions. Not judges, not you and not me. There's a reason about age cutoffs, and it shouldn't be overturned by a judge.

 
2013-06-06 01:29:52 PM  

hardinparamedic: Probably because her condition is all but curable with a transplant, and she's a 10 year old child, which means she's much more likely to survive the surgery than the 70 year old guy who smoked for 40 years.


Wait, I thought she had MS?  Didn't think a transplant would "cure" that.
 
2013-06-06 01:30:09 PM  
She should receive the lungs, but only if she, her siblings, and her parents all agree to be sterilised.

Cystic Fibrosis has a simple cure.
 
2013-06-06 01:30:19 PM  

ferretman: There are machines that can be used to keep a child alive with no heart (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57489521/experimental-pump-kee ps -children-alive-to-receive-heart-transplant/ ) and machines to clean blood for kidney patients....but no machine that can add oxygen to the blood stream....enabling some to live without lungs for a while?


There is something called ECMO, Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation, which functions as artificial lungs with a heart bypass machine. If the heart is functioning properly and pumping adequately, they'll do what's known as Venous-Venous ECMO, which just infuses oxygenated blood.

The problem is it's a temporary solution, as in two weeks is the most you'll usually see someone on it, requires massive amounts of transfused blood that is heparinized, leaving the patient unable to clot, and requires invasive, large bore catheters placed in the femoral veins or subclavian veins.
 
2013-06-06 01:30:55 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: hardinparamedic: Probably because her condition is all but curable with a transplant, and she's a 10 year old child, which means she's much more likely to survive the surgery than the 70 year old guy who smoked for 40 years.

Wait, I thought she had MS?  Didn't think a transplant would "cure" that.


Cystic Fibrosis.
 
2013-06-06 01:39:12 PM  

hardinparamedic: Satanic_Hamster: hardinparamedic: Probably because her condition is all but curable with a transplant, and she's a 10 year old child, which means she's much more likely to survive the surgery than the 70 year old guy who smoked for 40 years.

Wait, I thought she had MS?  Didn't think a transplant would "cure" that.

Cystic Fibrosis.


Doh, thought it was ms.  Didn't read the current article, just past ones / on other services.

Will a transplant actually cure CF?  I know CF destroys your lungs, wasn't aware that a lung transplant was a perm. fix.
 
2013-06-06 01:42:46 PM  

SecretAgentWoman: There is no guarantee yet she'll get lungs before she dies.

But honestly, shoehorning too-big adult lungs into a child that may not even be able to use them to leave an adult or even possibly an OLDER child to die is so much more humane, right?

/not

I grieve for the child and parents, but truly, medicine is not perfect, and life sometimes sucks. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and kicking others down to claw your way over them is not really in the spirit of life.


Actually, that is precisely the spirit of life.  Maybe not our general definition of civilized life, but in a battle for your own survival it definitely is the way it happens.  Survival instincts are very powerful.  But, yeah, no guarantee.

If the person who gets booted down the list files suit, that'll really eff things up in this case.  Hmmm, who to choose, who to choose?
 
2013-06-06 01:43:06 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Will a transplant actually cure CF?  I know CF destroys your lungs, wasn't aware that a lung transplant was a perm. fix.


It will fix the pulmonary complications, but not the GI and Pancreatic issues.

If someone is on death's door, it's pretty much the only way to ensure they survive at that point.
 
2013-06-06 01:45:22 PM  

skullkrusher: Serious Black: What do you think the organ donation list is? It's a priority queue. By being considered as if she is 12 years old instead of 10, she jumped ahead of a lot of other people on the list. Just because she may not be (almost certainly isn't) priority #1 doesn't mean she isn't being prioritized ahead of a lot of other people now because of the change. And if she does get a set of lungs because of this reprioritization, somebody else inevitably will not get them.

but the reason she was in the back of the list was an arbitrary rule about adult lungs in younger patients. It'd be like saying the red-heads have to wait until all others have been given a shot at an available organ and then changing that policy (even if only in one instance at the moment) and then saying that that ginger is jumping ahead of people. Technically, yes, but not unfairly so.


KiltedBastich: Gotta agree with skullkrusher here. The point is that there should not be an arbitrary limit. Triage still applies. The lung she needs would still have to be small enough and the right blood type, and it would still be allocated based on severity of need. All this ruling really does is allow those standards to be applied to her, rather than a rubber-stamp "Not Eligible For Transplant" ruling.


She wasn't stamped as not being eligible for a transplant. She was simply placed on a waiting list for pediatric lungs. Part of the reason there is a separate list for adult and pediatric lungs is that there is little research on how a child will handle adult lungs. Will the child turn out just fine? Will they not be able to breathe as a result of potentially jamming the lungs into a cavity too small for them? We simply do not know.

Let's not gloss over the ethics here. Regardless of this ruling placing the girl on the adult transplant list, there are far too few sets of lungs available to ensure everybody on that list will get a transplant. By ordering that this 10-year-old girl be considered an adult for transplant purposes, she now qualifies for a set of lungs that, if she gets them, somebody else will not get. That somebody else will die. What makes that person's life worth less than the girl's life? Because they didn't get media attention drawn to their case?

Needing an organ donation is inherently a tragic situation. We argue that this girl deserves lungs because she has a name and a face to us now. The rest of the people on the list don't have those to us. That doesn't mean they aren't any less deserving. Their deaths will be tragic.
 
2013-06-06 01:47:13 PM  

hardinparamedic: Venous-Venous ECMO


Everything I've read about venousvenous ECMO shows "sub optimal" results to the point of being considered unproven . Has there been improvements?
 
2013-06-06 01:49:20 PM  

studs up: hardinparamedic: Venous-Venous ECMO

Everything I've read about venousvenous ECMO shows "sub optimal" results to the point of being considered unproven . Has there been improvements?


venovenous, der.
 
2013-06-06 01:53:23 PM  

Serious Black: She wasn't stamped as not being eligible for a transplant. She was simply placed on a waiting list for pediatric lungs. Part of the reason there is a separate list for adult and pediatric lungs is that there is little research on how a child will handle adult lungs. Will the child turn out just fine? Will they not be able to breathe as a result of potentially jamming the lungs into a cavity too small for them? We simply do not know.


"CBS News spoke to a leading specialist who said these rules may be out of date and that there is no medical reason why a child cannot receive an adult lung if it is the right blood type and size."

No medical reason why it can't be done if the size and type are right. Saying we don't know if there is a medical reason when there is no indication that there is one is not a very convincing argument.

Serious Black: Let's not gloss over the ethics here. Regardless of this ruling placing the girl on the adult transplant list, there are far too few sets of lungs available to ensure everybody on that list will get a transplant. By ordering that this 10-year-old girl be considered an adult for transplant purposes, she now qualifies for a set of lungs that, if she gets them, somebody else will not get. That somebody else will die. What makes that person's life worth less than the girl's life? Because they didn't get media attention drawn to their case?

Needing an organ donation is inherently a tragic situation. We argue that this girl deserves lungs because she has a name and a face to us now. The rest of the people on the list don't have those to us. That doesn't mean they aren't any less deserving. Their deaths will be tragic.


that IS the tragedy of organ donation. However, this girl also will die without the transplant. The only thing preventing her from getting a transplant is an archaic rule that has no medical basis. She isn't cutting the line, she isn't being given priority over other people for her age. She must contend with the same rules they do now that she is no longer subject to a rule that has no basis in science. Ignoring the pros and cons of saving a child's life vs an adult's, what is the ethical dilemma?
 
2013-06-06 01:58:43 PM  
Serious Black:

Let's not gloss over the ethics here. Regardless of this ruling placing the girl on the adult transplant list, there are far too few sets of lungs available to ensure everybody on that list will get a transplant. By ordering that this 10-year-old girl be considered an adult for transplant purposes, she now qualifies for a set of lungs that, if she gets them, somebody else will not get. That somebody else will die. What makes that person's life worth less than the girl's life? Because they didn't get media attention drawn to their case?

But, there is no guarantee now that if a set of lungs that matches her would matching anyone sitting on that list.  Previously, she had no shot at those lungs even if she were the only one to match.  Now, she has a shot.  But, if someone else is a match, then your question stands.  I think it was an ethical issue just saying "no, you're under 12, therefore we won't even consider you."  That issue of a blanket No in this case is resolved.  I support that resolution.  I hope they come to that conclusion in the review of the policy for all future cases.
 
2013-06-06 02:00:37 PM  
Are there the same abstention rules for smokers awaiting lung transplants as there are for alcoholics awaiting liver transplants?  Substance free for X amt of time.
 
2013-06-06 02:02:02 PM  

skullkrusher: Serious Black: She wasn't stamped as not being eligible for a transplant. She was simply placed on a waiting list for pediatric lungs. Part of the reason there is a separate list for adult and pediatric lungs is that there is little research on how a child will handle adult lungs. Will the child turn out just fine? Will they not be able to breathe as a result of potentially jamming the lungs into a cavity too small for them? We simply do not know.

"CBS News spoke to a leading specialist who said these rules may be out of date and that there is no medical reason why a child cannot receive an adult lung if it is the right blood type and size."

No medical reason why it can't be done if the size and type are right. Saying we don't know if there is a medical reason when there is no indication that there is one is not a very convincing argument.

Serious Black: Let's not gloss over the ethics here. Regardless of this ruling placing the girl on the adult transplant list, there are far too few sets of lungs available to ensure everybody on that list will get a transplant. By ordering that this 10-year-old girl be considered an adult for transplant purposes, she now qualifies for a set of lungs that, if she gets them, somebody else will not get. That somebody else will die. What makes that person's life worth less than the girl's life? Because they didn't get media attention drawn to their case?

Needing an organ donation is inherently a tragic situation. We argue that this girl deserves lungs because she has a name and a face to us now. The rest of the people on the list don't have those to us. That doesn't mean they aren't any less deserving. Their deaths will be tragic.

that IS the tragedy of organ donation. However, this girl also will die without the transplant. The only thing preventing her from getting a transplant is an archaic rule that has no medical basis. She isn't cutting the line, she isn't being given priority over other people for her age. She must contend ...


