There are no death panels?

[Anonymous]

Sebilius had the opportunity to make a stand. She would not be overruling a decision made by doctors in this case, she would be siding with them, respecting their expertise. That she chose not to do this is very telling

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Sebilius had the opportunity to make a stand. She would not be overruling a decision made by doctors in this case, she would be siding with them, respecting their expertise. That she chose not to do this is very telling

She would be siding with one set of doctors against the advice of other doctors. There is a process for changing the donor policy and Sebilius has asked that that process be followed in order to consider changing the policy. But, it is an amazing contradiction for you to demand that a Federal official take a unilateral action while criticizing the involvement of Federal officials. Do you really want a system in which our healthcare decisions are made unilaterally by the Secretary of Health? If anything, you should be demanding that Sebilius stay out of the process.

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure even Solomon could figure this one out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sebilius had the opportunity to make a stand. She would not be overruling a decision made by doctors in this case, she would be siding with them, respecting their expertise. That she chose not to do this is very telling

Most doctors want their patients to get organs. But those doctors are only looking out for their patients.

If this girl gets an organ, someone else doesn't.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sebilius had the opportunity to make a stand. She would not be overruling a decision made by doctors in this case, she would be siding with them, respecting their expertise. That she chose not to do this is very telling

She would be siding with one set of doctors against the advice of other doctors. There is a process for changing the donor policy and Sebilius has asked that that process be followed in order to consider changing the policy. But, it is an amazing contradiction for you to demand that a Federal official take a unilateral action while criticizing the involvement of Federal officials. Do you really want a system in which our healthcare decisions are made unilaterally by the Secretary of Health? If anything, you should be demanding that Sebilius stay out of the process.

In this particular case, this girl was determined to be able to use adult lungs. Case-by-case basis. My point is the Feds have no business in this AT ALL so it should have never fallen to HHS to begin with. This is a decision best left between doctors and patients. That HAS been what I've been stating all along. But that's utopia - it's not how things ARE and ObamaCare does not fix that; it gives HHS more power, not less.

Right NOW, Sebelius does have power, and since that power lies within the Feds, it's slow and cumbersome. Good medicine involves quick decisions, quick review, etc. Federal government has proven time and again that they aren't equipped for that type of decision-making.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sebilius had the opportunity to make a stand. She would not be overruling a decision made by doctors in this case, she would be siding with them, respecting their expertise. That she chose not to do this is very telling

She would be siding with one set of doctors against the advice of other doctors. There is a process for changing the donor policy and Sebilius has asked that that process be followed in order to consider changing the policy. But, it is an amazing contradiction for you to demand that a Federal official take a unilateral action while criticizing the involvement of Federal officials. Do you really want a system in which our healthcare decisions are made unilaterally by the Secretary of Health? If anything, you should be demanding that Sebilius stay out of the process.

In this particular case, this girl was determined to be able to use adult lungs. Case-by-case basis. My point is the Feds have no business in this AT ALL so it should have never fallen to HHS to begin with. This is a decision best left between doctors and patients. That HAS been what I've been stating all along. But that's utopia - it's not how things ARE and ObamaCare does not fix that; it gives HHS more power, not less.

Right NOW, Sebelius does have power, and since that power lies within the Feds, it's slow and cumbersome. Good medicine involves quick decisions, quick review, etc. Federal government has proven time and again that they aren't equipped for that type of decision-making.

Once Sebelius took herself out of the process, the Feds didn't have a role. That is exactly what you want. But, in this instance, you not only want a Federal role, but you want the Feds to overrule the medical professionals. Yes, this girl's doctors think she needs a lung? But, what about the doctors of other patients that think those patients need lungs? Which doctors should win the debate? The current policy was developed to avoid such questions. But, you want that policy voided and put in the hands of a single Fed. That is the opposite of keeping the Feds out of the process.

If you want to argue that the Secretary of Health should be able to overrule policies, that fine. But, it is hypocritical to do that while simultaneously criticizing the role of the Feds in healthcare. Either you want them involved or you don't.

