Sebelius: I can’t suspend the lung-transplant rules for a dying 10-year-old

[Trajan]

Survival for purposes of transplants is 5 years. Cystic fibrosis is incurable and will reoccur even if this transplant is a success. At best Sarah will die in a few years. Someone with a better chance of surviving a lifetime will now not survive at all. I would hate to be the parent's of some 18 year old on the wait list.

These are such hard decisions. Made worse because they must be made without the least bit of sympathy or compassion. I can't fault the parents. I would do the same thing. That's why these decisions are divorced from emotion.

That's why these decisions are divorced from emotion.

ha, you aint seen nothin' yet

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sarah Murnaghan lung transplant case: Sebelius ordered to make exception on transplant - Brett Norman - POLITICO.com

See, you can make government react much easier than big business.

so the judge could not have ordered them ( a private entity) to give it to her?


well thats another knock on obamacare, not everything will make it to a judge nor be amendable to judicial oversight, absent a circuit or supreme court case, and when the gov. says no, its no, there is NO court of last resort, while an insurance co. that breaks its contracted coverage policy scope is......

You have it backwards, Trajan. You can make the govt do right if you push hard enough but not business.

The death panels are held by the private health insurance companies

 

[Trajan]

Sarah Murnaghan lung transplant case: Sebelius ordered to make exception on transplant - Brett Norman - POLITICO.com

See, you can make government react much easier than big business.

so the judge could not have ordered them ( a private entity) to give it to her?


well thats another knock on obamacare, not everything will make it to a judge nor be amendable to judicial oversight, absent a circuit or supreme court case, and when the gov. says no, its no, there is NO court of last resort, while an insurance co. that breaks its contracted coverage policy scope is......

You have it backwards, Trajan. You can make the govt do right if you push hard enough but not business.

The death panels are held by the private health insurance companies

you know, I have to ask- what color is the sky on your homeworld?

 

[boedicca]

Do you really have to ask...it has to be dark pink.

 

[Oddball]

so the judge could not have ordered them ( a private entity) to give it to her?


well thats another knock on obamacare, not everything will make it to a judge nor be amendable to judicial oversight, absent a circuit or supreme court case, and when the gov. says no, its no, there is NO court of last resort, while an insurance co. that breaks its contracted coverage policy scope is......

You have it backwards, Trajan. You can make the govt do right if you push hard enough but not business.

The death panels are held by the private health insurance companies

you know, I have to ask- what color is the sky on your homeworld?

I think he's deep into the cough syrup today....Kookier than usual.

 

[Coyote]

Marxism relies on exactly kind of authoritarian central planner mindset that operates the organ donation apparatus in this country....And it's voice is that of the utterly heartless ghoul, Sebelius.

Authoritarian/central control is exactly not what is going on with organ donation at this point and it is exactly what Sebelius is not representing.

A heartless corporate ghoul is no different than a heartless government ghoul.

 

[Oddball]

Marxism relies on exactly kind of authoritarian central planner mindset that operates the organ donation apparatus in this country....And it's voice is that of the utterly heartless ghoul, Sebelius.

Authoritarian/central control is exactly not what is going on with organ donation at this point and it is exactly what Sebelius is not representing.

Um, yes it is....There's a monopoly on organ distribution....That's why it's so expensive and there are so few organs available.

A heartless corporate ghoul is no different than a heartless government ghoul.

I can take my business elsewhere...How can anyone say the same about taking away business from the heartless thug ghouls at HHS?

 

[Coyote]

Again, need is most important, not projected 'more curable'.
I had an uncle who had a heart transplant. He died 3 days later. Cause, unknown.

Actually "more curable" is important. Certain organs, like lungs are a rare commodity. If two people in need and one has a disease that will destroy the transplant eventually and the other doesn't and might gain a full life, who should get it? The one with a better long term prognosis or the cute kid?

One is objective, the other totally emotional.

Sarah is not a loved one? Who decides who's worthy??
It's not about matching, it's about need. Period.

What I said was someone else's loved one. So Sarah is the only loved one?

