Question about girl denied lung transplant. Does the deniel have anything to do with Obama

[patricia92243]

Care? Right winger says the "Death Squads" are in place and they are making these kind of decisions. To me, this sounds like a long standing rule concerning who gets lung transplants and who does not.


I tried Google but don't know how to find the answer to my question. It just tells about the girl being denied because of her age.

[southernyankeebelle]

1. If I am not mistaken it has to do with her age. The girl is 10 yrs old and I think she has to be

at least 11 or 12. The president has nothing to do with authorizing who gets what care. He doesn't make those medical decisions.

[patricia92243]

7. I know it is her age. My question is is it a long standing policy (before Obama) or is it something

new since Obama Care has been in place. Right winger is saying death squads, etc, - I would like to be able to say the age thingy has been in place since 1955 or whatever. But I do want to have my facts straight.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. If it wasn't a government policy could HHS even have a say in the matter?

If her family has the means to obtain competent treatment within their own means why would HHS even enter the picture?

[southernyankeebelle]

27. I am not sure but I think it has been that way before the President. People give the office

of the President way to much credit. I think the overreach was Bush with that woman who was in a veg state and couldn't make the right decision to pull the plug by her parents and her husband. The president step-in when he really had no right and in the end the supreme court sided with her husband and not the president. That is dangerous when government comes in between families and their doctors.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

9. The right wing (and even some progressives)

seems to have a tremendously exaggerated sense of the President's power, as well as of his ability to address everything the instant somebody raises the volume on a particular issue to more than a few decibels

[southernyankeebelle]

26. True

[lapfog_1]

2. She isn't being denied

There are no lungs available from deceased children in her region.

She is already #1 on the transplant list for children in her region.

More PARENTS need to list their children as organ donors. That is the problem.

Her parents are begging the rules SET UP BY A COMMITTEE OF SURGEONS be changed to allow that adult lungs be made available. Adult lungs would have modified to fit into a child of her size... this is a lot of added risk to the transplant. And there are adults also waiting on adult lungs to be available.

What makes a girl of her age more special than someone else, especially if the transplant has additional risk of failure?

We have made these sorts of rules / decisions since transplants became technically doable... nothing to do with the Affordable Care Act.

[patricia92243]

11. Do you know WHEN the committee of surgeons made this rule - before Obama Care or after it? That and

only that is the question. If I could find that I could show it to right winger. I have googled it everyway I can think of and can't get a date.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. It doesn't matter.

The legal structures controlling organ transplantation and donation were established in this country in 1984 under saint Reagan.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. I don't see how that makes it worth defending. Quite the opposite, really.

Once upon a time we would have fought to get the government out of our personal healthcare decisions.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. Seriously?

1. It matters to an argument that obamacare did this.

2. Of course organ donation needs regulation. You cannot be seriously making a case for free market idiocy for organs, can you?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. Are you saying medical policy should be set by political hacks?

Regardless of what we may think of Sebilius no amount of medical care can keep her as HHS secretary forever. It's not "if" a political hack becomes HHS secretary, merely a matter of "when."

If the family has the means to obtain treatment the government has no place making rules against it. If the medical community says it is too dangerous, then so be it but they aren't elected hacks and appointed stooges.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. I'm saying organ donations need to be regulated, strictly regulated.

The topic is organ donars and organ recipients.

Free market, or strictly regulated non-market based allocation. You tell me which you want, because I think you are arguing for a free market based organ allocation system.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

33. And you're arguing to have the next Pat Robertson demand his preferred HHS Sec'y.

I'm quite sure the medical community is capable of deciding order of precedence.

[bowens43]

22. so you think there should be no rules? Seriously?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. If someone can obtain competent treatment by their own means

I would have to see a strong case for government impeding that treatment.

"My body, my choice" isn't just so I can make myself sexually accommodating to men.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. you are still dancing around the topic.

Are you advocating a market based allocation system for organ donors and recipients?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

35. I'm not dancing. I'm saying unequivocally

That health care decisions are exclusively between patient and doctor.

[Warren Stupidity]

38. no you continue to dance

where does a doctor get a lung?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

40. From donors, obviously.

[Warren Stupidity]

45. Could the doctors pay donors and charge recipients market rates?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

49. If paying donations increased the supply would you oppose an increased supply?

[auburngrad82]

34. Then every wealthy alcoholic who needed a new liver would be able to buy their way to the top

of the list, even though there were people who needed that liver just as badly.

