"someone lives and someone dies"

[patrickaa317]

What is everyone's thoughts on this?

“Please, suspend the rules until we look at this policy,” Barletta, a Pennsylvania Republican, asked Sebelius during a House hearing Tuesday on behalf of Sarah Murnaghan, a 10-year-old girl who needs a lung transplant. She can’t qualify for an adult lung transplant until the age of 12, according to federal regulations, but Sebelius has the authority to waive that rule on her behalf. The pediatric lungs for which she currently qualifies aren’t available.

“I would suggest, sir, that, again, this is an incredibly agonizing situation where someone lives and someone dies,” Sebelius replied. “The medical evidence and the transplant doctors who are making the rule — and have had the rule in place since 2005 making a delineation between pediatric and adult lungs, because lungs are different that other organs — that it’s based on the survivability [chances].”

Barletta countered that medical professionals think Murneghan could survive an adult lung transplant. During the exchange, he also said that the girl has three to five weeks to live.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/sebelius-wont-waive-regulation-for-girl-with-five-weeks-to-live-someone-lives-and-someone-dies/article/2531097

[BigBallinStalin]

Open up the markets for human organs.

[/]

I believe that, as far as rules go, if they are preventing a person who ethically should be saved, from being saved, then they should be ignored.

However, if we are only specifically talking about this case, I am not qualified to judge. My understanding is that the girl in question is suffering from end-stage cystic fibrosis, this likely means a transplant will not "save" her, only delay the inevitable failing of the rest of her body, and perhaps not even for much longer. The article says 40 others in Pennsylvania need lungs too. This is something doctors need to decide, it's their job to help as many people as possible and they are much more qualified at determining the correct method of doing this.

The unfortunate thing is that the average person in this world can do much more to prevent these sorts of things. Cystic fibrosis is a genetically inherited trait, if parents would merely submit to genetic screenings, these sorts of diseases could be virtually eradicated in the modern world. As for the waiting list, roughly 155,000 people die each day, and yet we still do not have organs to go around because so few choose to become organ donors.

[Woodruff]

What is everyone's thoughts on this?

“Please, suspend the rules until we look at this policy,” Barletta, a Pennsylvania Republican, asked Sebelius during a House hearing Tuesday on behalf of Sarah Murnaghan, a 10-year-old girl who needs a lung transplant. She can’t qualify for an adult lung transplant until the age of 12, according to federal regulations, but Sebelius has the authority to waive that rule on her behalf. The pediatric lungs for which she currently qualifies aren’t available.

“I would suggest, sir, that, again, this is an incredibly agonizing situation where someone lives and someone dies,” Sebelius replied. “The medical evidence and the transplant doctors who are making the rule — and have had the rule in place since 2005 making a delineation between pediatric and adult lungs, because lungs are different that other organs — that it’s based on the survivability [chances].”

Barletta countered that medical professionals think Murneghan could survive an adult lung transplant. During the exchange, he also said that the girl has three to five weeks to live.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/sebelius-wont-waive-regulation-for-girl-with-five-weeks-to-live-someone-lives-and-someone-dies/article/2531097

I'm not in favor of the decision. That being said, I don't see it as any worse than would have happened prior to ObamaCare.

[waauw]

I agree with what the article says. Even though to some people it may sound heartless to judge people's situation according to numbers, you can't just give a lung to one person, when another person might need that same lung but has a better chance at survival.

I have to remark though that in decisions like these the age of the person should be taken into account to. If the other alternative person is like 60+, I'd say give it a shot for the little girl as the alternative patient already lived most of his life(statistically 75%+ of his life if the person is 60+ yo).

[patrickaa317]

My understanding is that the girl in question is suffering from end-stage cystic fibrosis, this likely means a transplant will not "save" her, only delay the inevitable failing of the rest of her body, and perhaps not even for much longer.

Might as well just stop all treatment now then, huh. I mean won't all treatment at this point just delay the inevitable?

[patrickaa317]

I agree with what the article says. Even though to some people it may sound heartless to judge people's situation according to numbers, you can't just give a lung to one person, when another person might need that same lung but has a better chance at survival.

