1.  

    Lawyers for 10-year-old Sarah Murnaghan, who has been denied a lung transplant because of a controversial federal policy, say Health and Human Services' Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' decision to review the policy -- but not in time to save Sarah -- is unconstitutional. Sarah would be at the top of the adult lung transplant list if she were 12, because she only has weeks to live and a lung transplant would as-good-as cure her of cystic fibrosis.The Murnaghan family is fighting a little known organ transplant policy that is effectively pushing Sarah to the bottom of the adult transplant waiting list because it mandates that adult lungs be offered to all adult patients before they can be offered to someone under 12 years old.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/lawyers...3#.Ua7q4kC1Hwi

    I'm guessing this is the kind of case envisioned when the term "death panels" was thrown around in debate about ObamaCare. This policy isn't due to that legislation but it is still due to federal regulation.
     3
    Add Dyzalot to Rail
  2. Apparently lung transplantation is unlike any other organ and survivability rates are greatly affected by matching adult lungs with adults and childrens' lungs with children. I don't know if your article talks about it but there are 40 adults on the transplant list in her state waiting for lungs, and this policy exists because those adults would all have a better chance of survival with an adult lung than this kid would.

    It's heartbreaking, but it doesn't seem to be an evils-of-government story, it's about doing the right thing by all potential transplant recipients.
    Add Autolobotomist to Rail
  3.  
    Originally Posted by Autolobotomist View Post

    Apparently lung transplantation is unlike any other organ and survivability rates are greatly affected by matching adult lungs with adults and childrens' lungs with children. I don't know if your article talks about it but there are 40 adults on the transplant list in her state waiting for lungs, and this policy exists because those adults would all have a better chance of survival with an adult lung than this kid would.

    It's heartbreaking, but it doesn't seem to be an evils-of-government story, it's about doing the right thing by all potential transplant recipients.

    The article disagrees.

     

    Patients with cystic fibrosis, a genetic condition that damages the lungs, have an average life expectancy of 31 years old, said Dr. Devang Doshi, a pediatric lung specialist at Beaumont Children's Hospital in Michigan who has not met Sarah. But if they get a lung transplant, the condition is essentially cured."It's a very disheartening thing to hear and read about because you've got a child in desperate need of a transplant to survive ... and people less qualified in terms of severity are able to get that organ instead of this child because of what's in place," Doshi said. "From a medical standpoint, we look at these types of hurdles and obstacles and sometimes get frustrated with the system."

    And how is it "doing right by all involved"? Is it better to give it to an adult who will use it for twenty years instead of a child that may use it for seventy? Why?

     

    There were only 11 lung donors between 6 and 10 years old and only two lung transplants in that age group in 2012, according to an Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network statement.

    And isn't saving two children better than one adult if looking at it from a utilitarian perspective?

     

    Doshi said he thinks children under 12 years old should be considered with the adult patients and awarded organs based on the severity of their conditions. Adult lungs may not perfectly fit child patients, but they can be used to save multiple children.

    Edited By: Dyzalot Jun 5th, 2013 at 09:06 AM
     3
    Thread StarterAdd Dyzalot to Rail
  4. The lung should go to whoever it will best match.

    The amount of years is irrelevant.
    Add Niceguy to Rail
  5. More than half of pediatric lung transplants are for kids with CF. This isn't about her likelihood of surviving the disease, it's about the likelihood of her body rejecting the transplant and the lung being wasted. The age policy with lung transplants splits age groups and attempts to match donors and recipients by age <12, 12-17, >17. Why is it do you think that this policy exists?
    Add Autolobotomist to Rail
  6.  
    Originally Posted by Niceguy View Post

    The lung should go to whoever it will best match.

    The amount of years is irrelevant.

    Age is a a determining factor in "best match" or this segregation of organs by age wouldn't exist.
    Add Autolobotomist to Rail
  7.  
    Originally Posted by Autolobotomist View Post

    Age is a a determining factor in "best match" or this segregation of organs by age wouldn't exist.