The rules are established to prevent abuse and to protect people.

As was stated earlier in this thread, the girl is at the top of the list for a child's lung. As was also stated earlier, the use of an adult lung in a child of her age would be very complicated. What happens if they use the adult lung, cut it down to size to fit the child, and then it fails? She's back to square one and that lung could have been used for an adult who needed it is no longer available.

Do you think that if a person can afford to pay for a transplant that might not work because of problems such as, in this case, incompatible size, that their ability to pay for it trumps the needs of everyone else? That was the root of the controversy involving Mickey Mantle's liver transplant. He may not have purchased his way to the top of the list but it appeared that he did and many people were upset that a life long alcoholic would be moved up the list ahead of other people. People felt it was his fame that moved him up the list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Mantle#Illness_and_death

"Mantle received a liver transplant at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, on June 8, 1995. His liver was severely damaged by alcohol-induced cirrhosis, as well as hepatitis C. Prior to the operation, doctors also discovered he had inoperable liver cancer known as an undifferentiated hepatocellular carcinoma, further facilitating the need for a transplant. In July, he had recovered enough to deliver a press conference at Baylor, and noted that many fans had looked to him as a role model. "This is a role model: Don't be like me," a frail Mantle said. He also established the Mickey Mantle Foundation to raise awareness for organ donations. Soon, he was back in the hospital, where it was found that his cancer was rapidly spreading throughout his body.

"Though Mantle was very popular, his liver transplant was a source of some controversy. Some felt that his fame had permitted him to receive a donor liver in just one day, bypassing other patients who had been waiting for much longer. Mantle's doctors insisted that the decision was based solely on medical criteria, but acknowledged that the very short wait created the appearance of favoritism."

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. Health care decisions are between patient and doctor.

[auburngrad82]

42. Not always

I have Multiple Myeloma. Sometime later this year we'll be doing a stem cell transplant, which is standard treatment after chemotherapy. Luckily, I have insurance. Had I not had insurance, I would have been denied treatment. The hospital is not going to spend $50-100,000 on treatment without some expectation of getting paid. How do I know? I asked the hospital. If my insurance would not cover it I would have to find a way to pay for it before they would proceed.

So, in this case, the decision is not between my doctor and myself. It's all dependent on whether or not insurance would pay or if I could come up with the money.

Thank God for insurance, eh?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

43. That's not an endorsement of political hacks, incompetent bureaucrats and crony appointees.

It's an argument for making healthcare as accessible as possible. Government rules on who gets what and when is the exact opposite of a cure.

[auburngrad82]

44. In my case thank God for the government rule doing away with lifetime maximums

I can see my lifetime costs easily exceeding the $1 million cap that was in place, but now, because of Obamacare, there is no lifetime cap.

I'm not sure I understand the problem. She's at the top of the list for a child's lung. I would think that a committee of doctors prioritizing transplants on how dire the need is and taking into consideration things like probability of success (in this case, transplanting an adult lung into a body too small to hold the lung) is a good thing.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

47. I'm delighted you got treatment. I lost my MIL not long ago to a cancer that overtook her too fast.

But this is a different issue than what you're speaking of. The issue isn't cost caps but denial of treatment regardless of ability to obtain. If a person can secure treatment then that treatment is a matter for them and their healthcare provider.

[Warren Stupidity]

46. There is a shortage of parts and a waiting list for those parts.

The awful government hacks have established a triaged first come first serve waiting list that treats all potential recipients fairly, based on clearly established rules. Nobody can buy or sell organs legally. The result is a process that in fact treats all potential recipients fairly and equally, for the most part, although wealthy people can slightly game the system by relocating to advantageous regions for particular parts.

What you are proposing, although you have so far refused to get specific, would deregulate this system and create a horror show of advantaged recipients using their wealth to jump the line.

Fuck that. Why are you even here?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

48. Congrtulations. You won.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014501848

Spend your victory wisely.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

55. Another victory for you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022958572

Well-played. Well-played.

