Conquer Club

“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.

patrickaa317 wrote: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

/ wrote: 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.

waauw wrote: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 wrote:

/ wrote: 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?

Woodruff wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

/ wrote: 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 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

/ wrote: 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?

patrickaa317 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

/ wrote: 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?

patrickaa317 wrote:

/ wrote: 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?

BigBallinStalin wrote:Open up the markets for human organs.

Woodruff wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

/ wrote: 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.

/ wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

/ wrote: 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?

Night Strike wrote:Will this cause the progressives to finally admit that government death panels exist?

Metsfanmax wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Open up the markets for human organs.

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

Night Strike wrote:Will this cause the progressives to finally admit that government death panels exist?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Open up the markets for human organs.

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

And what's your point?

Metsfanmax wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote: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 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote: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?

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 wrote: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.

patches70 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote: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!