Should Sara Murnaghan have died in favor of the person before her?

[TemplarKormac]

The situation is not an easy one. Regardless of whether Sarah got the lung or someone else did, someone died to provide that lung.

How do we determine who lives and who dies? There has to be someway to save everyone. But we clearly haven't figured that out yet.

That's pretty much it right there.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

They could just have one list for all in need, rather than separating it into adults and children. That way, whoever is next in line gets dibs.

Do you understand that the adult lungs that might become available wouldn't necessarily be workable for the child who is next on the list? And that to transplant them into the child anyway may just be wasting the lungs that could have saved the next person on the list who was an adult? Because the transplant would have high odds of failing according to your method.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Sigh, the entire thing is barbaric to put it mildly. Death is the ultimate result of inaction. Death can be avoidable, but some choose not to avoid it, and give what life they have left in them like a flame, to burn brighter in another soul. Children are liken to a beam of light, at first it's unremarkable to the eye, but when it grows and matures, it shines upon us all.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

The only person dying to save this little girl was the doner. Until this, youths wouldn't qualify for adult lungs. It is not as if this little girl cut in line...

There are many more adult lungs to go around and no reason that children can't benefit from adult lungs. This is something that should have been addressed long before now.

...and if it ever does come down to child vs. adult --- the child obviously should be the one getting the help. Just like in a fire. Save the children, save the women, and then save the men. Anyone with a decent upbringing should come to this conclusion, IMO!

Hmmm. If we save women and children first, before men, then why should women be equal to men in other areas, such as the workplace? If women need to be coddled and given special treatment in dire situations, and men are expected to risk their lives for women, why should women then turn around and expect to be equals with men in the workplace?

I'm a woman by the way.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

Methinks you struggle with death, TemplarKormac. I don't much like the concept either. I think I would be truly happy if I could come to terms with the inevitability of death, both my own death and the death of my loved ones.

But I'm not there yet. I do see how futile it is to rail against it, though. And children are dying every day whether from lack of an organ transplant or hunger. I think perhaps it is not so awful, we just don't know that yet, not on this plane of existence. I hope.

 

[Obamanation]

The only person dying to save this little girl was the doner. Until this, youths wouldn't qualify for adult lungs. It is not as if this little girl cut in line...

There are many more adult lungs to go around and no reason that children can't benefit from adult lungs. This is something that should have been addressed long before now.

...and if it ever does come down to child vs. adult --- the child obviously should be the one getting the help. Just like in a fire. Save the children, save the women, and then save the men. Anyone with a decent upbringing should come to this conclusion, IMO!

Hmmm. If we save women and children first, before men, then why should women be equal to men in other areas, such as the workplace? If women need to be coddled and given special treatment in dire situations, and men are expected to risk their lives for women, why should women then turn around and expect to be equals with men in the workplace?

I'm a woman by the way.

Call me old fashioned...

 

[TemplarKormac]

Methinks you struggle with death, TemplarKormac. I don't much like the concept either. I think I would be truly happy if I could come to terms with the inevitability of death, both my own death and the death of my loved ones.

But I'm not there yet. I do see how futile it is to rail against it, though. And children are dying every day whether from lack of an organ transplant or hunger. I think perhaps it is not so awful, we just don't know that yet, not on this plane of existence. I hope.

You read me well. I contemplate it. I find ways to accept it's inevitability. I also think of ways to enjoy my life before it comes, and try not to deny that joy to others who deserve it the same if not more, than I; most of all the little ones amongst us.

 

[auditor0007]

I hear a lot of debates going on about how this little girl displaced other "more needing patients" when she was admitted to an adult donors list by a judge's order. So would you have rather she died instead? We can play the "who's life is more important game" all we want, but this exercise is foolish. I feel sorry for those who didn't get those lungs, and for the ones who died in donating them. But why take it out on her?

It's not about taking it out on her. Those to receive lungs should not only be the most in need but also the one who has the best chance of not rejecting those lungs. The reason that there had been an ongoing policy not to allow those younger than 12 to receive adult lungs is that the success rate is not very good.

Now, if this young girl does well with these lungs, then I will be happy for her. If she dies despite getting the new lungs, then we can all be very upset that a good pair of lungs was wasted, because the fact is that someone older would have had a much better opportunity for the transplant to be successful. I don't want to make a judgement at this point because nobody knows how this will turn out. That being said, I believe the judge made a bad decision based on emotion rather than knowledge.

 

[MeBelle]

They could just have one list for all in need, rather than separating it into adults and children. That way, whoever is next in line gets dibs.

Why? Instead of having to compete against adults, they could compete against similar age groups. But then again, we have this little dilemma.

She was on the children's list. I don't believe there are as many children donors or available organs for children as there are for adults and that's why they bumped her to the adult list. That was my understanding anyway.

Hi Zoom-boing! How're you doing?

Allow me to step in here.

She was first on the pediatric list, NOT on the adult list. There is a whole string of adults who have ALL been knocked back one place on the list because a child was deemed more valuable than they were.

The Gift of a Lifetime: The Transplant Waiting List

Patients on the waiting list are in end-stage organ failure and have been evaluated by a transplant physician at hospitals in the U.S. where organ transplants are performed.