UNOS, the United Network for Organ Sharing, last revised the rule in 2010. What's changed since then that pediatric cases can handle adult lungs? What's change that makes having two separate lists for organs irrelevant?
 
2013-06-06 02:03:15 PM  

studs up: hardinparamedic: Venous-Venous ECMO

Everything I've read about venousvenous ECMO shows "sub optimal" results to the point of being considered unproven . Has there been improvements?


Seems to work great in neonates. Our facility used it during the 2009 H1N1 outbreak in a few patients who had severe ARDS.

The outcomes seem to be much better in Pediatrics than they are in Adults, though. ECMO is one of the second-line treatments for severe oxygenation disorders in kids, while it's not even recommended in adults with ARDS.
 
2013-06-06 02:03:24 PM  

Magnus: Serious Black:

Let's not gloss over the ethics here. Regardless of this ruling placing the girl on the adult transplant list, there are far too few sets of lungs available to ensure everybody on that list will get a transplant. By ordering that this 10-year-old girl be considered an adult for transplant purposes, she now qualifies for a set of lungs that, if she gets them, somebody else will not get. That somebody else will die. What makes that person's life worth less than the girl's life? Because they didn't get media attention drawn to their case?

But, there is no guarantee now that if a set of lungs that matches her would matching anyone sitting on that list.  Previously, she had no shot at those lungs even if she were the only one to match.  Now, she has a shot.  But, if someone else is a match, then your question stands.  I think it was an ethical issue just saying "no, you're under 12, therefore we won't even consider you."  That issue of a blanket No in this case is resolved.  I support that resolution.  I hope they come to that conclusion in the review of the policy for all future cases.


She was never not on the priority list. She was at the bottom of the list as she is a pediatric case and is cross-listed on the pediatric donor list. This ruling moves her ahead of people who are not on the pediatric donor list.
 
2013-06-06 02:03:31 PM  

hardinparamedic: Satanic_Hamster: Will a transplant actually cure CF?  I know CF destroys your lungs, wasn't aware that a lung transplant was a perm. fix.

It will fix the pulmonary complications, but not the GI and Pancreatic issues.

If someone is on death's door, it's pretty much the only way to ensure they survive at that point.


I didn't know there were GI and pancreatic issues. I thought it was only a lung thing.

Learned me something new.
 
2013-06-06 02:06:42 PM  

give me doughnuts: I didn't know there were GI and pancreatic issues. I thought it was only a lung thing.

Learned me something new.


Yeah, the breathing problems are pretty evident, but CF tends to mess up a lot of organs.  Had a buddy from high school die from it, a few months after graduation.
 
2013-06-06 02:10:19 PM  
Yuri could hook her up. Maybe she would prefer a nice set of gills. Perhaps some Z-ray eyes?
theinfosphere.org
 
2013-06-06 02:15:10 PM  

Serious Black: She was never not on the priority list. She was at the bottom of the list as she is a pediatric case and is cross-listed on the pediatric donor list. This ruling moves her ahead of people who are not on the pediatric donor list.


The ruling places her in triage with people not on the pediatric donor list. She still has to meet the right criteria, like blood type, size and need. Why is it inappropriate to consider these things? Arbitrarily placing her at the bottom of the normal list because she is also on the pediatric list is just stupid. Why is a bureaucratic rule a consideration in a medical triage?
 
2013-06-06 02:15:59 PM  

skullkrusher: The only thing preventing her from getting a transplant is an archaic rule that has no medical basis


I'm not sure what you mean with this statement. Archaic rule? Surgeons have been doing lung transplants long enough that the rules are archaic? There are a variety of things preventing her from getting a transplant. Age, serotype, current medical status etc.

We have just let emotions guide the decision on who goes on a transplant list. This is exactly the wrong reason in determining eligibilty.  Far from being archaic, this is a cutting edge situation that continues to be refined by bioethicists. Humans should understand that we are going to die. Some of us may have the ability to utilize technology to extend life but when that technology is a limited resource, rational decisions need to be made to benefit the greatest number of people possible. I see no tragedy at all. Thank FSM that we now have the ability to correct problems/diseases. And not all of us will get to take advantage of this technology and will die.

I might add that I find it problematic that the judicial system has chosen to get involved. It sets a very bad precedent. As some have pointed out earlier, this girls placement  on the list potentially could end with  somebody else not getting a transplant and dieing. In effect, the court has chosen to determine who lives and dies, in a non criminal situation, by poking its nose into a medical situation. Bad precedent.
 
2013-06-06 02:24:57 PM  
The parents could always:
img.zidbits.com

and then their daughter may be able to live a normal life sometime in the future.
 
2013-06-06 02:27:16 PM  

Magnus: Serious Black:

Let's not gloss over the ethics here. Regardless of this ruling placing the girl on the adult transplant list, there are far too few sets of lungs available to ensure everybody on that list will get a transplant. By ordering that this 10-year-old girl be considered an adult for transplant purposes, she now qualifies for a set of lungs that, if she gets them, somebody else will not get. That somebody else will die. What makes that person's life worth less than the girl's life? Because they didn't get media attention drawn to their case?

But, there is no guarantee now that if a set of lungs that matches her would matching anyone sitting on that list.  Previously, she had no shot at those lungs even if she were the only one to match.  Now, she has a shot.  But, if someone else is a match, then your question stands.  I think it was an ethical issue just saying "no, you're under 12, therefore we won't even consider you."  That issue of a blanket No in this case is resolved.  I support that resolution.  I hope they come to that conclusion in the review of the policy for all future cases.


I think you misunderstood the situation. If she were the only match, she would get the lungs even before the court ruling.  The problem is that unless you have a rare blood type, and the donor also has that rare blood type, you're very unlikely to be the only match. The previous rules stated that adult lungs could go to a child under 12 only if everyone else on the list did not match or declined the lungs. Basically she was automatically last priority.  Now the judge's order removes the rule that made her last in priority which puts her the priority list by her triage status which moves her to the top (or very near the top) of the list.
 
2013-06-06 02:29:31 PM  
I listened to the parents talk about how they were fighting this fight for all kids with the same issue.  If that were the case, then why didn't they get a court order allowing all kids who were in their daughter's position to have the same exception?

If I was the parent of another child in the same predicament, you'd better believe I'd be asking for the same exception.

Now that this giel is on the adult list, what happens if children's lungs become available?  Does she keep her place in that line as well?

On top of all of this, how does a federal judge have the right to grant exceptions like this?  This is an extraordinary precedent.
 
2013-06-06 02:32:45 PM  
From the NPR article:

"lung transplants are the most difficult of organ transplants, and children fare worse than adults, which is one reason for the existing [age] policy, said Dr. Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at New York University..."

"some lungs donated from deceased adults have been offered for children's transplants over the past two years, although he couldn't give a number. But he said all were turned down by the children's surgeons."

It sucks royally, but the problem is shortage of organs. This isn't the judge's call.
 
2013-06-06 02:33:11 PM  

1000Airplanes: I'm not sure what you mean with this statement. Archaic rule? Surgeons have been doing lung transplants long enough that the rules are archaic? There are a variety of things preventing her from getting a transplant. Age, serotype, current medical status etc.


"CBS News spoke to a leading specialist who said these rules may be out of date and that there is no medical reason why a child cannot receive an adult lung if it is the right blood type and size."

Yes, there are several things standing in her way of getting a transplant. One of them, "age", has no medical basis.

1000Airplanes: We have just let emotions guide the decision on who goes on a transplant list. This is exactly the wrong reason in determining eligibilty. Far from being archaic, this is a cutting edge situation that continues to be refined by bioethicists. Humans should understand that we are going to die. Some of us may have the ability to utilize technology to extend life but when that technology is a limited resource, rational decisions need to be made to benefit the greatest number of people possible. I see no tragedy at all. Thank FSM that we now have the ability to correct problems/diseases. And not all of us will get to take advantage of this technology and will die.


it's not an emotional stance at all for me. Sure it's sad to see a little kid suffer like this and all that but if age of the potential recipient is not important (whereas, organ size and blood type are), why do we consider age? It's a logical stance, not an emotional one. Perhaps it turns out that no lungs that fit can be had and she does, God forbid, die anyway. At least she wouldn't have died because of a rule that has no medical basis but rather died because a match was not found.
 
2013-06-06 02:35:09 PM  

hardinparamedic: DamnYankees: This is why we let doctors and transplant boards make these decisions. Not judges, not you and not me. There's a reason about age cutoffs, and it shouldn't be overturned by a judge.

The problem is that, as pointed out in TFA, the rule was made a long time ago, and may no longer be valid thanks to advances in organ procurement and selection. The arbitrary age range may also be flawed as well.

I do agree with you, though, that the courts intervening create a dangerous president for anyone who has enough money to take transplant boards to court.


It's - Precedent.   Back to the worker camps for you!

Heil!
 
2013-06-06 02:35:55 PM  

Truther: SecretAgentWoman: There is no guarantee yet she'll get lungs before she dies.

But honestly, shoehorning too-big adult lungs into a child that may not even be able to use them to leave an adult or even possibly an OLDER child to die is so much more humane, right?

/not

I grieve for the child and parents, but truly, medicine is not perfect, and life sometimes sucks. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and kicking others down to claw your way over them is not really in the spirit of life.

Lemme guess - you are a liberal Democrat...

/What do I win?


You must be a Republican. You make all your decisions based on emotion. No amount of scientific evidence is necessary. Medical decision must be made purely on whether or not the sick white person is like you. "Teri Schiavo was fully functioning when those judges killed her."
 
2013-06-06 02:36:31 PM  

Serious Black: UNOS, the United Network for Organ Sharing, last revised the rule in 2010. What's changed since then that pediatric cases can handle adult lungs? What's change that makes having two separate lists for organs irrelevant?


I don't know. IANAD. I am going by the information I have and discussing the ethical issues about her bumping someone off the list. Why are there 2 separate lists? Why is age 12 important? Is it based on body size?
 
2013-06-06 02:45:29 PM  

bgilmore5: Truther: SecretAgentWoman: There is no guarantee yet she'll get lungs before she dies.

But honestly, shoehorning too-big adult lungs into a child that may not even be able to use them to leave an adult or even possibly an OLDER child to die is so much more humane, right?

