Should 10 Year-Old Girl Get New Lungs?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by citizenzen, Jun 5, 2013.

  1. macrumors 65816

    citizenzen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #1
    I can sympathize with any parent who wants to see their child spared from suffering.

    However, I'm troubled by the special treatment being afforded to this girl.

    It seems to me as if publicity trumped medical considerations.

    Thoughts?

     
  2. macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #2
    Is there a medical reason for not allowing children adult organs? Unless it is harmful I don't see why there is a problem here.
     
  3. macrumors G5

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #3
    I agree. This is only going to make other people who need transplants try and involve the court system. This judge made a huge mistake in my opinion.
     
  4. macrumors 601

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #4
    Nice way to sour the donation process.
     
  5. thread starter macrumors 65816

    citizenzen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #5
    I don't follow.

    How will this sour the donation process?

    I'll donate regardless the outcome of this matter.
     
  6. macrumors 6502a

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #6
    According to the articles, using suitable adult organs can work. That isn't the issue. The issue is that there is a shortage of donated organs, and, a lot of people worked hard to create fair rules, and the rules have been circumvented.
     
  7. macrumors regular

    BladesOfSteel

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Location:
    St. Paul
    #7
    As a parent, my heart breaks at just the thought of having one of my children in this position.

    However, the rules are in place - for whatever reason... and to be honest, i'm not sure why adult lungs can't be given to children under age 12 - but those are the rules that are in place that we have to go by.

    I don't want the government deciding who lives and who dies (more than they already do). What do you say to the person who was #1 on the recipient list, but now gets bumped to #2 and then they are two ill by the time another lung is available?
     
  8. macrumors 6502a

    bad03xtreme

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2009
    Location:
    Northern, VA
    #8
    This is why doctors should be making these decisions not bureaucrats in Washington.
     
  9. macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #9
    What I find odd, is that it is the Republicans in Washington who have taken this cause to heart. They are the party that always makes the argument you just made. However, it is important to note that it wasn't a decision being made by bureaucrats in Washington, but by a single Judge. That judge decided to circumvent the legislation/regulations/medical opinions of experts for some reason that couldn't have been based on law, rules, regulations, or the Constitution. This was purely a political/emotional decision.

    It's good to know that when the circumstances warrant, the GOP thinks it's perfectly ok for bureaucrats in Washington to get involved in decisions that have nothing to do with running our country.

    (Before anyone attacks me for partisanship, which I am, but keep in mind who was in an uproar over the cuban kid stuck in a closet or the girl who was on life support, but gets their panties in a wad anytime a Democrat does anything similar).

    (edit) Has anyone ever looked into the success rates of adult transplants into children this age? I'm guessing someone has, and they probably aren't as good as giving this incredibly rare commodity to an older, equally needy patient. In other words, this rugrat's case is going to kill someone else, but she's getting special treatment because she's younger. If her success probability is lower, then isn't that a giant waste?
     
  10. macrumors 6502a

    bad03xtreme

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2009
    Location:
    Northern, VA
    #10
    The Republicans are contradicting themselves while not wanting the politicians making these decisions and then turning around and calling for Sebelius to sign a waiver.
     
  11. jnpy!$4g3cwk, Jun 6, 2013
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2013

    macrumors 6502a

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #11
    And, to some extent, I'm actually OK with that in a case like this. Judges are supposed to do that "justice tempered with mercy" thing. It this does work out for the girl, it may result in an older person such as myself dying. Age discrimination I suppose, but, I'm getting quite used to it. It seems quite arbitrary, as you say, which cases become a cause celebre on Fox News:

    Even quite recently, some politician (I forget who) was boasting about how proud they were of the Terri Schiavo brouhaha. Even from a Republican point of view, I never quite got that one.
     
  12. macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #12
    I've been trying to find that information. What I've found just compares pediatric to adult lung transplant. Basically it seems like children are more likely to die than adults in the first year after transplant, but more likely to live 8 or more years after the transplant than adults. The median survival times are similar (about 5 years). However, the differences aren't conclusive (statistically significant) because the sample size of pediatric cases is so small. Another however, because I don't want to pay $30+ per article so I've just been reading abstracts, I don't know if these studies controlled for differences between the adults and children in the studies (such as disease type, severity, etc.).

