Of course not. Some laws are just plain stupid, others are wrong.
But the problem with this law is that it means that parents can head off to a judge to get their own kids on the adult donor list, ahead of an adult who is more likely to survive the surgery.
The law should not be saying that children are more important. It is bad enough that someone had to die in order for Sarah to live - but right now, there is an adult, who was #1 on the adult list, who has been pushed down the list because Sarah took their place. An adult who had a better chance of survival because the lungs that Sarah received were designed for an adult body.
Of course Sarah deserves to live - if her doctors were confident she would survive the transplant, fine, if she was too ill, then it is preferable to let nature take its course.
I am considering both sides. One, a little girl who has been ill her entire life and now has a chance at life, and also an adult - ALL the adults on the adult transplant list who now have to wait longer for their transplants because Sarah took the lungs that were meant for them.
They must feel that if this transplant is successful that she has a good chance of surviving for years. If they felt there was no hope, and the new lungs would not work, they wouldn't have done it or let her even get on the list! They're not going to "waste" a set of lungs on someone that has no hope anyway!
She had just hours to live....the "next" person on the list may have 3 months to live. That other person has a very good chance of getting what they need in time, just like Sarah did. But until you actually hear and prove that the next person on the list died because Sarah got the lungs, then come back and argue your point....because like I said before, right now you have no point, just what ifs!