[Anonymous]

The Feds ALREADY HAVE A ROLE. That's the REALITY, not my desire, wish or creation. Your whole fragile argument is built on fantasy, not reality. When the Feds do not have a role, when there is no HHS, come back and talk to me.

It's not about who needs a lung and who doesn't, it's about children being discriminated against due to their age when indeed, adult lungs would be a fit in some cases.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:The Feds ALREADY HAVE A ROLE. That's the REALITY, not my desire, wish or creation. Your whole fragile argument is built on fantasy, not reality. When the Feds do not have a role, when there is no HHS, come back and talk to me.

It's not about who needs a lung and who doesn't, it's about children being discriminated against due to their age when indeed, adult lungs would be a fit in some cases.

It is not my fantasy that the Feds have no role in healthcare. That's your fantasy. But, now you are demanding that the Feds have a role while the Fed in question has taken herself out of the process. You are asking for the opposite of your fantasy.

If, as you say, there is no way to escape a Fed role in healthcare, then I still don't know how you arrive at a demand for a single official to make a unilateral decision. At best, you could advocate that the policy be revisited. Sebilius has done that. Experts will review the existing policy and get input from a range of sources. I imagine you might even be able to provide input. This is far better than having Sebilius, let alone a judge, make a decision.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Feds ALREADY HAVE A ROLE. That's the REALITY, not my desire, wish or creation. Your whole fragile argument is built on fantasy, not reality. When the Feds do not have a role, when there is no HHS, come back and talk to me.

It's not about who needs a lung and who doesn't, it's about children being discriminated against due to their age when indeed, adult lungs would be a fit in some cases.

It is not my fantasy that the Feds have no role in healthcare. That's your fantasy. But, now you are demanding that the Feds have a role while the Fed in question has taken herself out of the process. You are asking for the opposite of your fantasy.

If, as you say, there is no way to escape a Fed role in healthcare, then I still don't know how you arrive at a demand for a single official to make a unilateral decision. At best, you could advocate that the policy be revisited. Sebilius has done that. Experts will review the existing policy and get input from a range of sources. I imagine you might even be able to provide input. This is far better than having Sebilius, let alone a judge, make a decision.

Jeff, you are the master at twisting things to such a degree that you miss the point entirely. The system is set up for Sebilius to be in this position right now. I didn't create that. I don't want it. But it is what it is. So since that's the case, one is forced to work with what one has, not the fantasy of what one wants things to be. The hard, cold reality is these parents had to appeal to Sebilius, a federal official, to make a decision on a policy. That is reality. That is here, that is now.

Did I say there is no way to escape a Federal role in healthcare ? No. nor do I demand that there be a single official to make a decision. That is again you twisting my words and avoiding the hard, cold truths of this situation and how it is RIGHT NOW, not how it exists in liberal 'what ifs'.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:The hard, cold reality is these parents had to appeal to Sebilius, a federal official, to make a decision on a policy. That is reality. That is here, that is now.

Anonymous wrote:nor do I demand that there be a single official to make a decision. That is again you twisting my words and avoiding the hard, cold truths of this situation and how it is RIGHT NOW, not how it exists in liberal 'what ifs'.

Uhhh? I really have nothing to say to that.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The hard, cold reality is these parents had to appeal to Sebilius, a federal official, to make a decision on a policy. That is reality. That is here, that is now.

Anonymous wrote:nor do I demand that there be a single official to make a decision. That is again you twisting my words and avoiding the hard, cold truths of this situation and how it is RIGHT NOW, not how it exists in liberal 'what ifs'.

Uhhh? I really have nothing to say to that.

OK then

This was the Judge's opinion:

U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson wrote in a temporary restraining order that by refusing to set aside the existing rule for children, Sebelius had failed “to protect the very few children nationally who are subject to it.” He added that the evidence showed that the rule “discriminates against children and serves no purpose, is arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion.” Baylson, a George W. Bush appointee, scheduled a hearing for June 14.

