Give That Little Girl a Lung - NOW!!!

Protectionist · Jun 3, 2013

Have you seen the story on the cable news shows, about the little 10 year old girl (Sara Murnaghan) who has cystic fibrosis and is dying, and in dire need of a lung transplant, really soon ? The story goes that the available lungs are not given to kids under 12. Sounds like there is no biological reason for this (is there ?).

Sounds like age discrimination, and the parents of Sara are trying to get HHS Sect. Karen Sibelius to intervene, and get Sara a lung, while she may have only weeks to live. Sibelius told the Murnaghans "it's not my job". Wow. How many times do we hear that nowadays ? Some members of Congress have publicly disputed Sibelius' "not my job" position.

I know it's awful to have to choose who may live and who may die, but if it really comes down to that (and I think in this case it does), and if any priorities are to be set based on age, wouldn't you think a 10 year old would get priority over a very old person ?
Many, if not most, of the adults seeking lung transplants are old. So does it make sense to give the transplant to a say 88 year old, who may have 2 years to live, rather than a 10 year old, who, if she were to live to the same age (90), would be losing out on 80 years of her life.

This little girl hasn't even reached puberty. She hasn't experienced love, marriage, having kids, and 100s of things that older people have. She also hasn't done anything to cause her to need this lung. So do you give a lung to an 85 year old, who has been smoking 2 packs of Camels for 70 years ? Come on you guys! Give this little girl a lung, NOW. And I'm not taking no for an answer, you hear ?

David · Jun 3, 2013

Agreed, from a social and biological standpoint children and young adults should have their lives prioritized. It's they, not the 30+, that will determine our future.

ThirdTerm · Jun 3, 2013

[youtube]61ats3p5mKs[/youtube]

This story is similar to Ronan who lost his fight against childhood cancer. Perhaps Sarah is not eligible for getting a lung transplant from an adult donor earlier than other adult patients waiting for an organ transplant because her best match is a pediatric organ. The existing rules may not be changed immediately to her advantage and all she can hope for is a direct donation from an adult donor. The problem is that there are few pediatric lungs available for transplant and there were only 10 transplants in 2012 but her parents generated enough publicity and help may be on the way.

tecoyah · Jun 4, 2013

Reality Check

My wife was the transplant coordinator for Jewish Hospital for a decade before becoming burned out with the nightmare involved in Organ procurement, logistics (doctors/patient/organ/team/transportation....etc).

Lungs were one of the most complex for multiple reasons, and cystic fibrosis amongst the worst as it required both lungs be replaced. There is another issue with a child, and a reason for the age rule.....adult lungs simply do not fit in a childs body, and attempting to force them inside the rib cage would not allow them to expand enough for breathing.
There are very few little lungs that become available for many reasons...one of the biggest being that children do not ride motorcycles (unhelmeted testosterone buckets are one of the largest donor groups), thus this little girl must wait until a childs lungs enter the organ pool, and likely she will not get those either, as she is not in the A1 list and not facing imminent death.

It is certainly understandable that her mother will do anything she can to save her child....but they cannot change reality to do so.

Protectionist · Jun 4, 2013

tecoyah said:
My wife was the transplant coordinator for Jewish Hospital for a decade before becoming burned out with the nightmare involved in Organ procurement, logistics (doctors/patient/organ/team/transportation....etc).

Lungs were one of the most complex for multiple reasons, and cystic fibrosis amongst the worst as it required both lungs be replaced. There is another issue with a child, and a reason for the age rule.....adult lungs simply do not fit in a childs body, and attempting to force them inside the rib cage would not allow them to expand enough for breathing.
There are very few little lungs that become available for many reasons...one of the biggest being that children do not ride motorcycles (unhelmeted testosterone buckets are one of the largest donor groups), thus this little girl must wait until a childs lungs enter the organ pool, and likely she will not get those either, as she is not in the A1 list and not facing imminent death.

It is certainly understandable that her mother will do anything she can to save her child....but they cannot change reality to do so.

All the news reports say that she IS facing imminent death (within weeks). Another reason why there are so few child organs (relative to adult) is because there are only a few child years (about 10) as compared to about 70 for adults, so there are many more adults living. Another reason is because of the medical advances in recent years, which have reduced the death rates of kids (and adults)
Maybe science should have been spending more effort on developing artificial organs, instead of blowing huge amounts of money on sending rockets to Mars for some strange reason.

tecoyah · Jun 4, 2013

Protectionist said:
All the news reports say that she IS facing imminent death (within weeks). Another reason why there are so few child organs (relative to adult) is because there are only a few child years (about 10) as compared to about 70 for adults, so there are many more adults living. Another reason is because of the medical advances in recent years, which have reduced the death rates of kids (and adults)
Maybe science should have been spending more effort on developing artificial organs, instead of blowing huge amounts of money on sending rockets to Mars for some strange reason.

Had this country not banned stem cell research we would be far more advanced in making organs, but alas we decided to stop the research on this amazing advancement because idiots did not grasp the difference between embryonic and adult. This child does not currently meet the criteria (again from my wife), designated for the A1 status, as she is not about to die (as in immediately), and no transplant surgeon will waste these rare organs on one individual over another for any reason short of the success ratio.

Protectionist · Jun 5, 2013

tecoyah said:
Had this country not banned stem cell research we would be far more advanced in making organs, but alas we decided to stop the research on this amazing advancement because idiots did not grasp the difference between embryonic and adult. This child does not currently meet the criteria (again from my wife), designated for the A1 status, as she is not about to die (as in immediately), and no transplant surgeon will waste these rare organs on one individual over another for any reason short of the success ratio.

