There are no death panels?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remember that the bureaucrats who wrote the regulations regarding donor organs were likely doctors themselves.

I agree it is unbelievably sad that this girl may die. However, there are rules in place for how organs will be given out. There are adults in Pennsylvania waiting for lung transplants at this time. If she gets an adult lung - then someone else will not. It isn't like they have the lungs available and just won't give them to Sarah. It is horribly sad that people die waiting for organs.

I hope everyone on this thread has marked "yes" for organ donor on the driver's license.

She is being discriminated against due to her age. The reason she would be at the top of the list if she could get adult lungs is that she is very critically ill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Remember that the bureaucrats who wrote the regulations regarding donor organs were likely doctors themselves.



The reg/policy was written years ago. That is the problem with bureaucracy.

Exactly. Once policy is established it is next to impossible to change/reverse--especially in a timely manner--and it always results in creating reams of rules and regulations that do little more than justify the jobs of the bureaucrats.

This anti "bureaucrat" Stance makes no sense. Exactly how do you propose people get organs? He who has the most gold ? Wild west style ? Of course regulations have to be in place. They may need to change with the tech , but they still have to be there

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:The wealthy have always received better care than the poor. That will probably remain true. However, a neutral panel, even one composed of government bureaucrats, may even the playing field. As several PP's have said, as long as resources are limited, some will be denied care. To blame the panel for those, without giving credit for the fact that more people may live because of the panel, is grossly misleading.

The government has no business in health care. Period. They don't get to decide who lives and who dies in this regard. That's not their function by law.

Even the playing field sounds an awful lot like share the wealth. Disgusting that those who pay the bulk of the care for others will be the ones denied care.

As Ronald Reagan would say "There You Go Again". Because the National Organ Transplant Act was passed and signed into law in 1984.

And it's been updated when?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In this particular instance, it does seem reasonable that there should be "rules". The problem, from how I understand it, is the bureaucracy that is not keeping up with the rules. I think we will see more of this with the AHA.

No, that's the claim. What the family can't tell you is that the odds are as good as for an adolescent or adult. They are just saying that it is possible. There are lots of people who are denied organs even though it is possible that a transplant will work.

The doctors are saying they can utilize the organs and they will work. They can make the modifications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:The wealthy have always received better care than the poor. That will probably remain true. However, a neutral panel, even one composed of government bureaucrats, may even the playing field. As several PP's have said, as long as resources are limited, some will be denied care. To blame the panel for those, without giving credit for the fact that more people may live because of the panel, is grossly misleading.

The government has no business in health care. Period. They don't get to decide who lives and who dies in this regard. That's not their function by law.

Even the playing field sounds an awful lot like share the wealth. Disgusting that those who pay the bulk of the care for others will be the ones denied care.

I think it's disgusting you apparently think organs should be auctioned to the highest bidder. And since most people in this country have private insurance I'm offended at your sense of entitlement that the wealthy somehow are paying for the healthcare of others.

What I'm saying is you don't dumb down healthcare in a country to make it accessible to all. You don't cripple it. Two tiers of service is used in a lot of countries and the wealthy DO get better care. But people like you would scream "It's not FAIR".

If most people in this country have private insurance, then there was no need for Obamacare. I thought the premise for that was SO many were uninsured?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Remember that the bureaucrats who wrote the regulations regarding donor organs were likely doctors themselves.



The reg/policy was written years ago. That is the problem with bureaucracy.

Exactly. Once policy is established it is next to impossible to change/reverse--especially in a timely manner--and it always results in creating reams of rules and regulations that do little more than justify the jobs of the bureaucrats.

so you all know the policy better than the experts? interesting. i'm not saying its not outdated - how the heck would I know. and how would anyone on this thread really know? we're getting all this information from the media....

You're kidding right? The DOCTORS are saying that surgical advances are such that the policy is antiquated.

My guess if this was Sebillius' granddaughter, we'd see a different result...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember that the bureaucrats who wrote the regulations regarding donor organs were likely doctors themselves.

I agree it is unbelievably sad that this girl may die. However, there are rules in place for how organs will be given out. There are adults in Pennsylvania waiting for lung transplants at this time. If she gets an adult lung - then someone else will not. It isn't like they have the lungs available and just won't give them to Sarah. It is horribly sad that people die waiting for organs.

I hope everyone on this thread has marked "yes" for organ donor on the driver's license.

She is being discriminated against due to her age. The reason she would be at the top of the list if she could get adult lungs is that she is very critically ill.

So whoever makes their case the most public should get an exception? What about the other children waiting for organs? Should they also be moved to the adult list? I don't think we can do this willy nilly.... And I do think its tragic for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember that the bureaucrats who wrote the regulations regarding donor organs were likely doctors themselves.

I agree it is unbelievably sad that this girl may die. However, there are rules in place for how organs will be given out. There are adults in Pennsylvania waiting for lung transplants at this time. If she gets an adult lung - then someone else will not. It isn't like they have the lungs available and just won't give them to Sarah. It is horribly sad that people die waiting for organs.

I hope everyone on this thread has marked "yes" for organ donor on the driver's license.

She is being discriminated against due to her age. The reason she would be at the top of the list if she could get adult lungs is that she is very critically ill.

So whoever makes their case the most public should get an exception? What about the other children waiting for organs? Should they also be moved to the adult list? I don't think we can do this willy nilly.... And I do think its tragic for her.

Yes, they should be if the policy is antiquated. And we can start with this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember that the bureaucrats who wrote the regulations regarding donor organs were likely doctors themselves.