It IS about matching - it is so totally about matching.

 

[Coyote]

Marxism relies on exactly kind of authoritarian central planner mindset that operates the organ donation apparatus in this country....And it's voice is that of the utterly heartless ghoul, Sebelius.

Authoritarian/central control is exactly not what is going on with organ donation at this point and it is exactly what Sebelius is not representing.

Um, yes it is....There's a monopoly on organ distribution....That's why it's so expensive and there are so few organs available.

A heartless corporate ghoul is no different than a heartless government ghoul.

I can take my business elsewhere...How can anyone say the same about taking away business from the heartless thug ghouls at HHS?

The organ scarcity has nothing to do with "monopoly". It's a lack of donors donating healthy organs.

 

[Oddball]

Authoritarian/central control is exactly not what is going on with organ donation at this point and it is exactly what Sebelius is not representing.

Um, yes it is....There's a monopoly on organ distribution....That's why it's so expensive and there are so few organs available.

A heartless corporate ghoul is no different than a heartless government ghoul.

I can take my business elsewhere...How can anyone say the same about taking away business from the heartless thug ghouls at HHS?

The organ scarcity has nothing to do with "monopoly". It's a lack of donors donating healthy organs.

ORLY?...How many organizations are there doling out organs?

 

[JakeStarkey]

so the judge could not have ordered them ( a private entity) to give it to her?


well thats another knock on obamacare, not everything will make it to a judge nor be amendable to judicial oversight, absent a circuit or supreme court case, and when the gov. says no, its no, there is NO court of last resort, while an insurance co. that breaks its contracted coverage policy scope is......

You have it backwards, Trajan. You can make the govt do right if you push hard enough but not business.

The death panels are held by the private health insurance companies

you know, I have to ask- what color is the sky on your homeworld?

The far right reactionary and libertarian bedwetters can't be happy for the girl.

And big business would not have been deferred.

You can't spin it without everyone sane laughing at you.

 

[dblack]

You have it backwards, Trajan. You can make the govt do right if you push hard enough but not business.

The death panels are held by the private health insurance companies

you know, I have to ask- what color is the sky on your homeworld?

The far right reactionary and libertarian bedwetters can't be happy for the girl.

And big business would not have been deferred.

You can't spin it without everyone sane laughing at you.

You forgot Somalia!

 

[Katzndogz]

With this kind of organ donation it's hard to be happy for anyone. Iit's impossible to tell a ten year old that his mother will now die and he won't grow up having his mom. It's impossible to tell the 18 year old that he will not live to go to college or get married. If a lung transplant could cure Sarah that's just the way it works. Someone lives and someone dies. But that's not the way it will be. It has bought Sarah a few more years. She will not graduate high school. She will not have children and her parents will have to grieve all over again.

There just are no winners here. Only various degrees of losers.

 

[eflatminor]

An organ market would eliminate the arbitrariness of doctors and bureaucrats sitting around like gods, deciding who will die and who will live. You say, "Williams, with market allocation of organs, only the rich would be served." Nonsense. I'd like to see the evidence for such a conclusion. Is it only the rich who have cars or homes or hotel rooms and are able to acquire loans? The great unappreciated advantage of market allocation of goods and services is that it reduces the potential for human conflict. Why is it that we see conflict in who gets what organ or what's taught in public schools, and no conflict in who gets what car, home or what's taught in private schools? The answer ought to tell us something.

 

[boedicca]

With this kind of organ donation it's hard to be happy for anyone. Iit's impossible to tell a ten year old that his mother will now die and he won't grow up having his mom. It's impossible to tell the 18 year old that he will not live to go to college or get married. If a lung transplant could cure Sarah that's just the way it works. Someone lives and someone dies. But that's not the way it will be. It has bought Sarah a few more years. She will not graduate high school. She will not have children and her parents will have to grieve all over again.

There just are no winners here. Only various degrees of losers.

Which is another reason why the government should butt out. When there are winners and losers or losers and losers, there is too much moral hazard for government officials to interfere. The more decentralized and local, the better the system.

