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

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

  1. austingtr
    Offline

    austingtr VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    8,844
    Likes Received:
    179
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings Received:
    +427
    Doctors can decide who gets what based on cost/benefit, which is what we have now. If the new evidence says it is safe, then doctors should be able to place the child appropriately on the organ list.

    All I said that we should never expect the Obama administration to intervene in behalf of the individual, regardless of the irrationality of deny an adult organ to a girl just because she is a few months younger than the age limit.
  2. dadx4
    Offline

    dadx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    28,359
    Likes Received:
    392
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Greenville SC
    Ratings Received:
    +783
    Ding...Ding...Ding...we have a winner folks.
  3. mdgator05
    Online

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,294
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +453
    You realize that this is the Obama administration refusing to overrule a policy set forth by the board that runs the organ distribution system right now, correct? If they are Doctors on that board, which is your claim, then the Obama administration is refusing to intervene in the decision of the Doctors.
  4. austingtr
    Offline

    austingtr VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    8,844
    Likes Received:
    179
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings Received:
    +427
    Yes I do realize that.
  5. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,555
    Likes Received:
    2,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,274
    You know whats just unbelievable about all the Leftists' responses is that they actually support Obama-care where everyone that can't even afford healthcare gets free care for a better way of life, yet actually saving one child's' life is to foreign a concept they don't understand.

    They favor letting murderers live by abolishing the death penalty, yet slaughtering innocent babies in late term abortions is okay in their book. This little girl has no friends in the Dems party of hatred for babies and children.
  6. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,454
    Likes Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,412
    You know what's even more unbelievable? That you can't appreciate that it's not only leftists who feel this way and don't comprehend that you are advocating for the government to do exactly the "pick who lives and who dies" routine that you (falsely) screamed about the ACA potentially bringing about.

    What is so difficult to understand about the fact that saying this little girl gets a lung necessarily means saying that someone else doesn't given that there are more people in need of a transplant than there are transplantable organs available?
  7. gator421
    Offline

    gator421 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,057
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +116
    Actually it's unbelievable that you don't understand the basic premise of this issue. No matter how hard you try it isn't a political issue that you can use to make another absurd accusations about people on the left or more specifically the Obama Administration. While the comments are at best insensitive. The fact remains how do you choose who lives and dies. That's the message I get from everyone except the people that are some how trying to twist this into an Obama sucks thread.
  8. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,555
    Likes Received:
    2,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,274
    Wrong, I'm advocating a change in policy. How the government is involved was set in stone way before we started debating whether they should be involved or not in the first place.
  9. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,454
    Likes Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,412
    The government is involved in that they contract with an entity to administer the waiting list and have rules requiring the policies for organ allocation to be based on sound medical research. Period.

    The policies as to how the lists are organized, eligibility, who off the lists gets a transplant which becomes available, etc., are determined by the doctors who administer the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (which is called for by federal law to be created and run by an independent not-for-profit organization). The group that administers OPTN and sets the policies is the United Network for Organ Sharing.

    You're calling for the federal government to step in, bypass all of that, and overrule the policies that have been set pursuant to that set-up by the doctors who draft UNOS's policies.
  10. mdgator05
    Online

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,294
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +453
    Are you doing so based upon scientific evidence? If so, I would love to see the research. If not, why should you be advocating for anything?
  11. 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 burden of proof lies with those that advocate letting the government pick those that live and those that die. Just like in Obama-care.
  12. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,454
    Likes Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,412
    Exactly. That's you. So meet that burden.
  13. madgator
    Offline

    madgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    8,104
    Likes Received:
    91
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +380
    The difference is that one side (the pro-obamacare crowd) as part of their public campaign painted their opposition as being heart-less, careless, and insensitive to those who were not receiving access to care.


    wasn't Obama-cares main objectives access to treatment for all?
  14. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,454
    Likes Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,412
    I didn't support Obamacare to start with. But there's also not any apparent truth to death panels.

    In this case the "pick who lives and who dies" is quite real. And there's plenty on this board who are advocating having a political appointee overrule the allocation policies that are set by doctors based upon medical research to distribute organs and keep from having to have people make that decision.
  15. mdgator05
    Online

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,294
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +453
    Obamacare does not create new organs. With no new organs, organ transplants are about the distribution of a scarce resource. By definition, this does not allow the treatment for all.
  16. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,555
    Likes Received:
    2,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,274
    Then why is Sibelius even in this loop?
  17. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,454
    Likes Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,412
    What does this have to do with Obamacare? The current iteration of the OPTN went into place in 2000, but transplant waiting lists have existed for decades because you can't just create more transplantable organs out of thin air.

    And Sebelius isn't involved in this, UNOS sets the policies, you all are trying to insist that she should be.
  18. G8trGr8t
    Offline

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    13,685
    Likes Received:
    934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +1,750
    I think the issue is the monolithic nature of the governing board. It isn't much different than the process for getting new drugs approved. too slow, too far behind, too beauracratic. What is being requested is that somebody in a position of authority examine the scientific evidence and make an executive level decision based on that evidence and not take 2 years to do so. This is the problem with most big organizations; too slow, too beauracratic, not effective in incorporating new data. To think that the science of organ transplants has not progressed since the ruels were last updated in 2000 is sheer stupidity.

    If she wanted to, she could convene a panel of physicians, hold a one day hearing to determine the viability of adult lung transplants to younger than current policy, and make a ruling and get with the committee and get it implemented within 48 hours. But that would require leadership; something that is absent from almost all forms of gubmnt these days. Go along, get along, it is the union and gubmnt way. That is what we have in our beauracracy now and it is why our whole gubmnt is so f'd up.
  19. mdgator05
    Online

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,294
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +453
    There have been scientific findings that children have worse survival probabilities than adults, which likely led to them splitting the lists to give adult organs to those with the higher survival probability and the pediatric list to those for whom the organs would not be sufficient for those with higher survival rates (adults).

    http://www.math.utah.edu/~adler/myreprints/liou_etal2005.pdf

    Again, if this is not the state of the art research, that would necessitate a change in the policy. However, there is research underlying the current policy, and I have not seen any new research to dispute this research.
  20. G8trGr8t
    Offline

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    13,685
    Likes Received:
    934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +1,750
    how can you have research if the children are never given the transplants to see what would happen?

Share This Page