I agree it is unbelievably sad that this girl may die. However, there are rules in place for how organs will be given out. There are adults in Pennsylvania waiting for lung transplants at this time. If she gets an adult lung - then someone else will not. It isn't like they have the lungs available and just won't give them to Sarah. It is horribly sad that people die waiting for organs.

I hope everyone on this thread has marked "yes" for organ donor on the driver's license.

She is being discriminated against due to her age. The reason she would be at the top of the list if she could get adult lungs is that she is very critically ill.

So whoever makes their case the most public should get an exception? What about the other children waiting for organs? Should they also be moved to the adult list? I don't think we can do this willy nilly.... And I do think its tragic for her.

Yes, they should be if the policy is antiquated. And we can start with this case.

that is a big "if". that's what I don't know. I only know how the media has spun this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember that the bureaucrats who wrote the regulations regarding donor organs were likely doctors themselves.

I agree it is unbelievably sad that this girl may die. However, there are rules in place for how organs will be given out. There are adults in Pennsylvania waiting for lung transplants at this time. If she gets an adult lung - then someone else will not. It isn't like they have the lungs available and just won't give them to Sarah. It is horribly sad that people die waiting for organs.

I hope everyone on this thread has marked "yes" for organ donor on the driver's license.

She is being discriminated against due to her age. The reason she would be at the top of the list if she could get adult lungs is that she is very critically ill.

So whoever makes their case the most public should get an exception? What about the other children waiting for organs? Should they also be moved to the adult list? I don't think we can do this willy nilly.... And I do think its tragic for her.

Yes, they should be if the policy is antiquated. And we can start with this case.

that is a big "if". that's what I don't know. I only know how the media has spun this.

The fact is, the doctors are saying technology has advanced to the point where they can put adult lungs in this 10 year old and they will work. That's not the media - that's the doctors. There's no 'if' there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember that the bureaucrats who wrote the regulations regarding donor organs were likely doctors themselves.

I agree it is unbelievably sad that this girl may die. However, there are rules in place for how organs will be given out. There are adults in Pennsylvania waiting for lung transplants at this time. If she gets an adult lung - then someone else will not. It isn't like they have the lungs available and just won't give them to Sarah. It is horribly sad that people die waiting for organs.

I hope everyone on this thread has marked "yes" for organ donor on the driver's license.

She is being discriminated against due to her age. The reason she would be at the top of the list if she could get adult lungs is that she is very critically ill.

So whoever makes their case the most public should get an exception? What about the other children waiting for organs? Should they also be moved to the adult list? I don't think we can do this willy nilly.... And I do think its tragic for her.

Yes, they should be if the policy is antiquated. And we can start with this case.

that is a big "if". that's what I don't know. I only know how the media has spun this.

The fact is, the doctors are saying technology has advanced to the point where they can put adult lungs in this 10 year old and they will work. That's not the media - that's the doctors. There's no 'if' there.

If you say so. I would be willing to bet Sebilius got medical opinions as well. I'm not sure that the fact that it "will work" means it will be a good outcome. If the answer was that obvious - I don't see why she couldn't reverse the policy. Why do you think she didn't?

[Anonymous]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/sarah-murnaghan-lung-transplant-ruling-kathleen-sebelius-92299.html


Fed judge ordered Sebilius to allow the transplant.

[Anonymous]

"Annually in the US, about 200 people with CF, including 25 children, receive lung transplants. A 2007 review of data from the US Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Patient Registry and from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network found that the benefit of lung transplants to children with cystic fibrosis is questionable. Among the 248 of the 514 children on the waiting list from 1992-2002 who received a lung transplant, only five were deemed to have significant estimated benefit."

http://www.medicaldaily.com/articles/16205/20130604/lung-transplant-kathleen-sebelius-sarah-murnaghan.htm#

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/sarah-murnaghan-lung-transplant-ruling-kathleen-sebelius-92299.html


Fed judge ordered Sebilius to allow the transplant.

From the article:

Some experts agree that the lung allocation policy may need to be revisited; the policies for kidney and liver transplants have been. But they say no snap decisions should be made because of the media glare.

“Should Sebelius step in and do something? No. She doesn’t have all the facts,” said New York University bioethicist Arthur Caplan. Acting under pressure from a media savvy family “or the noisiest person in line” is bad policy, he added.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:The wealthy have always received better care than the poor. That will probably remain true. However, a neutral panel, even one composed of government bureaucrats, may even the playing field. As several PP's have said, as long as resources are limited, some will be denied care. To blame the panel for those, without giving credit for the fact that more people may live because of the panel, is grossly misleading.

The government has no business in health care. Period. They don't get to decide who lives and who dies in this regard. That's not their function by law.

Even the playing field sounds an awful lot like share the wealth. Disgusting that those who pay the bulk of the care for others will be the ones denied care.

I think it's disgusting you apparently think organs should be auctioned to the highest bidder. And since most people in this country have private insurance I'm offended at your sense of entitlement that the wealthy somehow are paying for the healthcare of others.

What I'm saying is you don't dumb down healthcare in a country to make it accessible to all. You don't cripple it. Two tiers of service is used in a lot of countries and the wealthy DO get better care. But people like you would scream "It's not FAIR".

If most people in this country have private insurance, then there was no need for Obamacare. I thought the premise for that was SO many were uninsured?

I have no idea on earth what "dumbing down healthcare" has to do with a rational policy on allocating organs for transplant. You do understand that there aren't enough organs, and that these organs don't come with instructions on who should get them? It in no way "cripples" healthcare to have a system that allocates those organs according to a set of medical criteria, rather than accordingly to whoever can pay the most for them.

Also, can you really not understand that if 85% of Americans have health insurance, that still leaves 47 million Americans without health insurance?