Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by diehardgator1, Jun 4, 2013.
They're just going to let her die
The doctors were telling the family that with the transplant in lung technology advancing like it has it would not be a problem giving her adult lungs. The science is there but you have the "death panel" already killing one person. More to come.
Ben's argument makes zero sense and his conclusion is let the girl die
Well, by this logic the "death panel" would be killing someone either way. Your preference is that the child be saved over the adult she would jump ahead of in the line on the adult list.
Exactly, my entire argument is that it isn't the HHS secretary's place to say that the rules can change for this girl and let her live instead of someone else.
I'm not entirely sure why some of you apparently can't appreciate that the choice isn't just "save this girl or not." It's "which of these two people should we save," and that's not something we need political appointees deciding.
This is not exactly the case, we don't know how many adults and children are on the waiting list and we don't know how many lung transplants are available. We also don't know which recipients can last for how long before it's to late for the transplant. This girl only has 3-5 days.
the compassionate liberal heart/mind
You're a doc.....you're comment here surprises me. Would think you'd understand this situation more than any of us.
So is "political appointees should quite literally get involved in allocating organs and deciding what person lives and which people die" conversely the small government conservative approach?
That's all I'm arguing over. It plainly is sad, but so is every instance in which a person who desparately needs a transplant doesn't get one. And we can't just close our eyes and pretend that we can save her without taking the chance to be saved away from someone else.
And if there is scientific evidence of this, then the policy should change after an evaluation of the research. Do you have a citation for this science? If it is just the opinion of a random doctor and not a scientific study, that is not really good enough evidence to overturn a policy with some scientific basis.
Should Mickey Mantle have gotten a liver?
I understand the policy. I'm looking at the big picture. I've read books on this subject. The problem is the American people are not ready to die on their own terms. I understand priorities. People want chit done that is irrational (painful chemotherapy that will give you. 30% survival rate vs. 6months of quality time to live) because a health plan or guvmint pays. So the guvmint is stepping in, and will ration care to control costs because Americans don't want to pay for their care.
My point is people should have a right to purchase the kind of care they want, and the guvmint should be out of the paying, and decision making of healthcare. This should be between docs and patients.
How much would a policy that provided on demand organs cost?
I'm not sure where gov rationing medical care is part of all this....isn't it the organ procurement program's rules based on sound medical advice. Isn't it the parents and Pubs bringing the gov into this to run interference for the little girl. Don't other patients in this same situation have to play by the rules?
I have no idea what you are asking.
Organ transplantation is complex, and I'm not suggesting people should be able to purchase organs.
Healthcare decisions should be up to doctors and patients, not to guvmint policy.
I've read a lot about Kathleen S.
She is all for the collective rather than the individual. That is my point. I expect her not to "bend" the rules to help a "defective" child who will cost a lot to society. She will be in medications to avoid organ rejection for the rest of her life. She has cystic fibrosis, who affects every organ in the body. The story doesn't end when she gets a new lung.
Obama is the king of testimonial pimping. He had people (kids too) on stage to pimp-out every single freebie he wanted congress to approve.
So then how should we distribute organs considering they are a scarce resource? If we can't have people buying organs (auctions), should we have a lottery? Who makes the decision which of the patients, all of whom have different doctors, gets the scarce resource (the organ) and who doesn't?
The doctors that are taking care of the girl told the family this. I mentioned this in an earlier post.
Have they or anybody else conducted a scientific study to provide evidence to this claim?