I have to remark though that in decisions like these the age of the person should be taken into account to. If the other alternative person is like 60+, I'd say give it a shot for the little girl as the alternative patient already lived most of his life(statistically 75%+ of his life if the person is 60+ yo).

I'd agree with that, when putting people in the line, you have to judge their situations but to just say that this girl shouldn't even be given the possibility of a chance is just completely wrong.

[Woodruff]

My understanding is that the girl in question is suffering from end-stage cystic fibrosis, this likely means a transplant will not "save" her, only delay the inevitable failing of the rest of her body, and perhaps not even for much longer.

Might as well just stop all treatment now then, huh. I mean won't all treatment at this point just delay the inevitable?

Terrible logic. "All treatment" doesn't remove the ability to give that treatment to someone else. This is a specific situation where giving the treatment to this girl takes the treatment away from someone else. Most treatments are not in that vein.

[patrickaa317]

My understanding is that the girl in question is suffering from end-stage cystic fibrosis, this likely means a transplant will not "save" her, only delay the inevitable failing of the rest of her body, and perhaps not even for much longer.

Might as well just stop all treatment now then, huh. I mean won't all treatment at this point just delay the inevitable?

Terrible logic. "All treatment" doesn't remove the ability to give that treatment to someone else. This is a specific situation where giving the treatment to this girl takes the treatment away from someone else. Most treatments are not in that vein.

But if she was taking up a room in the hospital that someone else could use, then you'd be ok with wheeling her out and making room?

[Metsfanmax]

My understanding is that the girl in question is suffering from end-stage cystic fibrosis, this likely means a transplant will not "save" her, only delay the inevitable failing of the rest of her body, and perhaps not even for much longer.

Might as well just stop all treatment now then, huh. I mean won't all treatment at this point just delay the inevitable?

Terrible logic. "All treatment" doesn't remove the ability to give that treatment to someone else. This is a specific situation where giving the treatment to this girl takes the treatment away from someone else. Most treatments are not in that vein.

But if she was taking up a room in the hospital that someone else could use, then you'd be ok with wheeling her out and making room?

You'd be ok with letting the other person die in the waiting room? No one wants to be in the situation of choosing who lives and who dies; in fact, that's why we have rules like this, so that no doctor is put in this terrible situation. Nevertheless, decisions do have to be made when there are limited resources (in this case, lungs).

My initial reaction is that Sebelius did the right thing. But then I read that the rule in question, that children cannot get adult lungs, does not have sound medical basis behind it. In that case, it's no longer clear, and the girl should probably be put on the list in whatever order she would ordinarily have gotten had she been an adult.

[Woodruff]

My understanding is that the girl in question is suffering from end-stage cystic fibrosis, this likely means a transplant will not "save" her, only delay the inevitable failing of the rest of her body, and perhaps not even for much longer.

Might as well just stop all treatment now then, huh. I mean won't all treatment at this point just delay the inevitable?

Terrible logic. "All treatment" doesn't remove the ability to give that treatment to someone else. This is a specific situation where giving the treatment to this girl takes the treatment away from someone else. Most treatments are not in that vein.

But if she was taking up a room in the hospital that someone else could use, then you'd be ok with wheeling her out and making room?

You may have even noticed that I said I wasn't in favor of this decision.

But your digression is continuing with the poor logic. Rooms are rooms. Medically-capable rooms are medically-capable rooms. We don't really have a major shortage of them. I suppose if we DID have a major shortage of them, such as we have with available lungs, perhaps that decision would have to be made. In that case, it would make sense to make a determination one way or the other, just as seems to be happening with this lung.

[/]

My understanding is that the girl in question is suffering from end-stage cystic fibrosis, this likely means a transplant will not "save" her, only delay the inevitable failing of the rest of her body, and perhaps not even for much longer.

Might as well just stop all treatment now then, huh. I mean won't all treatment at this point just delay the inevitable?

