Sarah is getting her Lung transplant!!!! :)

[Caroljo]

Why can't you see that HER CASE WAS MORE IMPORTANT!? I guess that's a stupid question though. Nobody cares that she lived, but that someone else died. Wonderful.

Geese louise! It was because of her situation that she shot up the list!

Yes, she was important, and needed that surgery, but WHAT IF AN ADULT HAD DIED BECAUSE SHE TOOK THEIR PLACE?

You REFUSE to answer that question, and I can't help but wonder why.

The reason being, is I fail to see how that matters! There, you satisfied? I feel sorry for our young ones, the have not an advocate in the world of USMB

Well, at least Noomi isn't an advocate....adults are more important to her than children. She probably thinks Sarah should have been aborted in the first place!

 

[TemplarKormac]

Fact is, Gracie, no reasoning should be required. If my baby had a 10% chance, I'd take it. I think from a personal point of view, not from a speculative one.

What if someone else's baby had a 90% chance? Would you think that your 10% chance is worth more?

What if Sarah were your child?

Funny I asked that question before, got the same "you would rather kill the adult" line.

Would it interest you to know that Sarah had been waiting 18 months for a new pair of lungs? What if I told you that many such children on that list have died because healthier adults were picked ahead of them? What if I further told you that the list does not work via the "who is next in line" basis, but rather which patient is the sickest and in most dire need of care? Sarah happened to be the sickest on the list!

One more tidbit, nobody actually died on that list because she got to the lungs first. If you think I'm full of it, Google is a good place to look to confirm my claims.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Funny I asked that question before, got the same "you would rather kill the adult" line.

Would it interest you to know that Sarah had been waiting 18 months for a new pair of lungs? What if I told you that many such children on that list have died because healthier adults were picked ahead of them? What if I further told you that the list does not work via the "who is next in line" basis, but rather which patient is the sickest and in most dire need of care? Sarah happened to be the sickest on the list!

One more tidbit, nobody actually died on that list because she got to the lungs first. If you think I'm full of it, Google is a good place to look to confirm my claims.

Nobody died YET.

Actually, "Who is the sickest" isn't really a good standard, either. Some people might be too sick to have a transplant do them much good.

It should be, "Who has the best prognosis of recovery".

 

[Papageorgio]

How do you know where she was on the list? Looks like she could've been passed over a few times. I'm not sure of the whole story.

The common misconception as that this list is for lungs only. One person my need a lung, the other a heart, the other a stomach, eye or liver. The person behind Sarah may have gotten what they needed, the person who was pushed back may still have gotten their transplant. That doesn't necessarily mean that someone got a death sentence when they were pushed back to make way for her. I wish people wouldn't make things sound so bleak.

What if someone DID die because they didn't get the lung meant for them?

How do you know she wasn't at the top of the list?

 

[TemplarKormac]

JoeBlow is on my ignore list for the day, yet he continues to respond. I can't hear you buddy!

 

[JoeB131]

JoeBlow is on my ignore list for the day, yet he continues to respond. I can't hear you buddy!

That's okay. I'm just responding to mock you.

Nothing you say really adds to a conversation...

 

[Katzndogz]

There is no reasoning with you, Templar. None. You refuse to acknowledge truth because it is so horrifying. Can't say I blame you, but instead of taking it out on everyone, you should take a deep breath.

Fact is, Gracie, no reasoning should be required. If my baby had a 10% chance, I'd take it. I think from a personal point of view, not from a speculative one.

If my child had a 1% chance I'd take it. That's why these decisions are made as dispassionately as possible. You would take that chance, and so would the parents of the kid in the next bed, so would the young mother with two kids to raise herself, so would the 18 year old looking forward to college.

No one is more in need of medical care than the person you know, the face you have seen and the agony you have witnessed. The people who make these decisions don't see anyone just for that reason. The evaluation process is long just to keep emotions out of the decision.

There are no winners anywhere in the transplantation process. Not the donor, certainly, not the person receiving the body parts of a corpse, and not any of the people who didn't get the organ. It's nothing to be happy about.