/not

I grieve for the child and parents, but truly, medicine is not perfect, and life sometimes sucks. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and kicking others down to claw your way over them is not really in the spirit of life.

Lemme guess - you are a liberal Democrat...

/What do I win?

You must be a Republican. You make all your decisions based on emotion. No amount of scientific evidence is necessary. Medical decision must be made purely on whether or not the sick white person is like you. "Teri Schiavo was fully functioning when those judges killed her."


Generally, champ, liberals condemn Republicans for being unfeeling gestapo property rights Nazis more interested in money than the sanctity of life.  You need to get your talking points straight if you're going to fall into lockstep with your progressive overlords.
 
2013-06-06 02:45:33 PM  

Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: Magnus: Serious Black:

Let's not gloss over the ethics here. Regardless of this ruling placing the girl on the adult transplant list, there are far too few sets of lungs available to ensure everybody on that list will get a transplant. By ordering that this 10-year-old girl be considered an adult for transplant purposes, she now qualifies for a set of lungs that, if she gets them, somebody else will not get. That somebody else will die. What makes that person's life worth less than the girl's life? Because they didn't get media attention drawn to their case?

But, there is no guarantee now that if a set of lungs that matches her would matching anyone sitting on that list.  Previously, she had no shot at those lungs even if she were the only one to match.  Now, she has a shot.  But, if someone else is a match, then your question stands.  I think it was an ethical issue just saying "no, you're under 12, therefore we won't even consider you."  That issue of a blanket No in this case is resolved.  I support that resolution.  I hope they come to that conclusion in the review of the policy for all future cases.

I think you misunderstood the situation. If she were the only match, she would get the lungs even before the court ruling.  The problem is that unless you have a rare blood type, and the donor also has that rare blood type, you're very unlikely to be the only match. The previous rules stated that adult lungs could go to a child under 12 only if everyone else on the list did not match or declined the lungs. Basically she was automatically last priority.  Now the judge's order removes the rule that made her last in priority which puts her the priority list by her triage status which moves her to the top (or very near the top) of the list.


Quite possibly.  I understood it that she was not allowed adult lungs, period, because she is under 12.  Is that not what the ruling was?  Relief from the 12 yr old rule?
 
2013-06-06 02:47:06 PM  

hardinparamedic: DamnYankees: Ok, but my understanding is not that the court struck down the entire system on a due process claim, but that they just made a special exception for this girl. Is that not right?

Not really sure. I'll do some research on the matter. I would assume if they made a "Special Exception" for the girl, it was as an emergency order because the court felt that it would not be able to wait for them to re-examine the policy.


It is a "Special Exception."

"Baylson suspended the age limit in the nation's transplant rules for 10 days for Sarah, who has been at the Philadelphia hospital for three months. A June 14 hearing on the request has been scheduled for a broader injunction.

Nationwide, about 1,700 people are on the waiting list for a lung transplant, including 31 children under age 11, according to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network."

So the ruling applies only to this girl, not other children in the same situation who didn't go to court, and will only be in effect for 10 days.
 
2013-06-06 02:47:08 PM  

skullkrusher: Serious Black: UNOS, the United Network for Organ Sharing, last revised the rule in 2010. What's changed since then that pediatric cases can handle adult lungs? What's change that makes having two separate lists for organs irrelevant?

I don't know. IANAD. I am going by the information I have and discussing the ethical issues about her bumping someone off the list. Why are there 2 separate lists? Why is age 12 important? Is it based on body size?


Agreed. Furthermore, If it's body size, then why not just say body size instead of setting an arbitrary age limit? Appropriate size of the organs is already a triage consideration. You're never going to get the lungs from a deceased 7 foot basketball player transplated into a sick 3 foot midget, for example.
 
2013-06-06 02:49:31 PM  

Magnus: Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: Magnus: Serious Black:

Let's not gloss over the ethics here. Regardless of this ruling placing the girl on the adult transplant list, there are far too few sets of lungs available to ensure everybody on that list will get a transplant. By ordering that this 10-year-old girl be considered an adult for transplant purposes, she now qualifies for a set of lungs that, if she gets them, somebody else will not get. That somebody else will die. What makes that person's life worth less than the girl's life? Because they didn't get media attention drawn to their case?

But, there is no guarantee now that if a set of lungs that matches her would matching anyone sitting on that list.  Previously, she had no shot at those lungs even if she were the only one to match.  Now, she has a shot.  But, if someone else is a match, then your question stands.  I think it was an ethical issue just saying "no, you're under 12, therefore we won't even consider you."  That issue of a blanket No in this case is resolved.  I support that resolution.  I hope they come to that conclusion in the review of the policy for all future cases.

I think you misunderstood the situation. If she were the only match, she would get the lungs even before the court ruling.  The problem is that unless you have a rare blood type, and the donor also has that rare blood type, you're very unlikely to be the only match. The previous rules stated that adult lungs could go to a child under 12 only if everyone else on the list did not match or declined the lungs. Basically she was automatically last priority.  Now the judge's order removes the rule that made her last in priority which puts her the priority list by her triage status which moves her to the top (or very near the top) of the list.

Quite possibly.  I understood it that she was not allowed adult lungs, period, because she is under 12.  Is that not what the ruling was?  Relief from the 12 yr old rule?


It is indeed relief from the rule, but from what I've seen (and what other health professionals have said), the rule merely placed her at the bottom of the list instead of where she would be without considering her age.
 
2013-06-06 02:50:02 PM  

avratt: Are there the same abstention rules for smokers awaiting lung transplants as there are for alcoholics awaiting liver transplants?  Substance free for X amt of time.


Yes there are.  If they find any trace of tobacco in your blood, you are not eligible.  I had a freind whose SO was on the list and she could not smoke around him for fear that he would not be eliegible.  Eventually he did get the transplant, but she told me that transplant recipients don't make it more than 7 years after the transplant.  I don't know if this applies to CF though.
 
2013-06-06 02:52:35 PM  

KiltedBastich: skullkrusher: Serious Black: UNOS, the United Network for Organ Sharing, last revised the rule in 2010. What's changed since then that pediatric cases can handle adult lungs? What's change that makes having two separate lists for organs irrelevant?

I don't know. IANAD. I am going by the information I have and discussing the ethical issues about her bumping someone off the list. Why are there 2 separate lists? Why is age 12 important? Is it based on body size?

Agreed. Furthermore, If it's body size, then why not just say body size instead of setting an arbitrary age limit? Appropriate size of the organs is already a triage consideration. You're never going to get the lungs from a deceased 7 foot basketball player transplated into a sick 3 foot midget, for example.


right. If it is a sizing issue, having an arbitrary age seems rather stupid. Based on the brief details in TFA, however, that seems to be the only medical reason for the different lists
 
2013-06-06 02:53:44 PM  

Serious Black: Magnus: Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: Magnus: Serious Black:

Let's not gloss over the ethics here. Regardless of this ruling placing the girl on the adult transplant list, there are far too few sets of lungs available to ensure everybody on that list will get a transplant. By ordering that this 10-year-old girl be considered an adult for transplant purposes, she now qualifies for a set of lungs that, if she gets them, somebody else will not get. That somebody else will die. What makes that person's life worth less than the girl's life? Because they didn't get media attention drawn to their case?

But, there is no guarantee now that if a set of lungs that matches her would matching anyone sitting on that list.  Previously, she had no shot at those lungs even if she were the only one to match.  Now, she has a shot.  But, if someone else is a match, then your question stands.  I think it was an ethical issue just saying "no, you're under 12, therefore we won't even consider you."  That issue of a blanket No in this case is resolved.  I support that resolution.  I hope they come to that conclusion in the review of the policy for all future cases.

I think you misunderstood the situation. If she were the only match, she would get the lungs even before the court ruling.  The problem is that unless you have a rare blood type, and the donor also has that rare blood type, you're very unlikely to be the only match. The previous rules stated that adult lungs could go to a child under 12 only if everyone else on the list did not match or declined the lungs. Basically she was automatically last priority.  Now the judge's order removes the rule that made her last in priority which puts her the priority list by her triage status which moves her to the top (or very near the top) of the list.

Quite possibly.  I understood it that she was not allowed adult lungs, period, because she is under 12.  Is that not what the ruling was?  Relief from the 12 yr old rule?

It is indeed relief fr ...


gotcha.  thanks.
 
2013-06-06 02:59:12 PM  
this is sick. there were three other children who were just as ill in that hospital.
 
2013-06-06 03:01:06 PM  

Trey Le Parc: bgilmore5: Truther: SecretAgentWoman: There is no guarantee yet she'll get lungs before she dies.

But honestly, shoehorning too-big adult lungs into a child that may not even be able to use them to leave an adult or even possibly an OLDER child to die is so much more humane, right?

/not

I grieve for the child and parents, but truly, medicine is not perfect, and life sometimes sucks. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and kicking others down to claw your way over them is not really in the spirit of life.

Lemme guess - you are a liberal Democrat...

/What do I win?

You must be a Republican. You make all your decisions based on emotion. No amount of scientific evidence is necessary. Medical decision must be made purely on whether or not the sick white person is like you. "Teri Schiavo was fully functioning when those judges killed her."

Generally, champ, liberals condemn Republicans for being unfeeling gestapo property rights Nazis more interested in money than the sanctity of life.  You need to get your talking points straight if you're going to fall into lockstep with your progressive overlords.


Everyone is a liberal or conservative. I forgot. Are you saying Republicans embrace logic and science? There's plenty to be said for your argument. If her brain had not liquified while Republicans paraded her corps around on TV, Teri Schiavo probably would agree Republicans are "unfeeling gestapo property rights Nazis more interested in money than the sanctity of life." BTW, the Repubs don't give a damn about the sanctity of life.
 
2013-06-06 03:02:15 PM  

KiltedBastich: skullkrusher: Serious Black: UNOS, the United Network for Organ Sharing, last revised the rule in 2010. What's changed since then that pediatric cases can handle adult lungs? What's change that makes having two separate lists for organs irrelevant?

I don't know. IANAD. I am going by the information I have and discussing the ethical issues about her bumping someone off the list. Why are there 2 separate lists? Why is age 12 important? Is it based on body size?

