Sebelius: I can’t suspend the lung-transplant rules for a dying 10-year-old

posted at 8:01 pm on June 4, 2013 by Allahpundit

Portrait of a bureaucratic nightmare: A little girl’s dying from cystic fibrosis and has three to five weeks to live unless she gets a lung transplant before then. The good news is that adult lungs can be modified for a child her age in a way that’ll save her life — except that, because she’s only 10, she’s not eligible for them. The “adult” list starts at 12; everyone younger than that goes to the children’s list, where lungs are much harder to come by. The question is, does Sebelius have the authority to suspend those age limitations and make the girl, Sarah Murnaghan, eligible for an adult transplant?

I honestly don’t know the answer. Murnaghan’s parents say Sebelius’s authority is clear; Sebelius herself claims that HHS’s lawyers have told her she can’t do it. A life hangs in the balance. On one side:

[U]nder existing policy all adults in the region with her blood type will be offered the lungs first, her parents say, even those more stable and with less severe conditions. The girl’s parents called for a change in the policy after their appeal was denied…

United Network for Organ Sharing, also a nonprofit under contract with the government, said a committee would review the policy and the public would have a chance to comment on any proposed changes. But spokeswoman Anne Paschke said any changes most likely won’t come quickly enough to benefit Sarah or others like her.

“The policy development process is not fast,” she said in an email to The Associated Press. “Organ allocation policies are created to transplant as many people as possible overall, result in the fewest waiting list deaths overall and result in the best possible survival overall. In developing policies, committees and the board weigh data, medical evidence and experience, and public input.”

On the other:

Dr. Stuart Sweet from St. Louis Children’s Hospital, who helped write the pediatric transplant system, said the case ‘tugs at his heart’ but that no system is perfect.

He said that if he changed the system for Sarah’s advantage, ‘there’s another patient, very likely an adolescent, who gets a disadvantage‘.

That’s the key question, right? If you waive the rules and bump her up the adult list, does someone else die because they’re forced to keep waiting? And the other question is, why is someone on the children’s list if a modified adult lung would save them? I don’t understand offhand using a fixed age cutoff instead of a qualitative assessment of each patient to maximize their odds of a transplant. If an adult organ would work for her and there are more adult organs to be had, that’s the list she should be on. Sebelius herself seems sufficiently troubled by this to have ordered a review of transplant protocols.

I’m flagging this for you now just because, with the attention paid to it by GOP congressmen in today’s hearing (Tom Price pressed Sebelius on it too) and with Drudge picking it up this afternoon, there’s a chance it’s going to be blow up in the media in the next few days. Now you’re caught up on the background. And no matter what happens, Ace is right that having the head of HHS telling Congress “someone lives and someone dies” is poisonous optics with the public already sour on ObamaCare. Good luck with your 2014 strategy, Democrats.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

The system is rigged. It’s too bad the girl isn’t famous…she would be pushed to the front of the line. You didn’t see Lou Reed turned down for a liver transplant.

zoyclem on June 5, 2013 at 11:34 AM

At 2:16, catch Sebelius’ expression as she says “Someone lives, and someone dies”. She looks grim as she starts her statement, but right in the middle, she has a little smile.

These guys are power junkies, and the power of life and death is the most seductive power of all. They will drone on endlessly about the burden of making such decisions, but, deep down, they love this sort of thing. It validates their belief that they are superior people, gifted with superior moral sense and intellect, and it is right and fitting that they should be entrusted with such power.

Haiku Guy on June 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM

So the complaint from the right here is simply that she isn’t showing enough compassion? She’s a political leader, not this girl’s mother and whatever tone of voice she takes in delivering a “no” isn’t going to make the parent’s pain any better. God, are you people liberals or something?

libfreeordie on June 5, 2013 at 11:41 AM

I can’t suspend the lung-transplant rules for a dying 10-year-old

-
And if it was one of the Obama girls, what would you do Kathleen?

diogenes on June 5, 2013 at 11:48 AM

libfreeordie on June 5, 2013 at 11:41 AM

That’s not what you said when 15 yr old Hadiya Pendleton (God rest her soul), got shot by a Chicago Stgreeg Gang after performing for Obama.

You and your Liberal brethern made the child a martyr for Gun Fiscation.

And what about the Newtown Children and their families whom Obama made living props out of us for his Gun Confiscation sppeches, including his post-vote temper tantrum?

Get the log out of your own eye first, perfesser.

kingsjester on June 5, 2013 at 11:48 AM

The face of evil…

So very happy to be playing God with people’s lives.. so glad, they gave themselves that power.. and the hubris of a political hack making life and death decisions based on raw numbers, rather than basic humanity..