 

[eflatminor]

I don't think there would be, especially for children. What governs the availability of organs is a variety of factors not the least of which, a person (for many organs) has to die and die in such a way that the organ isn't damaged and can be quickly retrieved and is not diseased.

This is beside the point.

You're overlooking competition and choice, the only factors that drive costs down.

How exactly is it "beside the point"?

Competition and choice wouldn't work in organ transplants because you are dealing with a rare commodity that will remain rare due to it's nature and choice is always going to be limited by the "beside the points".



Comrade? You from the former Soviet Union or something?



Are we getting into Libertarian talking points here?



Do you have any proof to support there would be a huge increase in available organs? Remember, most of the time they have to die first and profit becomes far less of an interest.





Like I said, do you have any evidence to support this massive increase in availability? And, that that availability would become available as equitably as it is now?

The system we have now is the fairest and it's not determined by either corporate executives or government bureaucrats.

Which results in this girl's death. But hey, you and your central planners know what's best for everyone, right? Pass.

If this girl doesn't die, it would be someone else.

You clearly have no idea how capitalism works. A free market for transplant organs would result in a massive increase in the availability...because that is what ALWAYS happens when there is a demand. Only central planners eliminating the profit motive can ensure the supply fails to meet the demand.

Which makes you wrong that if this girl doesn't die, someone else would. DEAD wrong.

 

[Coyote]

The first criteria is not about need. The first consideration is the success of the transplant.

Need is #3. First is a successful operation. Then it's the match. Out of the list of possible matches it will be need.

Absolutely.

And a free marketplace in organs means that there will be more of them available from which to choose, ergo a higher possibility of a match.

This piece is as relevant and prescient as ever..

Who should decide?



<snip>

An organ market would eliminate the arbitrariness of doctors and bureaucrats sitting around like gods, deciding who will die and who will live. You say, "Williams, with market allocation of organs, only the rich would be served." Nonsense. I'd like to see the evidence for such a conclusion. Is it only the rich who have cars or homes or hotel rooms and are able to acquire loans? The great unappreciated advantage of market allocation of goods and services is that it reduces the potential for human conflict. Why is it that we see conflict in who gets what organ or what's taught in public schools, and no conflict in who gets what car, home or what's taught in private schools? The answer ought to tell us something.

But the thing is, doctors aren't arbritrary - they follow a set of guidelines designed to make it as fair and successful as possible. Bureaucrats play not part in the decision other than whether or not it will be paid for by insurance.

 

[Katzndogz]

How would an organ "market work? Farms raising human beings for spare parts? Capture and dismember? Remember, all deaths do not result in viable organs. The donor must be healthy. What does a commercial market in healthy organs look like?

 

[Coyote]

In my opinion, there is something ethically wrong about selling body parts. I guess because we can't sell bodies, humans, or parts and allowing it crosses some sort of line for me as to what can or can't be sold - especially by very desperate people. It also seems like it would open the door to a greater amount of abuse in the system.

The best way to increase the number of available organs is to increase awareness of the need and encourage people to donate through a sustained educational campaign and making it as easy as possible to be a donor and identified as a donor. Some won't regardless, for example for religious reasons, but others will because it's the right thing to do and once they are dead who cares? Being paid for it is not likely to change motivation as much as awareness would.

 

[Katzndogz]

The prohibition against selling organs isn't limited to the United States. Every country in the world prohibits selling body parts. If they allowed the practice, the murder rate would be incomprehensible. As it is, with all the laws and limitations in place, there is still a black market for human organs.

I am not a donor. I would not be a donor. I have no religious reasons. It's a general creep factor and that my body is the only property I am permitted to own (so far) I intend to keep every inch of it to the grave.

But suppose, hypothetically you were allowed to pre-sell your organs. Then something happens in your lifetime that renders those organs useless. You get an incurable STD for instance. Is that not a breach of contract? Organs that are too old are not viable transplant organs. Suppose the one who made money pre selling their organs just lives too long? Should there be a cut off date beyond which you could not take your body parts? Sell your liver and you won't live past 60.