Agreed. Furthermore, If it's body size, then why not just say body size instead of setting an arbitrary age limit? Appropriate size of the organs is already a triage consideration. You're never going to get the lungs from a deceased 7 foot basketball player transplated into a sick 3 foot midget, for example.


Body size is imperfect. For that matter, age is as well. But none of us sitting here typing away at our computers knows nearly as much as the people who actually developed the criteria used by UNOS to prioritize those in need of donations. They have a brutal job. They have a thankless job. The doctors at UNOS aren't just siting in a room munching on popcorn and laughing maniacally while watching a live feed of this girl dying. I'm sure it eats at them that their rules will inherently result in one person dying while another lives. That is the very nature of organ transplantation in an environment where we have far too few organs and far too many people who need them.

Everyone sitting here yelling about how this 10-year-old girl deserved to be on the list as if she were an adult has an incomplete set on information about this case and what will happen if, because she has been moved up on the list, somebody else gets denied the lungs she gets. UNOS surely had justification for the age rule when they implemented it. Maybe it doesn't need to be there anymore. Armchair quarterbacking will not solve the problem though.
 
2013-06-06 03:03:41 PM  
In this thread I've learned that many farkers think the organ transplant list is like waiting in line at Subway.
 
2013-06-06 03:05:05 PM  

bgilmore5: BTW, the Repubs don't give a damn about the sanctity of life


I was informed that this is a major problem. Pro-Lifers run that party. Has someone changed the definition of "sanctity of life" while my lappy re-booted?
 
2013-06-06 03:07:02 PM  

Serious Black: Everyone sitting here yelling about how this 10-year-old girl deserved to be on the list as if she were an adult has an incomplete set on information about this case and what will happen if, because she has been moved up on the list, somebody else gets denied the lungs she gets.


and that's the heart of the discussion (NPI). It is undeniable that someone gets denied the lungs if she gets them. However, if 12 is just used as an age to break up the two lists because of body size, it is not unfair that she gets the lungs ahead of someone else. She should have been ahead of them in the first place if all else is considered.
 
2013-06-06 03:07:25 PM  

skullkrusher: KiltedBastich: skullkrusher: Serious Black: UNOS, the United Network for Organ Sharing, last revised the rule in 2010. What's changed since then that pediatric cases can handle adult lungs? What's change that makes having two separate lists for organs irrelevant?

I don't know. IANAD. I am going by the information I have and discussing the ethical issues about her bumping someone off the list. Why are there 2 separate lists? Why is age 12 important? Is it based on body size?

Agreed. Furthermore, If it's body size, then why not just say body size instead of setting an arbitrary age limit? Appropriate size of the organs is already a triage consideration. You're never going to get the lungs from a deceased 7 foot basketball player transplated into a sick 3 foot midget, for example.

right. If it is a sizing issue, having an arbitrary age seems rather stupid. Based on the brief details in TFA, however, that seems to be the only medical reason for the different lists


It is very likely more than just size:

One of those facts, he says, involves statistics showing children receiving adult lungs or even pieces of the organ have a poor survival rate after surgery.

The real point is that there is medical basis for current policies. If people think those should be changed, that's fine. But leave it up to experts to figure that out, not some judge who knows nothing about it.
 
2013-06-06 03:14:43 PM  

pseudoscience: skullkrusher: KiltedBastich: skullkrusher: Serious Black: UNOS, the United Network for Organ Sharing, last revised the rule in 2010. What's changed since then that pediatric cases can handle adult lungs? What's change that makes having two separate lists for organs irrelevant?

I don't know. IANAD. I am going by the information I have and discussing the ethical issues about her bumping someone off the list. Why are there 2 separate lists? Why is age 12 important? Is it based on body size?

Agreed. Furthermore, If it's body size, then why not just say body size instead of setting an arbitrary age limit? Appropriate size of the organs is already a triage consideration. You're never going to get the lungs from a deceased 7 foot basketball player transplated into a sick 3 foot midget, for example.

right. If it is a sizing issue, having an arbitrary age seems rather stupid. Based on the brief details in TFA, however, that seems to be the only medical reason for the different lists

It is very likely more than just size:

One of those facts, he says, involves statistics showing children receiving adult lungs or even pieces of the organ have a poor survival rate after surgery.

The real point is that there is medical basis for current policies. If people think those should be changed, that's fine. But leave it up to experts to figure that out, not some judge who knows nothing about it.



Correct answer most of the time.

That being said, the boards are also fallible and the criteria weird sometimes.  Worked with a lot of Lung/Heart transplants over the years, peds and adults.  And sometimes the decisions seemed rather capricious.  However keep in mind, it is a *lot* more complicated than a simple sorting list.  Organ implantation criteria is an incredibly complex matrix of physiological and social issues.  It is so complex in fact that one cannot always say that because person A received and organ, person B did not.  Sometimes you can have a perfectly viable organ that is not a good match for anyone.

/and despite what people say, money and status buys organs in the US
/but that's another story
 
2013-06-06 03:15:50 PM  

skullkrusher: Serious Black: Everyone sitting here yelling about how this 10-year-old girl deserved to be on the list as if she were an adult has an incomplete set on information about this case and what will happen if, because she has been moved up on the list, somebody else gets denied the lungs she gets.

and that's the heart of the discussion (NPI). It is undeniable that someone gets denied the lungs if she gets them. However, if 12 is just used as an age to break up the two lists because of body size, it is not unfair that she gets the lungs ahead of someone else. She should have been ahead of them in the first place if all else is considered.


And what pseudoscience just posted is exactly what I had said before: that there is an unproven track record behind giving adult lungs to a child. I mean, why else would UNOS create a rule that looks arbitrary to you and me? I highly doubt they are either incompetent or malicious. They did it for a good reason, and they know far more about the actual statistics behind organ transplantation than anybody here or anywhere else biatching that they're sentencing this girl to death. Nobody knows better than them that they are sentencing people to death.
 
2013-06-06 03:20:54 PM  

Serious Black: skullkrusher: Serious Black: Everyone sitting here yelling about how this 10-year-old girl deserved to be on the list as if she were an adult has an incomplete set on information about this case and what will happen if, because she has been moved up on the list, somebody else gets denied the lungs she gets.

and that's the heart of the discussion (NPI). It is undeniable that someone gets denied the lungs if she gets them. However, if 12 is just used as an age to break up the two lists because of body size, it is not unfair that she gets the lungs ahead of someone else. She should have been ahead of them in the first place if all else is considered.

And what pseudoscience just posted is exactly what I had said before: that there is an unproven track record behind giving adult lungs to a child. I mean, why else would UNOS create a rule that looks arbitrary to you and me? I highly doubt they are either incompetent or malicious. They did it for a good reason, and they know far more about the actual statistics behind organ transplantation than anybody here or anywhere else biatching that they're sentencing this girl to death. Nobody knows better than them that they are sentencing people to death.


sorry, I missed psuedo's post. That is a different story but apparently there is some difference of opinion on the matter between the unnamed expert in TFA and the guy in psuedo's post
 
2013-06-06 03:21:20 PM  

Serious Black: skullkrusher: Serious Black: Everyone sitting here yelling about how this 10-year-old girl deserved to be on the list as if she were an adult has an incomplete set on information about this case and what will happen if, because she has been moved up on the list, somebody else gets denied the lungs she gets.

and that's the heart of the discussion (NPI). It is undeniable that someone gets denied the lungs if she gets them. However, if 12 is just used as an age to break up the two lists because of body size, it is not unfair that she gets the lungs ahead of someone else. She should have been ahead of them in the first place if all else is considered.

And what pseudoscience just posted is exactly what I had said before: that there is an unproven track record behind giving adult lungs to a child. I mean, why else would UNOS create a rule that looks arbitrary to you and me? I highly doubt they are either incompetent or malicious. They did it for a good reason, and they know far more about the actual statistics behind organ transplantation than anybody here or anywhere else biatching that they're sentencing this girl to death. Nobody knows better than them that they are sentencing people to death.


I worked on and collected the data for multiple heart and lung tx patients and studies as a matter of course.  The above is correct.
 
2013-06-06 03:21:51 PM  

pseudoscience: The real point is that there is medical basis for current policies. If people think those should be changed, that's fine. But leave it up to experts to figure that out, not some judge who knows nothing about it.


if the guy in your link is correct, then I agree
 
2013-06-06 03:22:57 PM  

BafflerMeal: pseudoscience: skullkrusher: KiltedBastich: skullkrusher: Serious Black: UNOS, the United Network for Organ Sharing, last revised the rule in 2010. What's changed since then that pediatric cases can handle adult lungs? What's change that makes having two separate lists for organs irrelevant?

I don't know. IANAD. I am going by the information I have and discussing the ethical issues about her bumping someone off the list. Why are there 2 separate lists? Why is age 12 important? Is it based on body size?

Agreed. Furthermore, If it's body size, then why not just say body size instead of setting an arbitrary age limit? Appropriate size of the organs is already a triage consideration. You're never going to get the lungs from a deceased 7 foot basketball player transplated into a sick 3 foot midget, for example.

right. If it is a sizing issue, having an arbitrary age seems rather stupid. Based on the brief details in TFA, however, that seems to be the only medical reason for the different lists

It is very likely more than just size:

One of those facts, he says, involves statistics showing children receiving adult lungs or even pieces of the organ have a poor survival rate after surgery.

The real point is that there is medical basis for current policies. If people think those should be changed, that's fine. But leave it up to experts to figure that out, not some judge who knows nothing about it.


Correct answer most of the time.

That being said, the boards are also fallible and the criteria weird sometimes.  Worked with a lot of Lung/Heart transplants over the years, peds and adults.  And sometimes the decisions seemed rather capricious.  However keep in mind, it is a *lot* more complicated than a simple sorting list.  Organ implantation criteria is an incredibly complex matrix of physiological and social issues.  It is so complex in fact that one cannot always say that because person A received and organ, person B did not.  Sometimes you can have a perfectly viabl ...

