Sebelius Responds to Dying Girl ‘Someone Lives and Someone Dies’

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by diehardgator1, Jun 4, 2013.

  1. diehardgator1
    Online

    diehardgator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,607
    Likes Received:
    122
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +282
    Sebelius responded today, saying that while the situation is “incredibly agonizing”, she will not step in. The situation as Sebelius coldly notes, is one in which “someone lives and someone dies”. - See more at: http://menrec.com/obamas-first-deat...-lives-and-someone-dies/#sthash.XKW23Bfw.dpuf


    What else can be said Sebelius is a cold hard bitch. Wonder if it was her daughter if her remark would be the same.
  2. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,555
    Likes Received:
    2,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,274
    That's a crying shame.
  3. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,446
    Likes Received:
    337
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,409
    And, as noted in the other thread, she's exactly right. Why would it be proper for her to step in and say that this girl should get a lung transplant instead of someone else on the list? She would literally be saying that someone else gets to die because this girl gets the lung instead.

    It is an agonizing situation, which is why there's a system that gets uniformly applied exactly to keep from putting people in the situation where they have to personally decide which potential recipient lives and which dies.
  4. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,555
    Likes Received:
    2,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,274
    A system that leaves children out of getting transplants from adults. the system needs to be tweaked and that's what this is about... not just one girl. It's about all children in need of transplants.
  5. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,446
    Likes Received:
    337
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,409
    There's at least in theory a medical reason why children have absolute priority to receive pediatric donations and adults have priority to receive adult donations - because there are fewer complications from transplanting lungs of similar donors.

    If the science supports changing that policy, they should study it and then do so, which of course is exactly what they're doing. But you can't just on the fly change it because emotionally you want any particular person to receive a transplant - that defeats the entire purpose of having a system that, out of fairness, uniformly applies a set of rules without considering emotional appeals and creating a "pick who lives and who dies" scenario. To ask for any other result is essentially asking Kathleen Sebelius to step in and play God, which is something that I think should quite frankly make us all uncomfortable.
  6. diehardgator1
    Online

    diehardgator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,607
    Likes Received:
    122
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +282
    What makes me uncomfortable is her statement and the way she said it. You can have a little passion for the situation even if you cannot change it.

    Again I ask put your child in the same position and ask if you would feel the same
  7. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,555
    Likes Received:
    2,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,274
    Some people have been saying exactly what you're saying here, but I've not seen that proof.

    It's quite a sticky situation that has no winners no matter what she does about it.
  8. diehardgator1
    Online

    diehardgator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,607
    Likes Received:
    122
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +282
    the family is not asking to be put ahead of any one just to be put on the list and have a chance


    "He also suggested the child is a victim of age discrimination, saying in a letter Tuesday to Sebelius: “Sarah is not asking to be placed ahead of another, but rather she is petitioning for the ability to compete for equitable treatment based on sound medical judgment and that she be accorded her appropriate place in line. Her need and survivability are the critical factors.”

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...e-child-allow-her-to-get-adult/#ixzz2VJ6Qw09e
  9. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,446
    Likes Received:
    337
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,409
    If it was your child, you would be upset about that result no matter what the reason for it was, for example even if it was because there was a pediatric lung available but another child was higher on the transplant list than yours.

    It's easy to justify why you think the result is wrong if you let yourself get emotionally involved, but looking at it on a system wide basis (as you must to maintain the emotional separation needed to make a fair decision), Sebelius is right. If you have two people in need of a transplant and one transplant available, quite literally one of them will live and the other will die, and it's not the place of a political appointee to step in and change the rules to decide which potential recipient gets which fate.
  10. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,446
    Likes Received:
    337
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,409
    Solely putting her on the other list inherently puts her ahead of people, if she gets a transplant from that list, whoever otherwise would have received it got skipped solely because of the variance. And she does have a chance right now, it just means she needs a pediatric donor under the current rules. If you change the rules to put her on the adult list and she receives the transplant, it means that, solely because of the variance you made, an adult who otherwise would have received that transplant will die instead.
  11. diehardgator1
    Online

    diehardgator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,607
    Likes Received:
    122
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +282

    How does that put her ahead of anyone?
  12. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,446
    Likes Received:
    337
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,409
    Had the rules not been changed for her, someone else on the adult list would have received that transplant and, ipso facto, she would have thus been put ahead of that person.

    If she receives a transplant that but for a variance would have gone to someone else, how in the world would that not constitute putting her ahead of the person who otherwise would have received it?
  13. Gatormb
    Offline

    Gatormb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,736
    Likes Received:
    246
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Bradenton, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +760
    All they are asking for is to have an equal chance to be evaluated which she does not now have. As a result someone not nearly as sick (who has more time) may get the lung that would save her life. The guidelines give Sebelius the authority to make an exception which she refused in a cold hearted manor.

    She should have used more empathy at the very least.
  14. G8trGr8t
    Offline

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    13,641
    Likes Received:
    929
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +1,724
    And if the rules were not inherently prejudicial against children her age she would already be in front of the others on the list.

    If this was 0s daughter you can bet that the rules would be changed.
  15. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,446
    Likes Received:
    337
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,409
    If we're going to allow children to be near the top of the list for adult transplants, should we not also get rid of the rule giving children absolute priority for pediatric donations?

    As I said, there's at least in theory a medical reason for the rules. As I understand it, it is that the rules attempt to maximize the chance of each donation resulting in a successful transplant, and the procedure for implanting an adult lung into a child involves the lung being cut down to size to fit the child. This introduces additional complications and there is a far lower chance of this procedure being successful than there is of an adult-to-adult transplant being successful, so the rules give children absolute priority for pediatric donations and adults priority for adult donations because that is the allocation that provides the greatest chance of any given donation resulting in a successful transplant.
  16. gatornana
    Offline

    gatornana Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    22,822
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +676

    She's not being insensitive.....she's speaking the cold hard truth.

    I would go to the ends of this earth to save my child.....I would do what these parents are doing.

    That said, the Pubs are using this emotion packed situation to once again bash Dems. Most will get swept up in the emotion and ignore the reasons for these rules along with the cold hard facts for the many who face this.

    If the Pubs think they're taking some sort of moral high road then go out there and fight to change the rules for each and every single man, woman and child that is dying while waiting for an organ or bone marrow transplant.

    There are many out there dying while waiting for a lung transplant....why aren't the Pubs fighting for them?


    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...leen-sebelius-to-save-10-year-old-girls-life/
    • Like Like x 1
  17. austingtr
    Offline

    austingtr VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    8,844
    Likes Received:
    179
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings Received:
    +427
    This is very consistent Obama policy- you know, give grandma the pain pill.

    And this is a 10 yo, do you imagine the policy of life saving measure for a baby, or anyone very young? Or the elderly?

    This is what is coming, this is what they want, rationing based on value to society. You know, the collective is first, the needs of the individual a distant second.

    America is transforming people, get with the program, is all about a better society.
  18. mocgator
    Offline

    mocgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,294
    Likes Received:
    272
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The ATL
    Ratings Received:
    +501
    Death Panels anyone??...... Nah... will never happen...
  19. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,446
    Likes Received:
    337
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,409
    Brilliant. What proves that Obamacare created death panels? A system that has existed in a substantively unchanged form for decades that is designed to allocate a scarce resource that, unlike generalized medical care, we don't have the ability to create more of to meet market demand (transplantable organs).

    :roll:
  20. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,260
    Likes Received:
    357
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,343
    Please explain how its possible not to "ration" organs. What part of "waiting list" do people not understand? You think its better that politicans intervene in these decisions to generate different outcomes?

Share This Page