Per UNOS regulations, all "adults" (patients ages 12+) are listed for transplant based on their LAS (Lung Allocation Score) which is determined based on the severity of their condition - basic triage: treat the sickest patient first. From the latest news reports, she is about to die (very soon) , and sooner than many of the 40 people who might get a lung. Her LAS (Lung Allocation Score) is the highest in her region, and she would be FIRST on the list based SOLELY on medical necessity if her age were not a factor.

ThirdTerm · Jun 6, 2013

PHILADELPHIA - June 5, 2013 (WPVI) -- A federal judge in Philadelphia has made a dying 10-year-old eligible to seek donor lungs from an adult transplant list. U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson says he is granting the temporary request because of the severity of Sarah Murnaghan's condition. Her mother, Janet Murnaghan, says the family is thrilled by the ruling. It's in effect until a June 14 court hearing. The family is challenging organ transplant rules that say children under age 12 must wait for pediatric lungs to become available. The Murnaghans say that rarely happens. Sarah's doctors believe they can perform a successful transplant with adult lungs. Sarah has been hospitalized at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia for three months with end-stage cystic fibrosis.

Sarah Murnaghan to be added to transplant list | 6abc.com

misterveritis · Jun 15, 2013

The first person has survived the Obama regime's death panels. Do we really want government bureaucrats parceling out health care?

David · Jun 15, 2013

misterveritis said:
The first person has survived the Obama regime's death panels. Do we really want government bureaucrats parceling out health care?

Except it's always been this way..

myp · Jun 15, 2013

misterveritis said:
The first person has survived the Obama regime's death panels. Do we really want government bureaucrats parceling out health care?

The current lung transplant list system was implemented in 2005. Try again. (and before that there was still a list and limited supply- the allocation was based on time instead of need)

Edit: The United Network for Organ Sharing, the organization that runs these lists was created in 1984. A man named Reagan was in the White House.

misterveritis · Jun 16, 2013

Obama's Death Panel

David said:
Except it's always been this way..

Really? The government has been making health care death decisions always?

We have a different view of what always means.

misterveritis · Jun 16, 2013

myp said:
The current lung transplant list system was implemented in 2005. Try again. (and before that there was still a list and limited supply- the allocation was based on time instead of need)

Edit: The United Network for Organ Sharing, the organization that runs these lists was created in 1984. A man named Reagan was in the White House.

And you believe that the government has decided who will live and die since 1984? I am never surprised by you.

Governments have no right to even be involved.

David · Jun 16, 2013

misterveritis said:
And you believe that the government has decided who will live and die since 1984? I am never surprised by you.

Governments have no right to even be involved.

High demand low supply, if the gov't didn't step in this rationing would still be happening but by money rather than need. So yes, always and yes, the gov't has the right (indeed obligation) to be involved.

myp · Jun 16, 2013

misterveritis said:
And you believe that the government has decided who will live and die since 1984?

No they haven't. And they aren't now. That's the point. You are the one screaming death panels when this system has been in place for decades now. Lungs don't grow on trees (at least not yet), so unless you have a free one to donate to everyone who needs one, there are going to be barriers to getting one. The socially optimal outcome can be decided by the market, by the government, or as in this case, a mixture of both, but in the end everyone who needs a lung won't be able to get one.

David · Jun 16, 2013

myp said:
No they haven't. And they aren't now. That's the point. You are the one screaming death panels when this system has been in place for decades now. Lungs don't grow on trees (at least not yet), so unless you have a free one to donate to everyone who needs one, there are going to be barriers to getting one. The socially optimal outcome can be decided by the market, by the government, or as in this case, a mixture of both, but in the end everyone who needs a lung won't be able to get one.

And this is why human cloning is a good thing. I really do think it should be mandatory to save a newborn's umbilical cord so as to have access to stem cells for situations like this.

myp · Jun 16, 2013

David said:
And this is why human cloning is a good thing. I really do think it should be mandatory to save a newborn's umbilical cord so as to have access to stem cells for situations like this.

It looks more and more like we won't need cloning to grow organs anymore- we basically skipped that step in [what we assumed was] the process.

Road Warrior · Jun 17, 2013

Cloning organs will be a boon to organ transplants, but it's not a realistic option for now.

misterveritis · Jun 17, 2013

David said:
High demand low supply, if the gov't didn't step in this rationing would still be happening but by money rather than need. So yes, always and yes, the gov't has the right (indeed obligation) to be involved.

I do agree the government could be involved by getting out of the way. If we could sell our organs I bet there would be a much larger supply.

In this case the individual won out over the all powerful state. And we saw the evidence of a functioning death panel of one.

misterveritis · Jun 17, 2013

myp said:
No they haven't. And they aren't now. That's the point. You are the one screaming death panels when this system has been in place for decades now. Lungs don't grow on trees (at least not yet), so unless you have a free one to donate to everyone who needs one, there are going to be barriers to getting one. The socially optimal outcome can be decided by the market, by the government, or as in this case, a mixture of both, but in the end everyone who needs a lung won't be able to get one.

Are you now arguing that the head of HHS has always held the power of life and death over the rest of us?

If the government got out of the way of people making a profit from selling their organs there would be plenty.

Give That Little Girl a Lung - NOW!!!

Similar threads