For anyone interested, here is the policy from UNOS:

One key point:

What if my doctors do not agree with my lung allocation score or pediatric priority?
If your transplant physician or surgeon believes that you have exceptional characteristics, and that your needs are not adequately reflected by your lung allocation score, then your transplant center may ask the Lung Review Board to review your situation. Similarly, if a transplant physician or surgeon feels that a lung candidate younger than 12 has a medical condition comparable to Priority 1, but does not meet one of the criterion listed in policy, they may request the Lung Review Board to review the pediatric candidate's situation. The Lung Review Board is a national group of transplant physicians and surgeons who will consider your special circumstances and determine what steps to take.

So there is a medical board that can review your case. I have no knowledge of what happened here, but I suspect the board already reviewed it and the family didn't like their answer. I admit I would probably do the exact same thing if it was my child, but this stepping over the line.
 
2013-06-06 03:23:14 PM  
live with it, libtards. Some die.
 
2013-06-06 03:25:46 PM  

bgilmore5: Truther: SecretAgentWoman: There is no guarantee yet she'll get lungs before she dies.

But honestly, shoehorning too-big adult lungs into a child that may not even be able to use them to leave an adult or even possibly an OLDER child to die is so much more humane, right?

/not

I grieve for the child and parents, but truly, medicine is not perfect, and life sometimes sucks. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and kicking others down to claw your way over them is not really in the spirit of life.

Lemme guess - you are a liberal Democrat...

/What do I win?

You must be a Republican. You make all your decisions based on emotion. No amount of scientific evidence is necessary. Medical decision must be made purely on whether or not the sick white person is like you. "Teri Schiavo was fully functioning when those judges killed her."


www.steves-digicams.com
Don't move....
 
2013-06-06 03:28:31 PM  

pseudoscience: One key point:

What if my doctors do not agree with my lung allocation score or pediatric priority?
If your transplant physician or surgeon believes that you have exceptional characteristics, and that your needs are not adequately reflected by your lung allocation score, then your transplant center may ask the Lung Review Board to review your situation. Similarly, if a transplant physician or surgeon feels that a lung candidate younger than 12 has a medical condition comparable to Priority 1, but does not meet one of the criterion listed in policy, they may request the Lung Review Board to review the pediatric candidate's situation. The Lung Review Board is a national group of transplant physicians and surgeons who will consider your special circumstances and determine what steps to take.

So there is a medical board that can review your case. I have no knowledge of what happened here, but I suspect the board already reviewed it and the family didn't like their answer. I admit I would probably do the exact same thing if it was my child, but this stepping over the line.


how does one get a position on this board?


cdn.unrealitymag.com
 
2013-06-06 03:30:18 PM  

skullkrusher: pseudoscience: One key point:

What if my doctors do not agree with my lung allocation score or pediatric priority?
If your transplant physician or surgeon believes that you have exceptional characteristics, and that your needs are not adequately reflected by your lung allocation score, then your transplant center may ask the Lung Review Board to review your situation. Similarly, if a transplant physician or surgeon feels that a lung candidate younger than 12 has a medical condition comparable to Priority 1, but does not meet one of the criterion listed in policy, they may request the Lung Review Board to review the pediatric candidate's situation. The Lung Review Board is a national group of transplant physicians and surgeons who will consider your special circumstances and determine what steps to take.

So there is a medical board that can review your case. I have no knowledge of what happened here, but I suspect the board already reviewed it and the family didn't like their answer. I admit I would probably do the exact same thing if it was my child, but this stepping over the line.

how does one get a position on this board?

[cdn.unrealitymag.com image 540x810]


Are you insinuating she is an expert on lungs?
 
2013-06-06 03:31:12 PM  

redTiburon: live with it, libtards. Some die.


I'm a Fark Librul™. Do you see me defending the decision

skullkrusher: Serious Black: skullkrusher: Serious Black: Everyone sitting here yelling about how this 10-year-old girl deserved to be on the list as if she were an adult has an incomplete set on information about this case and what will happen if, because she has been moved up on the list, somebody else gets denied the lungs she gets.

and that's the heart of the discussion (NPI). It is undeniable that someone gets denied the lungs if she gets them. However, if 12 is just used as an age to break up the two lists because of body size, it is not unfair that she gets the lungs ahead of someone else. She should have been ahead of them in the first place if all else is considered.

And what pseudoscience just posted is exactly what I had said before: that there is an unproven track record behind giving adult lungs to a child. I mean, why else would UNOS create a rule that looks arbitrary to you and me? I highly doubt they are either incompetent or malicious. They did it for a good reason, and they know far more about the actual statistics behind organ transplantation than anybody here or anywhere else biatching that they're sentencing this girl to death. Nobody knows better than them that they are sentencing people to death.

sorry, I missed psuedo's post. That is a different story but apparently there is some difference of opinion on the matter between the unnamed expert in TFA and the guy in psuedo's post


There may be. And if there is, UNOS will certainly review and revise the rules. Perhaps they will change it. I wouldn't hold my breath though; their latest guidance describes children under 12 who need lungs as already existing under "unique circumstances." I can't imagine three or four years will change those unique circumstances so much that they can put pediatric and adult cases on the same priority list.
 
2013-06-06 03:32:18 PM  

pseudoscience: skullkrusher: pseudoscience: One key point:

What if my doctors do not agree with my lung allocation score or pediatric priority?
If your transplant physician or surgeon believes that you have exceptional characteristics, and that your needs are not adequately reflected by your lung allocation score, then your transplant center may ask the Lung Review Board to review your situation. Similarly, if a transplant physician or surgeon feels that a lung candidate younger than 12 has a medical condition comparable to Priority 1, but does not meet one of the criterion listed in policy, they may request the Lung Review Board to review the pediatric candidate's situation. The Lung Review Board is a national group of transplant physicians and surgeons who will consider your special circumstances and determine what steps to take.

So there is a medical board that can review your case. I have no knowledge of what happened here, but I suspect the board already reviewed it and the family didn't like their answer. I admit I would probably do the exact same thing if it was my child, but this stepping over the line.

how does one get a position on this board?

[cdn.unrealitymag.com image 540x810]

Are you insinuating she is an expert on lungs?


I'm sayin' I wanna inspect 'em
 
2013-06-06 03:32:35 PM  

pseudoscience: skullkrusher: pseudoscience: One key point:

What if my doctors do not agree with my lung allocation score or pediatric priority?
If your transplant physician or surgeon believes that you have exceptional characteristics, and that your needs are not adequately reflected by your lung allocation score, then your transplant center may ask the Lung Review Board to review your situation. Similarly, if a transplant physician or surgeon feels that a lung candidate younger than 12 has a medical condition comparable to Priority 1, but does not meet one of the criterion listed in policy, they may request the Lung Review Board to review the pediatric candidate's situation. The Lung Review Board is a national group of transplant physicians and surgeons who will consider your special circumstances and determine what steps to take.

So there is a medical board that can review your case. I have no knowledge of what happened here, but I suspect the board already reviewed it and the family didn't like their answer. I admit I would probably do the exact same thing if it was my child, but this stepping over the line.

how does one get a position on this board?

[cdn.unrealitymag.com image 540x810]

Are you insinuating she is an expert on lungs?


I'd say she's an expert on breast implants at the very least.
 
2013-06-06 03:33:50 PM  
We wouldn't need arbitrary rules if we just put organs up for auction.
 
2013-06-06 03:36:22 PM  

Serious Black: pseudoscience: skullkrusher: pseudoscience: One key point:

What if my doctors do not agree with my lung allocation score or pediatric priority?
If your transplant physician or surgeon believes that you have exceptional characteristics, and that your needs are not adequately reflected by your lung allocation score, then your transplant center may ask the Lung Review Board to review your situation. Similarly, if a transplant physician or surgeon feels that a lung candidate younger than 12 has a medical condition comparable to Priority 1, but does not meet one of the criterion listed in policy, they may request the Lung Review Board to review the pediatric candidate's situation. The Lung Review Board is a national group of transplant physicians and surgeons who will consider your special circumstances and determine what steps to take.

So there is a medical board that can review your case. I have no knowledge of what happened here, but I suspect the board already reviewed it and the family didn't like their answer. I admit I would probably do the exact same thing if it was my child, but this stepping over the line.

how does one get a position on this board?

[cdn.unrealitymag.com image 540x810]

Are you insinuating she is an expert on lungs?

I'd say she's an expert on breast implants at the very least.


I'd say she probably fits the size requirement.
 
2013-06-06 03:38:58 PM  

Serious Black: pseudoscience: skullkrusher: pseudoscience: One key point:

What if my doctors do not agree with my lung allocation score or pediatric priority?
If your transplant physician or surgeon believes that you have exceptional characteristics, and that your needs are not adequately reflected by your lung allocation score, then your transplant center may ask the Lung Review Board to review your situation. Similarly, if a transplant physician or surgeon feels that a lung candidate younger than 12 has a medical condition comparable to Priority 1, but does not meet one of the criterion listed in policy, they may request the Lung Review Board to review the pediatric candidate's situation. The Lung Review Board is a national group of transplant physicians and surgeons who will consider your special circumstances and determine what steps to take.

So there is a medical board that can review your case. I have no knowledge of what happened here, but I suspect the board already reviewed it and the family didn't like their answer. I admit I would probably do the exact same thing if it was my child, but this stepping over the line.

how does one get a position on this board?

[cdn.unrealitymag.com image 540x810]

Are you insinuating she is an expert on lungs?

I'd say she's an expert on breast implants at the very least.


YOU TAKE THAT BACK! DENISE MILANI IS 100% NATURAL
 
2013-06-06 03:44:04 PM  
So if she gets adult lungs...does that mean she's allowed to smoke?

What if she gets other adult parts?

/Like a liver....for drinking....you pervert.
 
2013-06-06 03:47:22 PM  

skullkrusher: Serious Black: pseudoscience: skullkrusher: pseudoscience: One key point:

What if my doctors do not agree with my lung allocation score or pediatric priority?
If your transplant physician or surgeon believes that you have exceptional characteristics, and that your needs are not adequately reflected by your lung allocation score, then your transplant center may ask the Lung Review Board to review your situation. Similarly, if a transplant physician or surgeon feels that a lung candidate younger than 12 has a medical condition comparable to Priority 1, but does not meet one of the criterion listed in policy, they may request the Lung Review Board to review the pediatric candidate's situation. The Lung Review Board is a national group of transplant physicians and surgeons who will consider your special circumstances and determine what steps to take.