As I have said, I reserve judgment to a professional. Most people naturally want what’s best for themselves, the person who is dying will naturally do what they must to survive, and that is their right, but doctors must be above that and look at the big picture. This falls under medical ethics; all actions cause a double effect, and by changing the rules you play Russian Roulette with another life.
My personal opinion; forget the rules, malum prohibitum shouldn't cost lives, but let the doctors decide what is ethical, they are the ones who make decisions like this for their entire careers.

That said, if you do in fact want to argue ethics, there are plenty of rules in place that prevent people from surviving from a purely Utilitarian point of view, what are your thoughts on those? As BBS said, we could probably sell organs to the highest bidder, and it would arguably save more lives. Perhaps hospitals across the county could lay claim to your organs when you die, regardless of consent, if we did that we’d probably have hundreds of usable lungs this time tomorrow.

Do you feel the average person is qualified to make these kinds of decisions?

[Metsfanmax]

Open up the markets for human organs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burke_and_Hare_murders

[patrickaa317]

My understanding is that the girl in question is suffering from end-stage cystic fibrosis, this likely means a transplant will not "save" her, only delay the inevitable failing of the rest of her body, and perhaps not even for much longer.

Might as well just stop all treatment now then, huh. I mean won't all treatment at this point just delay the inevitable?

Terrible logic. "All treatment" doesn't remove the ability to give that treatment to someone else. This is a specific situation where giving the treatment to this girl takes the treatment away from someone else. Most treatments are not in that vein.

But if she was taking up a room in the hospital that someone else could use, then you'd be ok with wheeling her out and making room?

You may have even noticed that I said I wasn't in favor of this decision.

But your digression is continuing with the poor logic. Rooms are rooms. Medically-capable rooms are medically-capable rooms. We don't really have a major shortage of them. I suppose if we DID have a major shortage of them, such as we have with available lungs, perhaps that decision would have to be made. In that case, it would make sense to make a determination one way or the other, just as seems to be happening with this lung.

Yeah, I'll admit my logic was flawed in both replies. It just pisses me off when someone wouldn't even consider it as an option. I don't think she should get put to the front of the line but just to say no is wrong in my opinion. I do think she should go to the line where she'd belong rather than some political lady in an office saying "someone lives and someone dies".

[patrickaa317]

My understanding is that the girl in question is suffering from end-stage cystic fibrosis, this likely means a transplant will not "save" her, only delay the inevitable failing of the rest of her body, and perhaps not even for much longer.

Might as well just stop all treatment now then, huh. I mean won't all treatment at this point just delay the inevitable?

As I have said, I reserve judgment to a professional. Most people naturally want what’s best for themselves, the person who is dying will naturally do what they must to survive, and that is their right, but doctors must be above that and look at the big picture. This falls under medical ethics; all actions cause a double effect, and by changing the rules you play Russian Roulette with another life.
My personal opinion; forget the rules, malum prohibitum shouldn't cost lives, but let the doctors decide what is ethical, they are the ones who make decisions like this for their entire careers.

That said, if you do in fact want to argue ethics, there are plenty of rules in place that prevent people from surviving from a purely Utilitarian point of view, what are your thoughts on those? As BBS said, we could probably sell organs to the highest bidder, and it would arguably save more lives. Perhaps hospitals across the county could lay claim to your organs when you die, regardless of consent, if we did that we’d probably have hundreds of usable lungs this time tomorrow.

Do you feel the average person is qualified to make these kinds of decisions?

If it were truly up to the doctors, doing it out of ethics not their pocketbooks, I'd be completely cool with the decisions. Also, as long as they were to be held accountable if they continually made bad decisions in their practice, or defied common law.

I'd strongly be against organs going to highest bidder. For the same reason I'd be against having to pay for fire department coverage.

Sad to say but frankly now days, I question what most average people are capable of deciding.

[Night Strike]

Will this cause the progressives to finally admit that government death panels exist?

[Woodruff]

Will this cause the progressives to finally admit that government death panels exist?

Were you going to explain how this is any worse than would have happened prior to ObamaCare?

[BigBallinStalin]

Open up the markets for human organs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burke_and_Hare_murders

And what's your point?

[AndyDufresne]

Will this cause the progressives to finally admit that government death panels exist?

I've been serving on Death Panels for ages, yo. Get with it, bro. Yo.