Sarah is not cured of cystic fibrosis because she got a lung transplant. It's a genetic condition.

Because the donor lungs transplanted into the patient do not have the cystic fibrosis gene, the cells that line the lungs do not produce thick mucus. However, the patient still has cystic fibrosis, because the defective cystic fibrosis gene is in all of the rest of the cells in his or her body. That means cells in the sinuses, pancreas, intestines, sweat glands and reproductive tract will still produce thick mucus, according to the CFF.

What's more, cystic fibrosis patients who undergo a lung transplant need to take immunosuppressive drugs that put them at even greater risk of infections, the CFF says. (Bacteria already in the body from previous infections may infect the new lungs.) Patients are also at risk of organ rejection.

In a 2007 study, researchers at the University of Utah examined the risks and benefits of lung transplants for cystic fibrosis patients. They looked at 514 children with cystic fibrosis on the waiting list for a transplant, including 248 who did receive a transplant. Less than 1 percent of the transplant patients benefited from the procedure, the researchers concluded.

About half of the patients in each group died; there was no evidence that those who received transplants lived longer, the researchers said. The average survival time was 3.4 years after the transplant, and about 40 percent lived for at least five years after the transplant.

Lung Transplants Controversial for Cystic Fibrosis Patients | LiveScience

Sarah's parents kicked their tragedy can down the road.

 

[Intense]

[

Unlike you, Noomi, I believe in miracles.

If you believed in Miracles, then you'd be praying to your Sky Pixie for a solution, not waiting for SCIENCE to fix the problem.

According to you? Like we should live under the limits you impose on reason and faith imposed by one with little understanding of one, and none of the other. How about you live within your own limits, and get out of the way of the rest of us. We'll leave the light on for ya.

 

[Katzndogz]

[

Funny I asked that question before, got the same "you would rather kill the adult" line.

Would it interest you to know that Sarah had been waiting 18 months for a new pair of lungs? What if I told you that many such children on that list have died because healthier adults were picked ahead of them? What if I further told you that the list does not work via the "who is next in line" basis, but rather which patient is the sickest and in most dire need of care? Sarah happened to be the sickest on the list!

One more tidbit, nobody actually died on that list because she got to the lungs first. If you think I'm full of it, Google is a good place to look to confirm my claims.

Nobody died YET.

Actually, "Who is the sickest" isn't really a good standard, either. Some people might be too sick to have a transplant do them much good.

It should be, "Who has the best prognosis of recovery".

Who is the sickest is not the first criteria. The first consideration is the success of the operation. What you think it should be, is actually the way it is.

 

[Intense]

Inclusion Criteria

The inclusion criteria/indications for cardiac transplantation may include any of the following:

An estimated life expectancy of less than one year without transplant.
Objective evidence of advanced physical incapacity due to documented, isolated heart disease.
Solid agreement that previous medical therapy has been optimal and that no medical therapy or surgical procedure other than transplantation offers realistic expectation of extension of life and functional improvement.
Strong family support to help the patient emotionally before and after the surgery.

Conditions sometimes causing heart failure, for which a heart transplant may be recommended:

Inoperable coronary artery disease with congestive heart failure.
Cardiomyopathy (weakening of the heart muscle) of various causes.
Inoperable heart valve disease with congestive heart failure.
Severe congenital heart disease without other surgical options.
Life-threatening abnormal heart rhythms that do not respond to other therapy.


Source: Eligibility Criteria - Maryland Heart Center Eligibility Criteria - Maryland Heart Center

 

[TemplarKormac]

There is no reasoning with you, Templar. None. You refuse to acknowledge truth because it is so horrifying. Can't say I blame you, but instead of taking it out on everyone, you should take a deep breath.

Fact is, Gracie, no reasoning should be required. If my baby had a 10% chance, I'd take it. I think from a personal point of view, not from a speculative one.

If my child had a 1% chance I'd take it. That's why these decisions are made as dispassionately as possible. You would take that chance, and so would the parents of the kid in the next bed, so would the young mother with two kids to raise herself, so would the 18 year old looking forward to college.