    I see. So an 80 pound 14 year old would be a better match for an adult lung than a 120 pound 12 year old?
     3
    Thread StarterAdd Dyzalot to Rail
  8. Ugh. Dyz, you're not this dumb. The age segregation is a guideline due to the need to match lungs by size and capacity. I suspect you'll just argue incessantly and act as if an adult and an elementary school student are equally likely to be a size match. I'm not interested in engaging your ridiculous hairsplitting like others around here are. For a really smart guy you are a fucking nincompoop sometimes. Keep acting like age is not correlated to height and weight. I'll be making fart jokes in other threads.
    Edited By: Autolobotomist Jun 5th, 2013 at 10:00 AM
    Add Autolobotomist to Rail
  9.  
    Originally Posted by Autolobotomist View Post

    Ugh. Dyz, you're not this dumb. The age segregation is a guideline due to the need to match lungs by size and capacity. I suspect you'll just argue incessantly and act as if an adult and an elementary school student are equally likely to be a size match. I'm not interested in engaging your ridiculous hairsplitting like others around here are. For a really smart guy you are a fucking nincompoop sometimes. Keep acting like age is not correlated to height and weight. I'll be making fart jokes in other threads.

    So the age cutoff is arbitrary then. That was my point. It would make a lot more sense to base it off of the size of the recipient, not their age. And why was my question dumb? Isn't that what the policy implies? And the age segregation is not a guideline that can be adjusted. It is a hard and fast rule that can't be overridden, even by Sebelius according to her. Why use a correlative indicator instead of the direct indicator? To be less precise?
    Edited By: Dyzalot Jun 5th, 2013 at 10:05 AM
     3
    Thread StarterAdd Dyzalot to Rail
  10.  
    Originally Posted by Autolobotomist View Post

    More than half of pediatric lung transplants are for kids with CF. This isn't about her likelihood of surviving the disease, it's about the likelihood of her body rejecting the transplant and the lung being wasted. The age policy with lung transplants splits age groups and attempts to match donors and recipients by age <12, 12-17, >17. Why is it do you think that this policy exists?

     

    The overall survival rate for the first year posttransplantation was 77%. The 3-year and 5-year survival for these children declined to approximately 63% and 54%, respectively. Overall survival by diagnosis for those transplanted can be seen in Figure 5. Although some pretransplant diagnoses appear to offer some slight advantage, there was no statistically significant difference between any of these groups in terms of survival. Graft failure accounted for the majority of deaths in the first 60 days posttransplant (14/25, 56%). Infection was a relatively infrequent cause of early death (8%). Bronchiolitis obliterans was the leading cause of late deaths (35/61, 62%). Infection accounted for 22% of late deaths and malignancies 14%. No patient in our series died of acute rejection.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1422580/

    I think your rejection argument is ill informed.
     3
    Thread StarterAdd Dyzalot to Rail
  11. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ius-92299.html

    A federal judge has ordered Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to allow Sarah Murnaghan, a 10-year-old in Pennsylvania dying of cystic fibrosis, to be moved to the adult lung transplant list. Normally federal policy prevents children younger than 12 from receiving donated adult lungs, but Sebelius has been under pressure to change the policy.
    The parents of the girl asked the judge on Wednesday to order Sebelius to alter organ donation rules so that the dying child has a better chance of receiving new lungs. They say she is running out of time. U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson granted a temporary restraining order to exempt Murnaghan from the current policy, and there will be a hearing on June 14.


    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...#ixzz2VNs9kn6t
    Add norcaljeff to Rail
  12.  

    The one solution which the researchers believe would be effective, monetary compensation to organ donors or their families, is illegal almost everywhere. In 1984, the National Organ Transplant Act was passed making it a crime in the U.S. for a surviving family to receive payment for their loved one’s organs. The law was passed mostly on ethical grounds without any consideration for what would happen to the supply of available organs. The researchers estimate that some 80,000 lives from 1984 to present have been lost because of the bill’s passage and other subsequent policies in the current “altruistic” system. The researchers further project that another 196,310 lives will be lost between 2005- 2015 (and this is what they consider a “conservative” estimate!).

    http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2013...splant-system/
     3
    Thread StarterAdd Dyzalot to Rail