[yellowcanine]

52. How is the government not going to be involved in organ transplants?

Hard to see how one could have a national transplant network without government regulation. There is more than one individual involved so a transplant decision can never be a "personal healthcare decision." It is not as if there is a bank of lungs out there and the individual can just order one from the bank. There are a limited number of transplants available and the transplants have to go where they are most likely to be successful.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

53. If resource scarcity is a rationale --

what is to stop the government from declining to spend exorbitant amounts of money on treatments for people who make no economic return to the system?

[yellowcanine]

56. I don't follow your logic. Scarcity demands that decisions have to be made.

The decisions are made according to where the transplant has the most chance of saving a life - not according to the economic potential of the life being saved. That is exactly why government regulation is needed - to make sure organs aren't going to the highest bidder but rather to the patient who is most likely to benefit from that organ. The idea of the government not being involved makes your scenario more likely, not less.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

58. .

The decisions are made according to where the transplant has the most chance of saving a life - not according to the economic potential of the life being saved. That is exactly why government regulation is needed

Except that isn't what is happening here and it won't happen in the future. The policy, wrong as it was, was overridden by a judge; meaning yet again, the healthcare decision is being further removed from the patient.

And while I would never argue in favor of exclusively "highest-bidder" healthcare I would argue against making this an economic-free system. If you design a system to be devoid of money you will succeed -- but that will only resort to greater scarcity. Every device to increase supply should be employed to alleviate the burden of scarcity. Greater supply always leads to lower consumer cost.

If the patient in question could not find a suitable donor because enough volunteer donors could not be found in a timely manner but another family could be incentivized to provide the transplant organs would you deny either party the transaction? If they were allowed to do so not only would the patient gain the benefit of the transaction but as soon as another donor became available the next patient waiting would realize the benefit as well.

Should the decision be left to bureaucrats, judges and politicians?

[yellowcanine]

59. "another family could be incentivized to provide the transplant organs" The donor has to be dead

so how exactly would such a system work?

[Warren Stupidity]

61. kill junior for his kidneys and collect 1,000,000 from some billionaire in renal failure.

That seems to be the idea.

[RudynJack]

24. I read the rules have been in place since 2005.

[seltzerwater]

57. the United Network for Organ Sharing

is the governing body of transplantation.
It has nary a bit to do with the government or Obamacare.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=UNOS+policy

[cynatnite]

13. I do think there is room to make adjustments on this...

Perhaps if lungs become available and her condition is more serious than the adult at the top of the list.

I understand why the rules are what they are. I don't think we will ever be at the point where we can ask parents to list their children as organ donors. It's a creepy thing, IMO, that parents don't want to think about. Maybe someday.

It's hard to balance one life over another, but it happens every day in this country. These decisions have to be made and people die as a result.

I think a review of this rule is in order and I do think it's possible to improve it so that maybe we can avoid tragic situations like this.

Also, one other thing I would do is to put more money into researching the area of organ transplants. We need to find a better ways to grow organs, make them more compatible with different patients, and so on.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

16. I agree that there is always room to review older rules and see if they are still appropriate

What I don't like about the situation is that special exemptions are being asked for/ordered by the court that seem to based on political reasons not to mention the fact that Sebelius is being wrongfully attacked and treated as though she will be personally responsible for this child's life/death. The rules have been in place for decades and shouldn't just be arbitrarily chucked the moment that somebody makes enough noise to get everybody's attention. Reviewed yes, thrown out the window immediately, no. This has echoes of the whole Terri Schiavo situation.

[cynatnite]

19. I don't blame the parents for seeking an exemption...

This is their kid and they want to do everything they can to save her life. Would you do less if it were your child?

And no...Terri Schiavo this is not.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

28. I don't blame them for wanting an exemption. Who wouldn't?

But is that fair to other parents/children in the same situation? Are all 10 year olds suffering from CF and needing a lung transplant now going to be moved to the bottom of the adult lung transplant list? I'm just concerned about it being politicized like Terri Schiavo (personal family tragedy, asking for rules/laws to be changed/re-written to address their specific needs of the moment) to attack Sebelius, President Obama, Obamacare, etc.

[atreides1]

3. No

The rules have been in place since the mid-1980's.

Look up Child Organ Transplant Rules.

[patricia92243]

12. I tried that but could never get a date on any of it - I find this stuff very tedious to read and

could still not get a date of when the rules where put in place.