No one is more in need of medical care than the person you know, the face you have seen and the agony you have witnessed. The people who make these decisions don't see anyone just for that reason. The evaluation process is long just to keep emotions out of the decision.

There are no winners anywhere in the transplantation process. Not the donor, certainly, not the person receiving the body parts of a corpse, and not any of the people who didn't get the organ. It's nothing to be happy about.

Sarah is not cured of cystic fibrosis because she got a lung transplant. It's a genetic condition.

Because the donor lungs transplanted into the patient do not have the cystic fibrosis gene, the cells that line the lungs do not produce thick mucus. However, the patient still has cystic fibrosis, because the defective cystic fibrosis gene is in all of the rest of the cells in his or her body. That means cells in the sinuses, pancreas, intestines, sweat glands and reproductive tract will still produce thick mucus, according to the CFF.

What's more, cystic fibrosis patients who undergo a lung transplant need to take immunosuppressive drugs that put them at even greater risk of infections, the CFF says. (Bacteria already in the body from previous infections may infect the new lungs.) Patients are also at risk of organ rejection.

In a 2007 study, researchers at the University of Utah examined the risks and benefits of lung transplants for cystic fibrosis patients. They looked at 514 children with cystic fibrosis on the waiting list for a transplant, including 248 who did receive a transplant. Less than 1 percent of the transplant patients benefited from the procedure, the researchers concluded.

About half of the patients in each group died; there was no evidence that those who received transplants lived longer, the researchers said. The average survival time was 3.4 years after the transplant, and about 40 percent lived for at least five years after the transplant.

Lung Transplants Controversial for Cystic Fibrosis Patients | LiveScience

Sarah's parents kicked their tragedy can down the road.

But would 5 more years with their daughter mean more to them than having her die like this? I agree with you majorly. And I acknowledge the disease may still kill her. But as a man of faith, I believe God can do anything, and I pray he heals her completely. Hope is a great thing, miracles are awesome too.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Yes, she was important, and needed that surgery, but WHAT IF AN ADULT HAD DIED BECAUSE SHE TOOK THEIR PLACE?

You REFUSE to answer that question, and I can't help but wonder why.

The reason being, is I fail to see how that matters! There, you satisfied? I feel sorry for our young ones, the have not an advocate in the world of USMB

Well, at least Noomi isn't an advocate....adults are more important to her than children. She probably thinks Sarah should have been aborted in the first place!

It is very sad but that was the mindset of many of the rich and powerful on the Titanic. They took the seats that should have been given to children because in their minds children were not as important as a grown adult. For the elitists behind Obamacare it is the same. Complete Lives Systems will not give an operation to a child between ages of 1-14 that they will give to a person 14 yrs to 45 yrs old. Why? Because children cannot produce for the state. It is just an extension of their own selfish elitist mindsets. imo.

I am very happy for this little girl. We have been praying for her to get the lungs and saw the news on tv last night she had the operation. So she is going to live now. Thank God.

These elitists backed down because of one judge who stood his ground and now other children are going to be getting adult lungs too. Don't think this will be the end of it though. Unless Americans start taking ground instead of giving it up they can only expect more of these type stories once obamacare is in full swing. - Jeri

 

[Katzndogz]

Fact is, Gracie, no reasoning should be required. If my baby had a 10% chance, I'd take it. I think from a personal point of view, not from a speculative one.

If my child had a 1% chance I'd take it. That's why these decisions are made as dispassionately as possible. You would take that chance, and so would the parents of the kid in the next bed, so would the young mother with two kids to raise herself, so would the 18 year old looking forward to college.

No one is more in need of medical care than the person you know, the face you have seen and the agony you have witnessed. The people who make these decisions don't see anyone just for that reason. The evaluation process is long just to keep emotions out of the decision.

There are no winners anywhere in the transplantation process. Not the donor, certainly, not the person receiving the body parts of a corpse, and not any of the people who didn't get the organ. It's nothing to be happy about.

Sarah is not cured of cystic fibrosis because she got a lung transplant. It's a genetic condition.