So there is a medical board that can review your case. I have no knowledge of what happened here, but I suspect the board already reviewed it and the family didn't like their answer. I admit I would probably do the exact same thing if it was my child, but this stepping over the line.

how does one get a position on this board?

[cdn.unrealitymag.com image 540x810]

Are you insinuating she is an expert on lungs?

I'd say she's an expert on breast implants at the very least.

YOU TAKE THAT BACK! DENISE MILANI IS 100% NATURAL


This is why I love Fark. We can go from sniping at each other over literal life-and-death issues to cracking jokes and falling prey to our animalistic sexual drive at the drop of a hat.
 
2013-06-06 03:51:38 PM  

Serious Black: skullkrusher: Serious Black: pseudoscience: skullkrusher: pseudoscience: One key point:

What if my doctors do not agree with my lung allocation score or pediatric priority?
If your transplant physician or surgeon believes that you have exceptional characteristics, and that your needs are not adequately reflected by your lung allocation score, then your transplant center may ask the Lung Review Board to review your situation. Similarly, if a transplant physician or surgeon feels that a lung candidate younger than 12 has a medical condition comparable to Priority 1, but does not meet one of the criterion listed in policy, they may request the Lung Review Board to review the pediatric candidate's situation. The Lung Review Board is a national group of transplant physicians and surgeons who will consider your special circumstances and determine what steps to take.

So there is a medical board that can review your case. I have no knowledge of what happened here, but I suspect the board already reviewed it and the family didn't like their answer. I admit I would probably do the exact same thing if it was my child, but this stepping over the line.

how does one get a position on this board?

[cdn.unrealitymag.com image 540x810]

Are you insinuating she is an expert on lungs?

I'd say she's an expert on breast implants at the very least.

YOU TAKE THAT BACK! DENISE MILANI IS 100% NATURAL

This is why I love Fark. We can go from sniping at each other over literal life-and-death issues to cracking jokes and falling prey to our animalistic sexual drive at the drop of a hat.


Yep. I'd love it more if you liberal leeches would start posting more "lung" pics rather than just taking mine
 
2013-06-06 03:53:13 PM  

Serious Black: skullkrusher: Serious Black: pseudoscience: skullkrusher: pseudoscience: One key point:

What if my doctors do not agree with my lung allocation score or pediatric priority?
If your transplant physician or surgeon believes that you have exceptional characteristics, and that your needs are not adequately reflected by your lung allocation score, then your transplant center may ask the Lung Review Board to review your situation. Similarly, if a transplant physician or surgeon feels that a lung candidate younger than 12 has a medical condition comparable to Priority 1, but does not meet one of the criterion listed in policy, they may request the Lung Review Board to review the pediatric candidate's situation. The Lung Review Board is a national group of transplant physicians and surgeons who will consider your special circumstances and determine what steps to take.

So there is a medical board that can review your case. I have no knowledge of what happened here, but I suspect the board already reviewed it and the family didn't like their answer. I admit I would probably do the exact same thing if it was my child, but this stepping over the line.

how does one get a position on this board?

[cdn.unrealitymag.com image 540x810]

Are you insinuating she is an expert on lungs?

I'd say she's an expert on breast implants at the very least.

YOU TAKE THAT BACK! DENISE MILANI IS 100% NATURAL

This is why I love Fark. We can go from sniping at each other over literal life-and-death issues to cracking jokes and falling prey to our animalistic sexual drive at the drop of a hat.


Future band name?
 
2013-06-06 03:55:57 PM  
The best solution to these kinds of problems is simply to make organ donation mandatory.

You're dead. You're not using it any more. You have no 'rights' as such, nor does the right of the family to ritual or superstition supercede the saving of another life.

I will grant that this will necessitate changes in how death is decided upon, many people are afraid they'll be essentially harvested for organs instead of all attempts made to save them. But that can be done.

We wouldn't have too many people dying waiting on transplants that's for damned sure.

/donating my bits to SCIENCE biatches
 
2013-06-06 04:00:46 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: We wouldn't need arbitrary rules if we just put organs up for auction.


NO.

cdn.motinetwork.net
 
2013-06-06 04:07:29 PM  
My understanding of how all this works there is a zero percent chance that someone who would not of died, will now die.
 
2013-06-06 04:08:14 PM  
Sigh i meant 100%
 
2013-06-06 04:08:56 PM  

skullkrusher: Serious Black:Are you insinuating she is an expert on lungs?

I'd say she's an expert on breast implants at the very least.

YOU TAKE THAT BACK! DENISE MILANI IS 100% NATURAL


No, she's not. She does have naturally large breasts but she felt she needed to get some CRAZY LARGE boobs to stand out from the crowd.

Hate when women do that.

/she has no ass anyway
 
2013-06-06 04:11:14 PM  

peterthx: skullkrusher: Serious Black:Are you insinuating she is an expert on lungs?

I'd say she's an expert on breast implants at the very least.

YOU TAKE THAT BACK! DENISE MILANI IS 100% NATURAL

No, she's not. She does have naturally large breasts but she felt she needed to get some CRAZY LARGE boobs to stand out from the crowd.

Hate when women do that.

/she has no ass anyway


You can get ass implants now. My ex was seriously considering getting them at one point.
 
2013-06-06 04:15:40 PM  

Daeva: My understanding of how all this works there is a zero percent chance that someone who would not of died, will now die.


Daeva: Sigh i meant 100%



Your understanding is incorrect.
 
2013-06-06 04:20:35 PM  

Daeva: My understanding of how all this works there is a zero percent chance that someone who would not of died, will now die.


That's not how transplant lists work. Someone sicker than her will still get the lungs.
 
2013-06-06 04:24:35 PM  

SecretAgentWoman: There is no guarantee yet she'll get lungs before she dies.

But honestly, shoehorning too-big adult lungs into a child that may not even be able to use them to leave an adult or even possibly an OLDER child to die is so much more humane, right?

/not

I grieve for the child and parents, but truly, medicine is not perfect, and life sometimes sucks. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and kicking others down to claw your way over them is not really in the spirit of life.


actually thats exactly what life is about
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST!
 
2013-06-06 04:50:37 PM  

Serious Black: skullkrusher: Serious Black: What do you think the organ donation list is? It's a priority queue. By being considered as if she is 12 years old instead of 10, she jumped ahead of a lot of other people on the list. Just because she may not be (almost certainly isn't) priority #1 doesn't mean she isn't being prioritized ahead of a lot of other people now because of the change. And if she does get a set of lungs because of this reprioritization, somebody else inevitably will not get them.

but the reason she was in the back of the list was an arbitrary rule about adult lungs in younger patients. It'd be like saying the red-heads have to wait until all others have been given a shot at an available organ and then changing that policy (even if only in one instance at the moment) and then saying that that ginger is jumping ahead of people. Technically, yes, but not unfairly so.

KiltedBastich: Gotta agree with skullkrusher here. The point is that there should not be an arbitrary limit. Triage still applies. The lung she needs would still have to be small enough and the right blood type, and it would still be allocated based on severity of need. All this ruling really does is allow those standards to be applied to her, rather than a rubber-stamp "Not Eligible For Transplant" ruling.

She wasn't stamped as not being eligible for a transplant. She was simply placed on a waiting list for pediatric lungs. Part of the reason there is a separate list for adult and pediatric lungs is that there is little research on how a child will handle adult lungs. Will the child turn out just fine? Will they not be able to breathe as a result of potentially jamming the lungs into a cavity too small for them? We simply do not know.

Let's not gloss over the ethics here. Regardless of this ruling placing the girl on the adult transplant list, there are far too few sets of lungs available to ensure everybody on that list will get a transplant. By ordering that this 10-year-old girl be considered ...


There's no way to know the answer to that. As the mother of two young children, I can tell you that I would fight to hell and back to keep my children alive. And why is the life of a 10-year-old who needs a lung transplant thanks to a bad genetic gene not as meaningful as the life of a 60-year-old man whose lungs have been compromised by years of smoking? The 10-year-old still has her whole life ahead of her, and who knows? Maybe SHE will be the one who goes on to cure CF.

/Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God
//unless of course the suffering can be alleviated by a lung transplant, and then all bets are off
 
2013-06-06 05:09:21 PM  
Doesn't the Mother kinda resemble Adolf Hitler Campbells mother?

/Just sayin'
 
2013-06-06 05:10:00 PM  

TrixieDelite: Serious Black: skullkrusher: Serious Black: What do you think the organ donation list is? It's a priority queue. By being considered as if she is 12 years old instead of 10, she jumped ahead of a lot of other people on the list. Just because she may not be (almost certainly isn't) priority #1 doesn't mean she isn't being prioritized ahead of a lot of other people now because of the change. And if she does get a set of lungs because of this reprioritization, somebody else inevitably will not get them.

but the reason she was in the back of the list was an arbitrary rule about adult lungs in younger patients. It'd be like saying the red-heads have to wait until all others have been given a shot at an available organ and then changing that policy (even if only in one instance at the moment) and then saying that that ginger is jumping ahead of people. Technically, yes, but not unfairly so.

KiltedBastich: Gotta agree with skullkrusher here. The point is that there should not be an arbitrary limit. Triage still applies. The lung she needs would still have to be small enough and the right blood type, and it would still be allocated based on severity of need. All this ruling really does is allow those standards to be applied to her, rather than a rubber-stamp "Not Eligible For Transplant" ruling.

She wasn't stamped as not being eligible for a transplant. She was simply placed on a waiting list for pediatric lungs. Part of the reason there is a separate list for adult and pediatric lungs is that there is little research on how a child will handle adult lungs. Will the child turn out just fine? Will they not be able to breathe as a result of potentially jamming the lungs into a cavity too small for them? We simply do not know.

Let's not gloss over the ethics here. Regardless of this ruling placing the girl on the adult transplant list, there are far too few sets of lungs available to ensure everybody on that list will get a transplant. By ordering that this 10-year-old gir ...


