Parents of dying 10-year-old girl challenge organ donor rule

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Dec 12, 2009
25,421
6,779
290
Washington State
Parentsof dying 10 year old girl challenge organ donor rule

Sarah Murnaghan, who has only weeks to live, is eligible for adult donor lungs, but because of her age, she can only receive them after all adult candidates – regardless of the seriousness of their condition – have the chance to receive them.
I was surprised to learn this and really wondering why such a rule exists. I would think that by default a child would receive transplants before adults, not the other way around. That is, at least, what seems right to me. Does anyone know if there is a reason for this like increased complications or something of that nature? Further, do you disagree or agree with this rule?
 
Parentsof dying 10 year old girl challenge organ donor rule

Sarah Murnaghan, who has only weeks to live, is eligible for adult donor lungs, but because of her age, she can only receive them after all adult candidates – regardless of the seriousness of their condition – have the chance to receive them.
I was surprised to learn this and really wondering why such a rule exists. I would think that by default a child would receive transplants before adults, not the other way around. That is, at least, what seems right to me. Does anyone know if there is a reason for this like increased complications or something of that nature? Further, do you disagree or agree with this rule?

A child should always come first. If she needs the lungs more, she should get them. I had no idea there would be a law like this.
 
No.

See, a child is not as good a match for adult lungs as an adult. There's an increased probability that the operation would be unsuccessful.

As rare as transplant organ availability is, doctors have no choice but to go with the most likely to be successful match.



Did all of you sign your donor cards? I certainly did.
 
organs should go to the best match...period....it is hard enough with a good match....why make it harder by setting guidelines that do it any other way

Parentsof dying 10 year old girl challenge organ donor rule

Sarah Murnaghan, who has only weeks to live, is eligible for adult donor lungs, but because of her age, she can only receive them after all adult candidates – regardless of the seriousness of their condition – have the chance to receive them.
I was surprised to learn this and really wondering why such a rule exists. I would think that by default a child would receive transplants before adults, not the other way around. That is, at least, what seems right to me. Does anyone know if there is a reason for this like increased complications or something of that nature? Further, do you disagree or agree with this rule?

A child should always come first. If she needs the lungs more, she should get them. I had no idea there would be a law like this.

Seems to me that the organs should go first to the person that is in the most need of them and then to the person with the best match regardless of age.

This 10 year old should not be excluded from receiving the lungs because of her age, but neither should she jump to the front of the line simply because she is 10. If there are people who are in as dire straits as she is, they should not be skipped simply because a 10 year old also needs the lungs.

Immie
 
No.

See, a child is not as good a match for adult lungs as an adult. There's an increased probability that the operation would be unsuccessful.
Do you know this as a fact? I am unaware that there is a difference in the success rate if the donor is an adult and the receiver is a child.

As the article points out, match and severity are not determining factors when a child is on the adult list. Adults come first regardless of best match or severity.
As rare as transplant organ availability is, doctors have no choice but to go with the most likely to be successful match.



Did all of you sign your donor cards? I certainly did.
Of course. That is why I asked if anyone knew if there were further complications. Possibly a cite?
 
Seems to me that the organs should go first to the person that is in the most need of them and then to the person with the best match regardless of age.

This 10 year old should not be excluded from receiving the lungs because of her age, but neither should she jump to the front of the line simply because she is 10. If there are people who are in as dire straits as she is, they should not be skipped simply because a 10 year old also needs the lungs.

Immie

Need and match should weigh heavily but I disagree that an adult should not be passed up when a child is in need. If the severity is similar and the match the same, the child should get the transplant 100 percent of the time.

Adults have lived, children have not. For me it is as simple as that. I do not think that a 40 or 50 year old person should continue to live at the expense of a 10 year old. That is just my opinion.
 
organs should go to the best match...period....it is hard enough with a good match....why make it harder by setting guidelines that do it any other way

I think this is right. These transplants should be as close to a perfect match as possible. And what other factors might there be that weighed in for the transplant going to another person instead of the girl? Did her overall physical size create a problem? If she was very small and frail and would it been a mistake to try to insert adult size lungs into a body too small to receive it? The impact of adult lungs on her smaller child size organs?

I'm sure these parents have been through hell with the condition of their child and to have an almost date certain death looming over them has to be just horrific. I can understand them wanting their child to be the recipient.
 
Parentsof dying 10 year old girl challenge organ donor rule

Sarah Murnaghan, who has only weeks to live, is eligible for adult donor lungs, but because of her age, she can only receive them after all adult candidates – regardless of the seriousness of their condition – have the chance to receive them.
I was surprised to learn this and really wondering why such a rule exists. I would think that by default a child would receive transplants before adults, not the other way around. That is, at least, what seems right to me. Does anyone know if there is a reason for this like increased complications or something of that nature? Further, do you disagree or agree with this rule?

wait until the death panels get fired up

better yet

wait until the trusted IRS is responsible to hand out health care
 
granny that i think is normally judged on size more than age...

two of my friends have had kidney transplants....even with good matches they have struggled with the side effects of anti rejection meds...

and yes, i am an organ donor
 
Parentsof dying 10 year old girl challenge organ donor rule

Sarah Murnaghan, who has only weeks to live, is eligible for adult donor lungs, but because of her age, she can only receive them after all adult candidates – regardless of the seriousness of their condition – have the chance to receive them.
I was surprised to learn this and really wondering why such a rule exists. I would think that by default a child would receive transplants before adults, not the other way around. That is, at least, what seems right to me. Does anyone know if there is a reason for this like increased complications or something of that nature? Further, do you disagree or agree with this rule?

wait until the death panels get fired up

better yet

wait until the trusted IRS is responsible to hand out health care

what the hell are you talking about....so called 'death panels' have existed for a long time...mainly employed by insurance companies to decide treatment.....

are you just a idiot or do you play one on message boards?
 
