It can’t be just me. The recent case surrounding 10-year-old Sarah Murnaghan, a girl in desperate need of a lung transplant is shining a Bat signal-like light on this administration’s ideological priorities. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has essentially stated, ‘oh well, my hands are tied, nothin’ I can do but I’ll look into it for ya’ about ordering a temporary exception to a policy which prevents children under 12 years-old from being placed on the list to possibly receive adult lung donations.
OK, so there’s nothing the administration can do but look into it when a little girl has only a month or so to live. Notice though when it comes free birth control for all, morning after pills, and abortions with as few restrictions as possible, it’s top priority to ensure these forms of “health care” are available as soon as logistically possible.
Let me get this straight. Little girl breathing her last breath because a policy can’t be temporarily excepted and reviewed post surgery because your hands are tied. But sexual liberty and abortion must be preserved at all costs. Where is this administration’s priorities?
Sifting Reality 
The thing I wonder about is whether there is a currently qualified (12 or older) patient who is being passed up. It’s horrible that this little girl IS being passed up because of what appears to be an arbitrary rule. BUT… We must play by the rules. We must also make the rules make sense. But, until then, some other worthy recipient is out there waiting. Is the next in line a mother of small children? Or is it some jerk we’d be better off without? We just don’t know. Should anyone be made to give up their spot in line? Should the line be constantly reconfigured according to our sense of the tragedy of losing one as opposed to another? These are questions we should ask ourselves before we just start breaking the rule.
And just so you know where i stand: The loss of the little girl would be terrible. The rule stinks and it should be changed.
C2C
Its not that they want this girl to jump to the head of the line (she might because her condition warrants it) they just want her on the list like everyone else should a match be found.
Maybe it isn’t an arbitrary rule. Adult lungs are larger and there could be technical reasons which would make the transplant more difficult or even impossible.
Isu
If youre following the news on this youll see that an adult lung would be ok for her.
Its arbitrary because it would be fine for many under 12. The blanket prohibition is medically warrantless.
John,
“If youre following the news on this youll see that an adult lung would be ok for her.”
I wasn’t. In your link there wasn’t mentioned in the news.
I found another one in which it says:
“This is different. Sarah’s case is different. Doctors have said she could survive with an adult lung. It can be modified to save her life. Why wouldn’t we do it?”
I’ll put foward these comments:
“Sebelius asked for a policy review and says she’s sympathetic, but explained the rules are there for a reason. She said, “Because lungs are different than other organs, that it’s based on the survivability.””
“Bioethicist Dr. Art Caplan, director of NYU Langone Medical Center Division of Medical Ethics, says it’s because pediatric lung recipients generally face greater risks. “What the parents want to do for their child isn’t necessarily the best use of the scarce supply of organs,” he said.
While Sarah’s doctors say they’re confident they can perform a successful transplant, making an exception for her is not the obvious choice.
“We don’t have a situation where we’re simply saying, ‘Save me or don’t save me,’ we’re saying ‘Save me as opposed to someone else’ — that’s the toughest ethical problem I think that can arise in medicine,” Caplan said.”