Erase the age rules..

The list is the most critical time related cases.. nothing else..

No one can predict the future, and to let that baby die, because of an arbitrary rule.. that her survival chances aren’t as good?

The rules say I should be in a wheelchair..

That the cervical reconstruction would offer no improvement, only hoping to delay the further damage..

I can still walk.. regained my left arm.. walk, even if it’s damned hard, damned painful.. BUT..

I’M A HUMAN BEING.. AND DESERVE A SHOT AT LIFE…

.

What petty bureaucrat can stand up and say.. “nope not you.. this 28 year old surfer has a better chance of making good use of it”?

The same people who claim they do not target their political enemies, citizens.. say they play by a strict set of rules..

really?

They favor the young adults, and we all know it.. most likely to survive, more fame and fortune for the hospital, surgeons.. but the 50-70 years olds.. the under 18?

well, a good faith effort to give them a shot at life, doesn’t pay off as well for them.. so they write off those who have a lesser chance.. like they are with so many of us..

They turned down my lumbar surgery for spinal stenosis,. appeals ran out.. now, after the last two weeks, even though I CAN walk.. my right leg is beginning to fail, periodically going ice cold, and simply checking out.. no feeling, no control, a dead thing..

and once again, I have to see a doctor tomorrow.. and his compassion is not the issue.. it’s the established system, which puts numbers ahead of human decency..

If I again, beat the odds.. or if it fails badly.. I and all the others deserve the basic humanity of at least the ATTEMPT to make it better.. They cannot replace a spine,.. but I should have at least the option of taking a chance they can make it better, if only lessening the pain..

That she sits there and makes that lame statement..

It makes my heart sink, that someone so cold.. can make these decisions..

because if you won’t wave age discrimination rules based purely on percentage survival rates..

What happens when it’s YOUR turn lady?

oh… that’s right.. you need not worry, you people opted out for your own PRIVATE to gubmint officials only Cadillac plan.. didn’t you?

. damn you all for having the arrogance of a Greek God.. and the humanity of a block of ice….

mark81150 on June 5, 2013 at 12:06 PM

wrong, wrong and wrong!! the OPTN is a GOVT organization, under the HHS. medical proffessionals serve on the boards and committees, which make BUREAUCRATIC policy decisions. do you honestly believe that a person who is 11years and 364 days old is less suited for an adult lung than one who is 12 years and 2 days old?? that is NOT a medical decision, its a bureacratic one. it’s a death panel in that it doesnt allow doctors to make medical decisions. as for free markets, read some of sowell’s writings on health care and rationing.

chasdal on June 5, 2013 at 11:13 AM

You are simply not thinking rationally about this.

No matter what you put in charge of making these decisions it is going to be a beauracracy. Answer some of my questions.

1- who makes the decision here? There is one set of lungs and multiple possible recipients. What rules do you propose? Who makes the decision?

You don’t like the outcome, which is understandable, but you are not thinking rationally. Your responses are not factual or logical.

You want some benevolent “other” to be able to make decisions. Fine. Who? How? Based on what criteria? You say “medical criteria” – well the medical personnel in charge of the transplant organization made these rules, whether you keep claiming they did or not. YOu can’t change fact by assertion.

So, you want medical decisions. Whose medical decision? Who gets to decide? Using what criteria? What do we tell the other people who don’t get the lungs?

Simply raging because you don’t like the outcome doesn’t change the fact that what has been set up for organ transplant is reasonable. Perhaps (I’m not a medical professional so don’t know) the 12-year-old rule is somewhat arbitrary. My guess is that in that age range most kids can’t accept adult lungs and they decided to make a bright line rule because otherwise, each case everyone would try to say their patient is unique, etc. and it would be never-ending. Sometimes, even when it has bad results at times, a bright line rule is necessary. I don’t know if that is the case here, but this is hardly a case of pure evil gov’t that is doing evil because it is evil.

A rational, MEDICAL based system was instituted, which overall is quite reasonable and fair. But any such system is going to have flaws and bad outcomes for some. Particularly when you are talking about 1 set of lungs and 10 dying people. the 9 who don’t get the lungs are going to think the system sucks.

Again, what do you propose? Who do you think should make the decision? You can’t say her doctor because what about the doctors of all the other potential recipients? Don’t they get a say?

I’m seeing blind rage without any thought.

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 12:09 PM

@Monkeytoe
Reading your post I am reminded of Margret Thatcher and the line she said…
in regards to income levels.

“You would rather the poor be poorer, if the rich were less rich…”

Think of it this way…What is better for poor people on a list with rich people….and that list is 100 people.