--Andy

[Metsfanmax]

Open up the markets for human organs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burke_and_Hare_murders

And what's your point?

My point is that opening the market up to human organs isn't necessarily a net good thing for society.

[BigBallinStalin]

Open up the markets for human organs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burke_and_Hare_murders

And what's your point?

My point is that opening the market up to human organs isn't necessarily a net good thing for society.

And your evidence was some murderer from the 1800s? You can do better than that. That still goes on today--because the market for organs has been prohibited by law. It's just like any prohibition (alcohol, marijuana, drugs, organs, prostitution, etc.). What happens when you prevent people from using the courts? Well, they're much more likely to settle things outside the Law.

Consider the production process within a black market compared to the production process within a 'legitimate' market. Which kind of market would have higher risk, higher prices, and less overall competition?

[Metsfanmax]

Open up the markets for human organs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burke_and_Hare_murders

And what's your point?

My point is that opening the market up to human organs isn't necessarily a net good thing for society.

And your evidence was some murderer from the 1800s? You can do better than that. That still goes on today--because the market for organs has been prohibited by law. It's just like any prohibition (alcohol, marijuana, drugs, organs, prostitution, etc.). What happens when you prevent people from using the courts? Well, they're much more likely to settle things outside the Law.

Consider the production process within a black market compared to the production process within a 'legitimate' market. Which kind of market would have higher risk, higher prices, and less overall competition?

There's a significant difference between a black market for drugs and a black market for organs. In order for an organ to be useful in a transplant, it has to be removed by a skilled doctor, stored appropriately, and quickly transplanted. Not just your average Joe can do this.

Now, it is certainly possible for there still to be a black market despite all this; there have been examples of networks of kidney transplant schemes, and globally there is a large organ trafficking problem (although it is not nearly as widespread in the US as in other countries). Suppose we opened up the market for any organs that a person has two of, and could survive by donating one (i.e. kidneys and lungs). It would probably substantially decrease aspects of the horrifying situation we see in places like Brazil and India, where the medical risk for kidney donation is higher because the operation is illegal and therefore must be underground. But the reason I linked the article is that very special considerations apply when it comes to organs. If we open up the global market, it means that there will be a lot more people in developing nations who are willing to donate organs in the hope of making money. Many of these people will be ill-informed about the health risks of such donations, and probably many more could be coerced into participating in less than savory areas. If this did occur, it would occur on a much larger scale than it does now, where the illegality of it results in simply less organ trafficking.

The question of organ donations from cadavers is much different. Instead of opening up the market there, I would advocate for an opt-out organ donation system for all citizens upon death.

[BigBallinStalin]

But the reason I linked the article is that very special considerations apply when it comes to organs. If we open up the global market, it means that there will be a lot more people in developing nations who are willing to donate organs in the hope of making money. Many of these people will be ill-informed about the health risks of such donations, and probably many more could be coerced into participating in less than savory areas. If this did occur, it would occur on a much larger scale than it does now, where the illegality of it results in simply less organ trafficking.

And more people in developing countries would have more income which they can put toward more valuable uses. It's up to them and marketers (educational, hospitals, governments) to convince people that plan A is better than plan B. As long as the market isn't driven underground, it's the better choice.

The question of organ donations from cadavers is much different. Instead of opening up the market there, I would advocate for an opt-out organ donation system for all citizens upon death.

Why? Let people earn money for their organs. You want to help poor people? Here's an easy solution: let people sell the organs of their dead bodies.

And with the prices comes the necessary signals for allocating resources so that an abundance or shortage* can be more significantly avoided in various areas around the world.

*the bane of prosperity: inefficiency.

[patches70]

Why? Let people earn money for their organs. You want to help poor people? Here's an easy solution: let people sell the organs of their dead bodies.

Payment in full upon delivery!

[BigBallinStalin]

Why? Let people earn money for their organs. You want to help poor people? Here's an easy solution: let people sell the organs of their dead bodies.

Payment in full upon delivery!

This way, the hospitals would earn money, people can avoid queues (and shortages), insurance companies may provide for it, then eventually the government can get involved again and wreak it all again.