[boilerbabe]

4. rightwingers on facebook have been saying our government is too busy promoting same sex

marriage to deal with her. i am serious.

[leftynyc]

5. Of course not

These rules regarding age have been in place since before he took office - it's just the wingers who blame everything on Pres Obama. They're not worth your time but if you must engage, just ask them to point to the rule in the ACA that covers transplants.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

6. Consider the source

Wingnuts are just using this as another fraudulent line of attack on ACA. The rule in question has been around for awhile and a GWB appointed Judge and the right wing are trying to carve out an exemption for this young girl for seemingly political reasons (ie attacking Obama, Sebelius, and, of course, their favourite whipping post, Obamacare)

[gollygee]

8. If anyone complains about this

Ask if they and their children are listed as organ donors, and tell them to promote that to try to get more people listed as organ donors so people like this girl have organs available.

The problem is availability of organs.

[GeorgeGist]

10. Its a rule from UNOS which was a pet project of Al Gore when he...

was Senator.

[REP]

15. No, it doesn't. It has to do with her age.

[bike man]

20. If this is the same little girl, she has been moved to the adult list. The rule

has been suspended for 10 days

Here‘s the (an?) answer as to why the little girl was denied earlier.

<snip>The Newtown Square family filed suit yesterday to challenge transplant rules that say children younger than 12 must wait for pediatric lungs to become available, or wait at the end of the adult list.

Here’s the snippet that says she can move to the other list.

<snip>A dying 10-year-old girl can move up the adult waiting list for a lung transplant after a federal judge intervened in her case yesterday

And here’s the link to the above http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2013/06/06/nwr-0606-gt8n8emh-1.html

I don’t think it’s fair to say the RW is blaming every little thing on Obama or Obamacare. Some things that may be considered unreasonable have been in place for quite awhile

[Proud Liberal Dem]

29. If you read a lot of comment boards (i.e. Politico)

one might come away with the impression that this situation has EVERYTHING to do with Obamacare, "cold-hearted government bureaucrat" Kathleen Sebelius, and even the IRS. It's disgusting and infuriating IMHO. "Death Panels" are even making a comeback.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

30. Yes both Obama and the IRS ...

[Zoeisright]

37. Don't forget Benghazi!

[Zoeisright]

36. That's because she was denied because of her age.

By the way, it's the Affordable Care Act. Not "Obamacare".

[Demo_Chris]

54. No, it's Obamacare. That's one piece of $%# legislation we will own forever. nt

[bike man]

60. About 19,700,000 results (0.16 seconds) when searching 'Obamacare'. nt

[magical thyme]

41. No. Transplant rules are made by groups of surgeons

who have studied the subject thoroughly and actually have an idea who the best candidates are. The goal is to save as many lives as possible through successful transplants, versus wasting rare organs on patients who have little to no chance of survival.

As opposed to the "know-it-all" DUers who pulled all nighters reading wiki and have been offering simplistic solutions to counter the "arbitrary" rules by these apparently not exceptional bright (as compared to keyboard jockeys) boards of highly trained and experienced medical professionals.


The age rule in this case has to do with the size of chest cavity. Even the largest 10 year olds are not going to be able to hold adult-sized lungs and depending on the nature of the need, partial transplants may not be an option.

[ismnotwasm]

50. No I am a transplant nurse

(For liver, kidney and pancreas, small bowel)

It's a long process for adults to even get on the list, and a number of factors are considered. Survivability on the table is one. The decision is made by a team that follows a certain criteria, from the obvious--you won't get a liver if you're an active drinker, to the more discreet, there must be adequate home support for the patient, because you just can't do it successfully alone.

There are not nearly enough organs for everybody

For any interested in this topic, I suggest browsing the UNOS--united organ network sharing site

http://www.unos.org/
Transplant Trends
Waiting list candidates as of today 1:48am 118,239
Active waiting list candidates as of today 1:48am 75,646
Transplants January - March 2013 6,891

http://www.unos.org/

[graham4anything]

51. actually, the reverse is now true-the repubs forced someone else to probably die to move her ahead.

There is a long time way of allocation, based on health, and the chance of survival.

After what happened to Mickey Mantle, it showed what happens when someone cuts the line who shouldn't have.
He got one and died shortly after, and someone else was bumped who most likely died while Mantle got one he was not
well enough to handle.