They have a 1% chance of getting an organ, just like the rich.
But what if 50 rich people on the list, got what they needed elsewhere, and thus removed themselves from the list…
Now your list sits at 50 poor people…and their chances just went up.
They are now at a 4% chance of getting an organ…a jump of 400% (if my math is right)

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 10:52 AM

that’s fine if you want to open up organ sales. If you want to create a black market in organs or have poor people selling off their organs to make money. Or have nations like China killing political prisoners and other and harvesting their organs to sell to America.

that’s a moral choice. Without those things happening – a black market in stolen or otherwise procured organs and/or sick/poor people selling their organs there is no place for the 50 rich people to get their organs and get off the transplant list. So you have to agree to the sale in human parts first before you get to your argument about “letting the free market handle it”.

Again, people are not approaching this rationally. If you are advocating for a black market in organs and the buying and selling of organs around the world – then say so. Because otherwise your arguments are wholly without merit. There is no place else to go.

and, by the way, even if there was such a market your argument would fail. Organs would still be a limited supply and the rich would come in and buy them up. the poor would never get one b/c they would be priced out of the market.

Instead of a rich person having to actually be really, really sick, they could buy a new kidney or liver when they turn 50 b/c they have minor issues, etc. So, it is highly unlikely that a market in organs would result in poor people having a better chance at getting the organ. More likely, a market in organs will price poor people out of transplants altogether. (and, by the way, what if there are 50 poor people at the top of the list and the 50 rich people at the bottom buy all the organs?)

I think some conservatives confuse the desire for a small gov’t with the idea that absolutely everything can be done by the free market. That is not true and no serious thinking conservative believes that. There are spheres where gov’t action is appropriate. I believe this is one of those spheres. I don’t condone a market in organs and a market in organs.

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 12:18 PM

The liberal Grim Reaper has made her ruling. Looks like death is the verdict.

Why do libs love death panels?

SparkPlug on June 5, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Nice to see the take downs on the b.s. rage over all this coming a’plenty from outside the ‘trolls’.

Maybe these donor need lists should just be handed over to the mark81150 types. They seem to have it all figured out.
They can imagine they are serving on ‘life panels’.

verbaluce on June 5, 2013 at 12:24 PM

It makes my heart sink, that someone so cold.. can make these decisions..

mark81150 on June 5, 2013 at 12:06 PM

I don’t like to call folks names, but you gotta be a nitwit to think she is making a decision here.

verbaluce on June 5, 2013 at 12:26 PM

verbaluce on June 5, 2013 at 12:24 PM

That’s right, verby, let her go ahead and expire and “decrease the surplus “.

Ghoul.

kingsjester on June 5, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Maybe these donor need lists should just be handed over to the mark81150 types. They seem to have it all figured out.
They can imagine they are serving on ‘life panels’.

verbaluce on June 5, 2013 at 12:24 PM

While I think the rules involved in transplants are reasonable and necessary (again, I don’t know if this specific rule about a 12-year-old cut-off is necessary), can you admit that this is a preview of what Obamacare is going to do to all of health care? that every medical issue is going to end up politicized to death and that gov’t should stay out of health care as much as possible?

Or are you going to pretend that these issues are not going to come up regularly when the gov’t tries to clamp down on costs by limiting access to certain procedures, drugs, etc?

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 12:28 PM

I don’t like to call folks names, but you gotta be a nitwit to think she is making a decision here.

verbaluce on June 5, 2013 at 12:26 PM

Again, I don’t fault Sebilius in this particular case and believe that we must have transplant rules.

But, deciding not to make a decision – when you have authority to act – is still a decision.

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 12:30 PM

But, deciding not to make a decision – when you have authority to act – is still a decision.

Monkeytoe

She’s just like her boss, Obama then. Perfect fit.

JAM on June 5, 2013 at 12:36 PM

Or are you going to pretend that these issues are not going to come up regularly when the gov’t tries to clamp down on costs by limiting access to certain procedures, drugs, etc?

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 12:28 PM

These issues have always been present.
‘Imperfect’ doesn’t mean the same as ‘not better’.
What I welcome moving forward is that health insurance companies have much less latitude to deny care or treatment.

verbaluce on June 5, 2013 at 12:38 PM

These issues have always been present.
‘Imperfect’ doesn’t mean the same as ‘not better’.
What I welcome moving forward is that health insurance companies have much less latitude to deny care or treatment.

verbaluce on June 5, 2013 at 12:38 PM

Well, you are a fool then if you believe Obamacare will make anything better. Both quality of care and access to care will decrease and cost will increase. We already see all of it starting to happen.