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041134505001193
    http://www.jsht.jp/uploads/小児肺・心肺同時移植2011年報告 論文.pdf


    (this study found no difference between adults and kids)
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022522398702855

    Wait, here we go. This is the article we're looking for:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...sCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

    Edit: so based on my understanding of these data, it looks like allowing kids access to (but not necessarily preference on) the adult registry makes sense. But I'd also say I've spent a total of 20 minutes thinking about this. The people who made the transplantation rules have probably spent decades thinking about these issues. So I would not be surprised if I'm misinterpreting what I've found and even less surprised if there's tons more information that complicates the issue.
     
  13. macrumors 68000

    likemyorbs

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #13
    I hope they can start making cloned organs in test tubes soon so this is no longer an issue....

    2013 and we're still talking about organ donations? We're so behind.
     
  14. zin
    macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #14
    This kind of special treatment is vastly unfair, IMO, especially to the other three children in the same hospital suffering from the same condition.

    From what I understand, these rules are formulated through years of endeavour by medical professionals. I think that breaking those rules based on the emotions of the public is very wrong.
     
  15. macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #15
    How does the transplant list work. Is it next on the list or do they look for the worst cases and those in the worst shape.
     
  16. macrumors G5

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #16
    Agreed. I think more people will turn to the courts in the future for this kind of thing based on this ruling.
     
  17. thread starter macrumors 65816

    citizenzen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #17
    The first step is getting the media to pay attention to your case.

    The second step is to get a judge to pay attention to the hype.
     
  18. zin
    macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #18
    The United Network for Organ Sharing is the organisation that handles matching donors to patients. Essentially, it isn't a "list" in the conventional sense because that implies it is like a queue as you describe. From what I gather it is essentially just a huge pool of patients from which best matches can be obtained:

    More information
    It's clear that the waiting time is relatively unimportant compared to the other factors.
     
  19. macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #19
    It might be worth pointing out at this time that everyone here needs to let their loved ones know that they do want to have their organs used for transplants; they need to sign their drivers licenses; and, they should probably be donating blood regularly. As an aside, it would be nice if you got tested for bone marrow transplants.
     
  20. macrumors 68030

    sk1wbw

    Joined:
    May 28, 2011
    Location:
    Suffolk, Virginia
    #20
    Actually, the judges decision came AFTER the decision by the HHS secretary Sebilius or whatever that dolt's name is. She said at first the decision needed to be made by the doctors and the scientists, who already agreed that the girl should get a lung transplant. That decision came first, not the judge's decision.

    Get used to this, it's only the beginning of the new medical system where the doctor's are not involved, but a judge and an unelected public official.

    Also, in the words of our "president" is that if we can just save the life of one child then it's worth it. This is of course relating to gun control and not health care.
     
  21. macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #21
    You're confused. At any given time, there are far fewer lungs available than there are people eligible for transplants. "Doctors and scientists" may have agreed she should get a lung transplant, but that can only mean that she should have been eligible for transplant. The fact of the matter is if she gets a transplant, that means someone else doesn't. I don't know whether or not the current allocation system is well designed and that other person should get the transplant more than she should--and I assure you, neither do you.
     
  22. macrumors 6502a

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #22
    Your version of events doesn't line up with other versions I have read. What is the source for your version?

    Get used to what? The first person I ever personally knew who had a heart transplant was, what, 23 years ago or so? He had to get in line and hope that he didn't die before a match became available. How do you think this should have worked? Should the heart go to the highest bidder?
     
  23. macrumors 68000

    sjinsjca

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    #23
    How is this any of our business, much less the Federal Government's?

    It's between the girl, her doctors, and the transplant community.

    The Constitution grants certain very limited powers to the Federal government. Its strictures on Federal power have been blown away in recent decades, in particular by insanely overarching interpretations of the Commerce Clause. Lungs for transplant are in no way "commerce" under even the grimmest, most ghoulish interpretation.

    The fact that life-and-death decisions of this sort are delegated to a single unelected Federal bureaucrat (Sebelius) is as vivid an example of how off-track our government has gotten as any. Truly chilling.
     
  24. jnpy!$4g3cwk, Jun 7, 2013
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2013

    macrumors 6502a

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #24
    It isn't. In fact, the situation is quite different. People were demanding that Sebelius intervene and she said she couldn't do it.
     
  25. Ugg
    macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #25
    What j said. Didn't you read? It's a federal judge who made the decision, not Sebelius.

    I think that this is very scary. Actually, I think anyone who public ally complains about transplants in the US should mandatorily be signed up for the organ donor list, along their parents, sibs, children and grandchildren. The problem isn't really the courts or the judges but the lack of donors.
     

Share This Page