There's no way to know the answer to that. As the mother of two young children, I can tell you that I would fight to hell and back to keep my children alive. And why is the life of a 10-year-old who needs a lung transplant thanks to a bad genetic gene not as meaningful as the life of a 60-year-old man whose lungs have been compromised by years of smoking? The 10-year-old still has her whole life ahead of her, and who knows? Maybe SHE will be the one who goes on to cure CF.

/Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God
//unless of course the suffering can be alleviated by a lung transplant, and then all bets are off


Of course you would! I would fight for my child to get a lung transplant too if they were weeks away from dying from cystic fibrosis. So would every single parent I know. And therein lies the problem. Every single person who is on the transplant list has friends and family who would fight to ensure that they get a transplant, and they all have tragic sob stories about how their life has so much potential that will be extinguished if you give John Doe's lungs to Jane instead of the person they want to get a transplant. That's why we have impartial rules to place people who need organs more and have a higher chance of accepting them higher on the priority list, and that's why we have medical boards to determine whether somebody should even be placed on the priority list in the first place. They stop subjective factors that nobody can accurately judge in the first place from weighing in on the process.
 
2013-06-06 05:12:35 PM  

studs up: bgilmore5: BTW, the Repubs don't give a damn about the sanctity of life

I was informed that this is a major problem. Pro-Lifers run that party. Has someone changed the definition of "sanctity of life" while my lappy re-booted?



Self-described "pro lifers". They believe a woman should carry a child to full term even if it means she could die from the complications.  They also believe by political affiliation that once that baby is born society should say "fark you" if you are ever in need. I stand by my statement.
 
2013-06-06 05:24:58 PM  
Everyone seems to be all wah-wah about this child's tragic situation, and the possible situation where it's perceived that some other child might die because they are further down the list.

Let's also keep in mind that for this plan to work, a healthy child of the right size and blood type has to die first. Will we call that a triumph?
 
2013-06-06 05:28:48 PM  

highwayrun: Everyone seems to be all wah-wah about this child's tragic situation, and the possible situation where it's perceived that some other child might die because they are further down the list.

Let's also keep in mind that for this plan to work, a healthy child of the right size and blood type has to die first. Will we call that a triumph?


I will throw an enormous party with mountains of booze, pot, cocaine, and hookers right outside of that kid's funeral if this girl gets their lungs.
 
2013-06-06 05:35:06 PM  

pseudoscience: skullkrusher: pseudoscience: One key point:

What if my doctors do not agree with my lung allocation score or pediatric priority?
If your transplant physician or surgeon believes that you have exceptional characteristics, and that your needs are not adequately reflected by your lung allocation score, then your transplant center may ask the Lung Review Board to review your situation. Similarly, if a transplant physician or surgeon feels that a lung candidate younger than 12 has a medical condition comparable to Priority 1, but does not meet one of the criterion listed in policy, they may request the Lung Review Board to review the pediatric candidate's situation. The Lung Review Board is a national group of transplant physicians and surgeons who will consider your special circumstances and determine what steps to take.

So there is a medical board that can review your case. I have no knowledge of what happened here, but I suspect the board already reviewed it and the family didn't like their answer. I admit I would probably do the exact same thing if it was my child, but this stepping over the line.

how does one get a position on this board?

[cdn.unrealitymag.com image 540x810]

Are you insinuating she is an expert on lungs?


That happens to be a portrait of Dr. Ruth Ella Steinberg, M.D., Ph.D. , former Senior Pulmonology Analyst at the Lawrence Livermore Space Science Laboratories and now Professor of Transplant Science at the UCLA Medical Center's Center for Applied Bioethics in Medicine and a teaching fellow at Cedars-Mt.Sinai.

You just took her Maxim photo shoot completely out of context.
 
2013-06-06 05:49:18 PM  

SecretAgentWoman: There is no guarantee yet she'll get lungs before she dies.

But honestly, shoehorning too-big adult lungs into a child that may not even be able to use them to leave an adult or even possibly an OLDER child to die is so much more humane, right?

/not

I grieve for the child and parents, but truly, medicine is not perfect, and life sometimes sucks. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and kicking others down to claw your way over them is not really in the spirit of life.


Actually, it is the spirit of life.  Survival of the survivors.  I agree with the rest of the statements, tho
 
2013-06-06 06:00:40 PM  

bgilmore5: Trey Le Parc: bgilmore5: Truther: SecretAgentWoman: There is no guarantee yet she'll get lungs before she dies.

But honestly, shoehorning too-big adult lungs into a child that may not even be able to use them to leave an adult or even possibly an OLDER child to die is so much more humane, right?

/not

I grieve for the child and parents, but truly, medicine is not perfect, and life sometimes sucks. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and kicking others down to claw your way over them is not really in the spirit of life.

Lemme guess - you are a liberal Democrat...

/What do I win?

You must be a Republican. You make all your decisions based on emotion. No amount of scientific evidence is necessary. Medical decision must be made purely on whether or not the sick white person is like you. "Teri Schiavo was fully functioning when those judges killed her."

Generally, champ, liberals condemn Republicans for being unfeeling gestapo property rights Nazis more interested in money than the sanctity of life.  You need to get your talking points straight if you're going to fall into lockstep with your progressive overlords.

Everyone is a liberal or conservative. I forgot. Are you saying Republicans embrace logic and science? There's plenty to be said for your argument. If her brain had not liquified while Republicans paraded her corps around on TV, Teri Schiavo probably would agree Republicans are "unfeeling gestapo property rights Nazis more interested in money than the sanctity of life." BTW, the Repubs don't give a damn about the sanctity of life.


You are a bigot and a racist.  Have a nice day.
 
2013-06-06 06:08:31 PM  
Who's going to pay the person's family for providing the lungs for someone else? Everyone else in the transplant chain is getting a little scratch, why not the family of the deceased?
 
2013-06-06 06:11:06 PM  

hardinparamedic: DamnYankees: And the person who is going to die because they aren't getting those lungs? What's that person's name?

She didn't get bumped up the transplant list, you know. There's no guarantee they will even find a donor in time to save her.

On the other hand, it was pointed out that the rule existed because there was no guarantee the 10 year old's chest would be large enough to be able to accommodate an adult's lungs.

Asking the DHHS to intervene though was stupid. They don't make the rules, IIRC. The transplant foundations do.

DamnYankees: I understand that, but by being put on the list at all, she's displacing everyone who would go below her. I feel very badly for this girl and her family, but I also feel badly for everyone else on the list. I'm not sure why this person is getting precedence.

Probably because her condition is all but curable with a transplant, and she's a 10 year old child, which means she's much more likely to survive the surgery than the 70 year old guy who smoked for 40 years.


They're getting in a little practice. It's a trial run on how the death panels are going to work.
 
2013-06-06 06:32:47 PM  
www.lifenews.com

Good luck, biatches
 
2013-06-06 07:08:23 PM  

DamnYankees: I understand that, but by being put on the list at all, she's displacing everyone who would go below her. I feel very badly for this girl and her family, but I also feel badly for everyone else on the list. I'm not sure why this person is getting precedence.


You are overlooking that in some cases the rule is capricious - and has it origins by and large in size matches. If the girl is big enough for the lungs, she should be allowed to at least be on the list to get them. The list doesn't guarantee a match - and she's not at the top of it so no precedence, just a chance.

Oh and please everyone (who doesn't believe in a mythical being who would rather your meat rot than be used to save a life) please consider joining a donor registry - every little bit helps...
 
2013-06-06 07:10:20 PM  

skullkrusher: DamnYankees: And the person who is going to die because they aren't getting those lungs? What's that person's name?

why does that matter? Did she skip to the head of the line or is this ruling just a matter of her not being forced to the back of it?


The ruling is about her being allowed on the list at all. Previously she wasn't even on the list.
 
2013-06-06 07:19:01 PM  

Magnus: SecretAgentWoman: There is no guarantee yet she'll get lungs before she dies.

But honestly, shoehorning too-big adult lungs into a child that may not even be able to use them to leave an adult or even possibly an OLDER child to die is so much more humane, right?

/not

I grieve for the child and parents, but truly, medicine is not perfect, and life sometimes sucks. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and kicking others down to claw your way over them is not really in the spirit of life.

Actually, that is precisely the spirit of life.  Maybe not our general definition of civilized life, but in a battle for your own survival it definitely is the way it happens.  Survival instincts are very powerful.  But, yeah, no guarantee.

If the person who gets booted down the list files suit, that'll really eff things up in this case.  Hmmm, who to choose, who to choose?


That can't happen with the transplant list. I also wonder how many people are aware of the number of organs that have been donated and are eligible for transplant don't get used - mostly because a match to a needed organ occurs in a place too far away, and there is no 'meet the organ in the middle' plan. Adding to the list may or may not affect anyone else on the list - and may or may not even save her. It just buys her the same shot everyone else on the list has.
 
2013-06-06 07:29:34 PM  
Wonder if this would have happened if she was a little black girl.  Or a little black boy for that matter.

/apologizes
 
2013-06-06 07:31:16 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: hardinparamedic: Satanic_Hamster: hardinparamedic: Probably because her condition is all but curable with a transplant, and she's a 10 year old child, which means she's much more likely to survive the surgery than the 70 year old guy who smoked for 40 years.

Wait, I thought she had MS?  Didn't think a transplant would "cure" that.

Cystic Fibrosis.

Doh, thought it was ms.  Didn't read the current article, just past ones / on other services.

Will a transplant actually cure CF?  I know CF destroys your lungs, wasn't aware that a lung transplant was a perm. fix.


I'll try and field this one. Had a childhood friend with CF get a lung transplant about 2 months ago. She is 26 years old and I read up a little bit about it. She got great medical care pretty much all during her life and eventually got down to 15% lung function or so and was lucky enough to get a match. She posted updates to a FB page and some of it was quite rough.

You have to have a double transplant since one of the major issues is bacterial infection in the lungs.
Survival rate is decent, but not outstanding. Perhaps 50% after 5-10 years.
You are never "cured" of CF but at least in terms of lungs things look very positive. The excess mucus is no longer produced and assuming you recover from the surgery you can eventually have a fairly normal active life. Several other organs and systems are impacted by CF as well and those concerns still exist. You don't "use up" those lungs and need another pair unless there are other complications.