Hmm. OPTN.....the website ends in .gov. What's it under? Why HHS!

So yeah, no Feds involved here......Any chance this type of thing could be run without Fed involvement. Why of course! Why isn't it? Control.

[Anonymous]

At present I believe a judge has ordered Sarah to be placed on the adult list. So a judge has over-ridden the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network who usually makes these decisions. My understanding is that Sarah will be placed on the adult list until another court review on June 14. So are we okay with the court system making these decisions rather than a Network of doctors?

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

He called it troubling, and perhaps precedent-setting, for a judge to overrule that medical judgment, and predicted a run to the courthouse by patients who don't like their place on the waiting list."

"I'm not sure I want judges or congressmen or bureaucrats trying to decide what to do with organs at the bedside," Caplan said."

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/06/06/parents-file-lawsuit-in-girl-lung-transplant-case/?test=latestnews

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sebilius had the opportunity to make a stand. She would not be overruling a decision made by doctors in this case, she would be siding with them, respecting their expertise. That she chose not to do this is very telling

Most doctors want their patients to get organs. But those doctors are only looking out for their patients.

If this girl gets an organ, someone else doesn't.

This is what it comes down to and I don't see why it's so hard for people to understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sebilius had the opportunity to make a stand. She would not be overruling a decision made by doctors in this case, she would be siding with them, respecting their expertise. That she chose not to do this is very telling

Most doctors want their patients to get organs. But those doctors are only looking out for their patients.

If this girl gets an organ, someone else doesn't.

This is what it comes down to and I don't see why it's so hard for people to understand.

You are right - and unfortunately the outcome for her even with the donor organ isn't great. So it makes more sense to give it to someone who has a chance for a more positive outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Feds ALREADY HAVE A ROLE. That's the REALITY, not my desire, wish or creation. Your whole fragile argument is built on fantasy, not reality. When the Feds do not have a role, when there is no HHS, come back and talk to me.

It's not about who needs a lung and who doesn't, it's about children being discriminated against due to their age when indeed, adult lungs would be a fit in some cases.

These are the "Bureaucrats" who set the lung transplant policy for HHS:



Chair Dr. Steven A Webber Vanderbilt University Medical Center and Nashville VA Medical Center
Vice Chairman Dr. Joseph G Rogers Duke University Hospital
Liaison Ms. Liz Robbins UNOS

Members Organization
Dr. Luis F Angel University Hospital, University of Texas Health Science Center
Dr. Mark L Barr Keck Hospital of USC
Ms. Nancy P Blumenthal Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania
Dr. Linda J Bogar Inova Fairfax Hospital
Dr. Kevin M Chan University of Michigan Medical Center
Dr. Leway Chen Strong Memorial Hospital, University of Rochester Medical Center
Dr. Joseph C Cleveland University of Colorado Hospital/Health Science Center
Dr. Richard C Daly Saint Marys Hospital (Mayo Clinic)
Ms. Ladora A Dils Lifeline of Ohio
Dr. Kevin M Dushay Rhode Island Hospital
Dr. David Bradley S Dyke University of Michigan Medical Center
Dr. Seth D Force Emory University Hospital
Dr. Shelley A Hall Baylor University Medical Center
Dr. Maryl R Johnson University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics
Dr. Mariska Kemna Seattle Children's Hospital
Dr. Monica Lin Division of Transplantation, HHS, Ex Officio-Non Voting
Ms. Laurie P Loza The Methodist Hospital
Dr. William T Mahle Children's Healthcare of Atlanta at Egleston
Dr. Dan M Meyer University Hospital - St. Paul
Dr. Damian Neuberger General Public
Dr. Tajinder P Singh Boston Children's Hospital
Dr. Gary A Visner Boston Children's Hospital
Dr. Timothy P Whelan Medical University of South Carolina
Dr Gordon L Yung University of California San Diego Medical Center
Dr. Mark J Zucker Newark Beth Israel Medical Center