Because the donor lungs transplanted into the patient do not have the cystic fibrosis gene, the cells that line the lungs do not produce thick mucus. However, the patient still has cystic fibrosis, because the defective cystic fibrosis gene is in all of the rest of the cells in his or her body. That means cells in the sinuses, pancreas, intestines, sweat glands and reproductive tract will still produce thick mucus, according to the CFF.

What's more, cystic fibrosis patients who undergo a lung transplant need to take immunosuppressive drugs that put them at even greater risk of infections, the CFF says. (Bacteria already in the body from previous infections may infect the new lungs.) Patients are also at risk of organ rejection.

In a 2007 study, researchers at the University of Utah examined the risks and benefits of lung transplants for cystic fibrosis patients. They looked at 514 children with cystic fibrosis on the waiting list for a transplant, including 248 who did receive a transplant. Less than 1 percent of the transplant patients benefited from the procedure, the researchers concluded.

About half of the patients in each group died; there was no evidence that those who received transplants lived longer, the researchers said. The average survival time was 3.4 years after the transplant, and about 40 percent lived for at least five years after the transplant.

Lung Transplants Controversial for Cystic Fibrosis Patients | LiveScience

Sarah's parents kicked their tragedy can down the road.

But would 5 more years with their daughter mean more to them than having her die like this? I agree with you majorly. And I acknowledge the disease may still kill her. But as a man of faith, I believe God can do anything, and I pray he heals her completely. Hope is a great thing, miracles are awesome too.

Would 5 more years with ANYONE's child, or husband, wife, brother or sister be worth it to that family? You are personalizing this when that is very much the wrong thing to do. There is a little boy, a few months older than Sarah, just as sick as she is, in the same hospital. Do you think that family wouldn't rather have five more years with their son, and Sarah not have five more years with her family? Are they not praying for a complete cure? Is the family of the young father with three young children not praying? If given the choice would that family rather Sarah died and Daddy come home healthy? After all THREE young children will get to benefit by keeping their father.

These are extremely difficult decisions which is why no one person makes the decision. It is made by a panel with emotions eliminated as much as humanly possible.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If my child had a 1% chance I'd take it. That's why these decisions are made as dispassionately as possible. You would take that chance, and so would the parents of the kid in the next bed, so would the young mother with two kids to raise herself, so would the 18 year old looking forward to college.

No one is more in need of medical care than the person you know, the face you have seen and the agony you have witnessed. The people who make these decisions don't see anyone just for that reason. The evaluation process is long just to keep emotions out of the decision.

There are no winners anywhere in the transplantation process. Not the donor, certainly, not the person receiving the body parts of a corpse, and not any of the people who didn't get the organ. It's nothing to be happy about.

Sarah is not cured of cystic fibrosis because she got a lung transplant. It's a genetic condition.

Because the donor lungs transplanted into the patient do not have the cystic fibrosis gene, the cells that line the lungs do not produce thick mucus. However, the patient still has cystic fibrosis, because the defective cystic fibrosis gene is in all of the rest of the cells in his or her body. That means cells in the sinuses, pancreas, intestines, sweat glands and reproductive tract will still produce thick mucus, according to the CFF.

What's more, cystic fibrosis patients who undergo a lung transplant need to take immunosuppressive drugs that put them at even greater risk of infections, the CFF says. (Bacteria already in the body from previous infections may infect the new lungs.) Patients are also at risk of organ rejection.

In a 2007 study, researchers at the University of Utah examined the risks and benefits of lung transplants for cystic fibrosis patients. They looked at 514 children with cystic fibrosis on the waiting list for a transplant, including 248 who did receive a transplant. Less than 1 percent of the transplant patients benefited from the procedure, the researchers concluded.

About half of the patients in each group died; there was no evidence that those who received transplants lived longer, the researchers said. The average survival time was 3.4 years after the transplant, and about 40 percent lived for at least five years after the transplant.

Lung Transplants Controversial for Cystic Fibrosis Patients | LiveScience

Sarah's parents kicked their tragedy can down the road.

But would 5 more years with their daughter mean more to them than having her die like this? I agree with you majorly. And I acknowledge the disease may still kill her. But as a man of faith, I believe God can do anything, and I pray he heals her completely. Hope is a great thing, miracles are awesome too.