She has a public Facebook page if you'd like an idea of what someone faces and goes through:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Inhale-Exhale-Repeat/558027427555743
 
2013-06-06 07:38:44 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: We wouldn't need arbitrary rules if we just put organs up for auction.


Or better still, not do these sorts of operations at all. I am also including the extensive money spent on curing cancers, and on extreme premmie births and defects.

What to know why the healthcare system is over burdened? We as a society are so terrified of death that we now view it as unnatural and a thing to be cured. Better palliative/end of life care would be far better.

Yes, I realize that it is very Malthusian of me, and also that I'm about to hit some more 'ignore' lists, and before some one responds with a just wait until a loved one of yours faces death - I've been through it, and yeah it sucks, but life will out. We, in the western world, are in some ways as greedy for a life span as we are for cars and material gain. And just as the planet could use a few less landfills, and far less demand on resources we seem incapable of husbanding, it could use a few less people. I can't think of a less arbitrary way of managing a population as greedy and affluent as ours than allowing life to take it's course.

Maybe then we could solve a few real problems rather than stave off the inevitable.

That said, my donor card is signed, and maybe someday, some one will get an eye, or some muscle, or a bone or two - but I'd prefer it if no one got a cure for something that should have killed them out of it.
 
2013-06-06 07:41:20 PM  

Daeva: My understanding of how all this works there is a zero percent chance that someone who would not of died, will now die.


You math is correct.
 
2013-06-06 07:46:23 PM  

Daeva: Sigh i meant 100%


Now your math is wrong.

The balance of probabilities for an unspecified someone is that someone who would not have died will now die is still zero since someone will still die and someone will still live. So no change.
 
2013-06-06 07:47:27 PM  

hardinparamedic: DamnYankees: This is why we let doctors and transplant boards make these decisions. Not judges, not you and not me. There's a reason about age cutoffs, and it shouldn't be overturned by a judge.

The problem is that, as pointed out in TFA, the rule was made a long time ago, and may no longer be valid thanks to advances in organ procurement and selection. The arbitrary age range may also be flawed as well.

I do agree with you, though, that the courts intervening create a dangerous president for anyone who has enough money to take transplant boards to court.

 The current laws on the books were revised in 2005, reflecting advances in medicine.


Children are NOT excluded from getting an adult organ, as many have claimed. Instead, adults are simply given priority for adult organs. If the donated adult organ is not a match to any patient on the Adult list, then patients on the Pediatric list are considered.

An exemption also exists that allows children of at least 11 years old to be placed on the Adult list in addition to the Pediatric list, if they meet minimum height and weight requirements.

Inversely, however, adults are NEVER eligible for a child's organ, for obvious reasons. If a match cannot be found on the Pediatric list for a child's donated organ, the organ goes to waste.

And now, we have the judge's ruling. Thanks to his ruling, he has set a precedent that will allow people to circumvent the rules through lawsuits. If his ruling stands, the law has to be scrapped. There is no point to having a set of rules governing the process, if the rules can be altered at will by Judicial Decree.
 
2013-06-06 07:49:08 PM  

bgilmore5: studs up: bgilmore5: BTW, the Repubs don't give a damn about the sanctity of life

I was informed that this is a major problem. Pro-Lifers run that party. Has someone changed the definition of "sanctity of life" while my lappy re-booted?


Self-described "pro lifers". They believe a woman should carry a child to full term even if it means she could die from the complications.  They also believe by political affiliation that once that baby is born society should say "fark you" if you are ever in need. I stand by my statement.


I just mentally replace pro-life with pro-birth to erase the logic holes in their stance.
 
2013-06-06 08:09:55 PM  

Magnus: Serious Black:

Previously, she had no shot at those lungs even if she were the only one to match.


Incorrect.

The rules plainly state that patients on the Pediatric list are eligible for a lobe transplant of an adult organ *IF* no adult patients match. The parents and the media have been misrepresenting or misunderstanding the rules. This whole lawsuit thing was a last-ditch effort on the part of the parents to save their little girl.

I can understand their reasons. But, the fact remains, *if* she gets an adult lung, her odds of survival are less that her survival rate with a child's lung, and roughly 1/2 the survival rate of an adult patient getting an adult lung.
 
2013-06-06 08:22:40 PM  

skullkrusher: Serious Black: UNOS, the United Network for Organ Sharing, last revised the rule in 2010. What's changed since then that pediatric cases can handle adult lungs? What's change that makes having two separate lists for organs irrelevant?

I don't know. IANAD. I am going by the information I have and discussing the ethical issues about her bumping someone off the list. Why are there 2 separate lists? Why is age 12 important? Is it based on body size?


Yes, its based on body size. The vast majority of children under 12 are simply too small for even a lobe (or partial organ) transplant from an adult organ. Even with a lobe transplant, they may not be able to transplant enough of the organ to sustain normal function. This is why children are placed lower in the queue for adult organs.

And I will state this again for clarity:
Children on the Pediatric list are ALSO on the Adult list. HOWEVER, they are placed further down in priority than adult patients.

Inversely, Adult patients are NEVER eligible for children's organs.
 
2013-06-06 10:08:26 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: hardinparamedic: Probably because her condition is all but curable with a transplant, and she's a 10 year old child, which means she's much more likely to survive the surgery than the 70 year old guy who smoked for 40 years.

Wait, I thought she had MS?  Didn't think a transplant would "cure" that.


No, she has cystic fibrosis.
 
jph
2013-06-06 10:40:10 PM  
Holy cow! Lots of misinformation here.

First off, let me start by saying that I have a 19 month-old boy with a heart transplant. I also have met Dr. John Roberts, head of UNOS, and I have met some of the people that are deeply involved in making the decision. I will also be at one of the meetings where I expect changes to the rule in question to be proposed and/or voted upon.

Here are the facts:

1. Sebelius does not have the power to force UNOS to do anything. She controls a couple of non-voting seats on the 48-member board, and she has the ability to affect the periodic OPTN contract renewal. Other than the contract renewal, the structure of the board means that a transplant recipient on the board could have more power over an individual decision than her. Of course, the renewal prospect has a major effect.
2. It is uncertain whether or not a lung from the adult pool can be found that will fit her. Lobar transplants can work sometimes, but are not as certain.
3. She has cystic fibrosis. With a transplant, that has a half-live of five years. Life expectancy is 70% at one year. It gets worse from there. Much worse. CF will eventually render her new lungs useless.
4. The OPTN policy in question is there to protect children by keeping adults out of the pediatric pool. In this case, it had potentially the opposite effect.

So the question is -- what happens if anyone who can find a media outlet, Congresscritter, or judge can lobby to have their listing status raised?
 
jph
2013-06-06 10:43:29 PM  
Let me also add: I can and will provide citations for my points upon request if necessary.
 
jph
2013-06-06 10:45:45 PM  

llachlan: The ruling is about her being allowed on the list at all. Previously she wasn't even on the list.


There is only one list, and she was on it. Her age simply excluded her from the "match run" sorting criteria that would cause a hit when an adult lung came up. Last night, UNOS programmers jury-rigged the software to force her to be classified as an adult.
 
jph
2013-06-06 10:55:23 PM  

Erder: I'll try and field this one. Had a childhood friend with CF get a lung transplant about 2 months ago. She is 26 years old and I read up a little bit about it. She got great medical care pretty much all during her life and eventually got down to 15% lung function or so and was lucky enough to get a match. She posted updates to a FB page and some of it was quite rough.

You have to have a double transplant since one of the major issues is bacterial infection in the lungs.
Survival rate is decent, but not outstanding. Perhaps 50% after 5-10 years.
You are never "cured" of CF but at least in terms of lungs things look very positive. The excess mucus is no longer produced and assuming you recover from the surgery you can eventually have a fairly normal active life. Several other organs and systems are impacted by CF as well and those concerns still exist. You don't "use up" those lungs and need another pair unless there are other complications


I realized that my statement above puts me at odds with what you have said, so I'll post this from the American Journal of Transplantation:

We recently reported our recipient outcomes during our first decade of experience with living lobar lung transplantation (11). One hundred and twenty-eight transplants were performed in 123 patients during this time period. Actuarial survival with this procedure is 70%, 54%, and 45% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively, which is similar to the actuarial survival reported for double-lung cadaveric transplantation from the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Registry (74%, 59%, and 49.5% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively). We were also able to show that patients intubated preoperatively and those undergoing re-transplantation had higher postoperative mortalities, suggesting caution in these populations. Although cadaveric transplantation remains preferable, these results have shown that living lobar lung transplantation has been life-saving in a select group of severely ill patients who would have either died or become unsuitable recipients before a cadaveric organ became available.

Things haven't changed much since then for lung TX recipients.

Source:  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-6143.2004.00514.x/f u ll
 
2013-06-06 10:58:44 PM  
 
2013-06-06 11:11:39 PM  
Not enough child sized donor organs available? Just go shoot up an elementary school. Problem solved.

/too soon?
 
jph
2013-06-06 11:18:52 PM  
One last point: If half of the people up in arms about the situation said "yes" in the event that they were requested to donate the organs of their child, this would not be a problem. Be an organ donor, and allow the same for your child if something tragic occurs.
 
2013-06-07 11:29:16 AM  

SecretAgentWoman: There is no guarantee yet she'll get lungs before she dies.

But honestly, shoehorning too-big adult lungs into a child that may not even be able to use them to leave an adult or even possibly an OLDER child to die is so much more humane, right?

/not

I grieve for the child and parents, but truly, medicine is not perfect, and life sometimes sucks. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and kicking others down to claw your way over them is not really in the spirit of life.


Actually, that pretty much IS the spirit of life. What we think of as our better angels are aspirational and all but they aren't how the engine of life operates.
 
2013-06-07 07:54:01 PM  
FTFA: The ruling by a U.S. district court means that the under-12 rule can no longer be applied to Sarah and she can be considered for lungs from donors of any age. Last year there were more than 1,700 adult lungs available, and all but 20 came from donors over age 11.

So 20 adult lungs came from donors under age 11?
 
Displayed 153 of 153 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report