Last edited:
granny that i think is normally judged on size more than age...

two of my friends have had kidney transplants....even with good matches they have struggled with the side effects of anti rejection meds...

and yes, i am an organ donor

true

i am a organ donor myself

my nephew did good with his transplants

what took him out was tripping on something

and hitting his head on his gun safe
 
Parentsof dying 10 year old girl challenge organ donor rule

Sarah Murnaghan, who has only weeks to live, is eligible for adult donor lungs, but because of her age, she can only receive them after all adult candidates – regardless of the seriousness of their condition – have the chance to receive them.
I was surprised to learn this and really wondering why such a rule exists. I would think that by default a child would receive transplants before adults, not the other way around. That is, at least, what seems right to me. Does anyone know if there is a reason for this like increased complications or something of that nature? Further, do you disagree or agree with this rule?

wait until the death panels get fired up

better yet

wait until the trusted IRS is responsible to hand out health care

This is not an Obamacare thread. Please do not interject that into this conversation. Keep it on the girl, her situation and the rules that are preventing her from obtaining a lung.
 
Parentsof dying 10 year old girl challenge organ donor rule


I was surprised to learn this and really wondering why such a rule exists. I would think that by default a child would receive transplants before adults, not the other way around. That is, at least, what seems right to me. Does anyone know if there is a reason for this like increased complications or something of that nature? Further, do you disagree or agree with this rule?

wait until the death panels get fired up

better yet

wait until the trusted IRS is responsible to hand out health care

This is not an Obamacare thread. Please do not interject that into this conversation. Keep it on the girl, her situation and the rules that are preventing her from obtaining a lung.

you shouldnt be surprised adult lungs are a mismatch for a child
 
Parentsof dying 10 year old girl challenge organ donor rule

Sarah Murnaghan, who has only weeks to live, is eligible for adult donor lungs, but because of her age, she can only receive them after all adult candidates – regardless of the seriousness of their condition – have the chance to receive them.
I was surprised to learn this and really wondering why such a rule exists. I would think that by default a child would receive transplants before adults, not the other way around. That is, at least, what seems right to me. Does anyone know if there is a reason for this like increased complications or something of that nature? Further, do you disagree or agree with this rule?

wait until the death panels get fired up

better yet

wait until the trusted IRS is responsible to hand out health care

yea jon, the death panels like the insurance companies, you know the 10 dollar an hour little dweeb sitting in the corp office of the insurance company denying claims, so they can make more profit... that death panel :eusa_whistle:
 
Parentsof dying 10 year old girl challenge organ donor rule


I was surprised to learn this and really wondering why such a rule exists. I would think that by default a child would receive transplants before adults, not the other way around. That is, at least, what seems right to me. Does anyone know if there is a reason for this like increased complications or something of that nature? Further, do you disagree or agree with this rule?

wait until the death panels get fired up

better yet

wait until the trusted IRS is responsible to hand out health care

yea jon, the death panels like the insurance companies, you know the 10 dollar an hour little dweeb sitting in the corp office of the insurance company denying claims, so they can make more profit... that death panel :eusa_whistle:

the insurance companies have never had it so good

now that obamacare has passed

$$profits$$
 
Parentsof dying 10 year old girl challenge organ donor rule


I was surprised to learn this and really wondering why such a rule exists. I would think that by default a child would receive transplants before adults, not the other way around. That is, at least, what seems right to me. Does anyone know if there is a reason for this like increased complications or something of that nature? Further, do you disagree or agree with this rule?

wait until the death panels get fired up

better yet

wait until the trusted IRS is responsible to hand out health care



what the hell are you talking about....so called 'death panels' have existed for a long time...mainly employed by insurance companies to decide treatment.....

are you just a idiot or do you play one on message boards?

An idiot likely, a partisan hack for sure.
 
wait until the death panels get fired up

better yet

wait until the trusted IRS is responsible to hand out health care

yea jon, the death panels like the insurance companies, you know the 10 dollar an hour little dweeb sitting in the corp office of the insurance company denying claims, so they can make more profit... that death panel :eusa_whistle:

the insurance companies have never had it so good

now that obamacare has passed

$$profits$$

So much for socialized medicine then huh :eusa_whistle:

What is very troubling is that a child may die do to some arcane rules .
 
yea jon, the death panels like the insurance companies, you know the 10 dollar an hour little dweeb sitting in the corp office of the insurance company denying claims, so they can make more profit... that death panel :eusa_whistle:

the insurance companies have never had it so good

now that obamacare has passed

$$profits$$

So much for socialized medicine then huh :eusa_whistle:

What is very troubling is that a child may die do to some arcane rules .

arcane rule

not hardly

she needs lungs appropriate to her size

t is one of the criteria to meet
 

Forum List

Back
Top