Would 5 more years with ANYONE's child, or husband, wife, brother or sister be worth it to that family? You are personalizing this when that is very much the wrong thing to do. There is a little boy, a few months older than Sarah, just as sick as she is, in the same hospital. Do you think that family wouldn't rather have five more years with their son, and Sarah not have five more years with her family? Are they not praying for a complete cure? Is the family of the young father with three young children not praying? If given the choice would that family rather Sarah died and Daddy come home healthy? After all THREE young children will get to benefit by keeping their father.

These are extremely difficult decisions which is why no one person makes the decision. It is made by a panel with emotions eliminated as much as humanly possible.

Sigh, I guess this one particular case does not deserve any emotional consideration then.

 

[Caroljo]

What if someone else's baby had a 90% chance? Would you think that your 10% chance is worth more?

What if Sarah were your child?

Funny I asked that question before, got the same "you would rather kill the adult" line.

Would it interest you to know that Sarah had been waiting 18 months for a new pair of lungs? What if I told you that many such children on that list have died because healthier adults were picked ahead of them? What if I further told you that the list does not work via the "who is next in line" basis, but rather which patient is the sickest and in most dire need of care? Sarah happened to be the sickest on the list!

One more tidbit, nobody actually died on that list because she got to the lungs first. If you think I'm full of it, Google is a good place to look to confirm my claims.

Um....I'm agreeing with you Templar ... I was asking Noomi what if Sarah were her child. Because of Sarah's condition, and that she would most likely die soon, she was given the next set of lungs....as it should be! Dr's are always going to take the sickest first and anyone that is on that donor's list would know that too.

 

[syrenn]

I guess we have to trust that the Lord knows best. I understand how this would cause mixed emotions. It's sad someone died. And it's wonderful that a life could be saved. We don't really know God's will.

It is sad because someone else who needed the lung more was pushed down the list to make way for her.

How do you know where she was on the list? Looks like she could've been passed over a few times. I'm not sure of the whole story.

first off..... it took a court order to PUT her on the adult list. A list she was barred from to begin with for not qualifying for an adult lung.

 

[Synthaholic]

I thought this was a Palin thread. You know, since she's been blowing smoke for years . . .

 

[Katzndogz]

But would 5 more years with their daughter mean more to them than having her die like this? I agree with you majorly. And I acknowledge the disease may still kill her. But as a man of faith, I believe God can do anything, and I pray he heals her completely. Hope is a great thing, miracles are awesome too.

Would 5 more years with ANYONE's child, or husband, wife, brother or sister be worth it to that family? You are personalizing this when that is very much the wrong thing to do. There is a little boy, a few months older than Sarah, just as sick as she is, in the same hospital. Do you think that family wouldn't rather have five more years with their son, and Sarah not have five more years with her family? Are they not praying for a complete cure? Is the family of the young father with three young children not praying? If given the choice would that family rather Sarah died and Daddy come home healthy? After all THREE young children will get to benefit by keeping their father.

These are extremely difficult decisions which is why no one person makes the decision. It is made by a panel with emotions eliminated as much as humanly possible.

Sigh, I guess this one particular case does not deserve any emotional consideration then.

None of them deserve emotional consideration.

 

[Synthaholic]

Fox News Politicizes Girl's Lung Transplant To Attack Obamacare

 

[Caroljo]

And it WAS their damned turn, but they were denied those lungs! Why can't you see that it is wrong to deny someone life saving surgery because you believe a child's life is more important?

Why can't you see that HER CASE WAS MORE IMPORTANT!? I guess that's a stupid question though. Nobody cares that she lived, but that someone else died. Wonderful.

Geese louise! It was because of her situation that she shot up the list!

Yes, she was important, and needed that surgery, but WHAT IF AN ADULT HAD DIED BECAUSE SHE TOOK THEIR PLACE?

You REFUSE to answer that question, and I can't help but wonder why.

Hey...when you find out than an adult, or other child, died because Sarah got the lungs first, THEN come back and argue your point. Because right now, you have no point...you have only a "what if".