OPTN: Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network

Here's how it goes:
Sickest first. (There is no arguing that one)
Adults first, kids LAST!

Isn't that age discrimination?

Last year, there were just 20 lung donors under the age of 12. That's out of more than 1,700 total donors.

Children only need a partial lobe.

 

[Noomi]

She was seen first due to her parents suing and the media running with the story.

She was seen first because there were no children donors. She had been waiting for 18 months Gracie! Would you make someone wait a year and a half to get something that would immediately save their life?

If organ donation were opt out instead of opt in, chances are she would have had that transplant within six months of joining the transplant list.

You want more child donors, change the law regarding donation.

 

[Noomi]

You would rather kill the child, make the poor little girl "mind her manners" as the life slowly vacated her body. Yes, kill the girl, let her die. How barbaric!

No one...I repeat...no one is killing any child. It is the disease. You, in your sickness, lash out at the policies that were put in place for very logical reasons.


Too bad, for your sake, there are no brain transplants possible yet. You're terminal.

I'm lashing out at people like you, who would rather see her die, for the sake of another person who's situation is nowhere as dire as hers. You can insult me all you want, but those policies wound up saving her life. For that I am thankful, and I weep for those who had to die to make her life possible.

So if the adult on the list had one week to live instead of 48 hours like Sarah did, they are just not as sick?

That is just...wrong.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Holy shit!

TK wants to be a super hero so badly......he has appointed himself Sarah's savior. Save the children! Da da da da .....da Da! It's Templar Kormac here to save the day!

This situation is known to TK because the parents of this little girl have acquaintances in high places who got them some media attention.

Disease sucks....and it sometimes claims lives........of children. Trying to throw feces at people who want to play by the accepted rules is childish.

What can we do to help?

Hardball with Chris Matthews

This is where the debate should be.....and the opt out plan is a no brainer.

TK....be a superhero. Champion the opt out donor system!

 

[LoneLaugher]

****! I didn't kill this great thread, did I?

 

[Gracie]

****! I didn't kill this great thread, did I?

lol. What can anyone say when you speak common sense?

 

[PredFan]

As a medical professional I will share with you all the truth about how this works.

Most people mistakenly think that it's a 1st come, 1st served situation. That is incorrect. The waiting list for donor organs is more of a triage situation. They are sorted according to need and urgency.

It was determined that this girl's need was greater than the others. that's how the situation works. Of course that doesn't help the person who is bumped, but it's the only fair way that we have to do it.

 

[PredFan]

I hear a lot of debates going on about how this little girl displaced other "more needing patients" when she was admitted to an adult donors list by a judge's order. So would you have rather she died instead? We can play the "who's life is more important game" all we want, but this exercise is foolish. I feel sorry for those who didn't get those lungs, and for the ones who died in donating them. But why take it out on her?

That wasn't the point, dumbass.

The point was she bumped an adult who was just as needy and had a better prognosis.

To fit an adult lung into a child, they have to chop the lung down to size. Which makes an already difficult operation very unlikely to work.

Actually, after trimming the lung and the surgery, her prognosis is very good.

 

[Gracie]

As a medical profession I will share with you all the truth about how this works.

Most people mistakenly think that it's a 1st come, 1st served situation. That is incorrect. The waiting list for donor organs is more of a triage situation. They are sorted according to need and urgency.

It was determined that this girl's need was greater than the others. that's how the situation works. Of course that doesn't help the person who is bumped, but it's the only fair way that we have to do it.

Does this apply even for those who will not benefit from the transplant? What if the next person in the proverbial triage, and is the worst off, happens to be 70 years old?

 

[PredFan]

For the girl and her family, I'm happy she's alive.

But I am HORRIFIED that her care was the object of a political process. This is a harbinger of what government run health care (rationing of scarce supply) will entail:

Politically connected and politically visible patients will get preference over the powerless and the anonymous.

This is not a good thing.

I don't think that this is what happened, but your point in general is valid.

What happened was Kathleen Sebelius conducted the first publicised Death Panel of obamacare. Many many more are to come.

 

[LoneLaugher]

For the girl and her family, I'm happy she's alive.

But I am HORRIFIED that her care was the object of a political process. This is a harbinger of what government run health care (rationing of scarce supply) will entail:

Politically connected and politically visible patients will get preference over the powerless and the anonymous.

This is not a good thing.

I don't think that this is what happened, but your point in general is valid.

What happened was Kathleen Sebelius conducted the first publicised Death Panel of obamacare. Many many more are to come.

You are right! She conducted a death panel. And the kid is now dea.........uh.......er......wait!

 

[PredFan]

She was seen first due to her parents suing and the media running with the story.

She was seen first because there were no children donors. She had been waiting for 18 months Gracie! Would you make someone wait a year and a half to get something that would immediately save their life?

My stance is...she waits just like everyone else. The organ should go to whomever is next on the list and has been waiting as well. This turned in to child vs adult due to the parents fighting to save her life. Which is what I would have done as well. But, on the other hand, if it were my 30 year old child being bumped...I would fight for Sarah to stay right there on the list wherever she was.

it is not, nor has it ever been a 1st come, 1st served situation.