But, no matter what results you will stick to your script. As people lose their health care, as the gov’t takes away care from people, as costs go up, you will find ways to say that it just isn’t socialized enough. If we just did “x” it would be “better”.

Whatever, you are a true believe. The gov’t is your religion, so there we are.

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 12:45 PM

These issues have always been present.

verbaluce on June 5, 2013 at 12:38 PM

And, the difference will be that these issues will now be decided based upon political criteria. That is not an improvement and the left will abuse it like they abuse power in every other way.

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 12:47 PM

I’m flummoxed to see conservatives calling this case an example of “death panels.” It has nothing to do with “death panels.”

Will there be death panels under Obamacare, that will deny people care based on age, etc.? You betcha, but but using this as an opportunity to bash Sebelius and Obamacare is a bit “much,” in this (former) Registered Nurses’ opinion.

Donor organs are greatly outnumbered by patients who need them. There is a system set up to distribute them based on several factors, and unfortunately, in many cases people DO decide “who lives or dies.” It OFTEN seems unfair, but that’s the way it is, and that’s the way it HAS BEEN for a lot of years. If you want to reform the system, then petition for that, because that’s how to change this.

JannyMae on June 5, 2013 at 12:56 PM

So the complaint from the right here is simply that she isn’t showing enough compassion? She’s a political leader, not this girl’s mother and whatever tone of voice she takes in delivering a “no” isn’t going to make the parent’s pain any better. God, are you people liberals or something?

libfreeordie on June 5, 2013 at 11:41 AM

There is no universal complaint from the right, here, and this is just another PRIME example of how you’re just here to bash conservatives, and should be ignored as the pathetic, little troll that you are. GFY

JannyMae on June 5, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Whatever, you are a true believe. The gov’t is your religion, so there we are.

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 12:45 PM

No.
But you seem to be pretty dogmatic on the issue.
The discussion/debate over this transplant issue here…you’ll admit it is no way tied to ‘Obamacare’…right?
But Obamacare is what gets attacked.
And it’s really about Obama, not Obamacare (aka Romneycare, Dolecare, GOP-pre-losing-in-2008-care).
This thread is proof of that.
So please save me the speech about ‘true believers’.

verbaluce on June 5, 2013 at 1:02 PM

@Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 12:18 PM

I never said anything about a black market….a black market is what you get when you have government ban/outlaw something…
Think drugs, prohibition, etc…
You obviously missed my post where I stated that government has a role in setting boundaries/rules for the free market, because we can’t operate it in an “extreme” case.
You also missed my post where I stated, you do not shut down the current system, and just have a free market system…..
I said you KEEP BOTH OF THEM AVAILABLE…..
As it is now, everyone is thrown into the same pool (unless they go on the black market)…..and the resources available are only those of DEAD people.

By opening up another avenue, you have access to organs of both dead and live donors. So the SUPPLY of organs has went up, to better meet DEMAND.

Only in a communist country would a person be forced by government to sell an organ…..I am guessing it could happen here in the states under current law, but I don’t think it could be forced by government.
By allowing for the selling of body parts, people can than make the choice they want to….
Remember all those gangsters when we had prohibition?? What was the quickest way to get rid of that?? By getting rid of prohibition and allow people to purchase their boos legally. Then the gangsters became irrelevant….I am sure similar things would happen if we allowed marijuana to be legal.

Again, people are not approaching this rationally. If you are advocating for a black market in organs and the buying and selling of organs around the world – then say so. Because otherwise your arguments are wholly without merit. There is no place else to go.

I am not advocating a black market…you are saying I am. I am saying let people decide. If anything we have a black market in body parts now…..
So I am approaching the issue rationally….you are misconstruing what I am saying.

and, by the way, even if there was such a market your argument would fail. Organs would still be a limited supply and the rich would come in and buy them up. the poor would never get one b/c they would be priced out of the market.

Again, see my point earlier…..I am not saying shut down current system, and start up free market one. I am saying let both run in tandem.
By your thought, we should shut down Government provided housing, because we have a private housing market…..
You are not reading and comprehending what I am saying.

Instead of a rich person having to actually be really, really sick, they could buy a new kidney or liver when they turn 50 b/c they have minor issues, etc. So, it is highly unlikely that a market in organs would result in poor people having a better chance at getting the organ. More likely, a market in organs will price poor people out of transplants altogether. (and, by the way, what if there are 50 poor people at the top of the list and the 50 rich people at the bottom buy all the organs?)

So what is it to you if they do that???
That kidney from the potential seller is not available to the poor person on the waiting list til the guy dies…..so what’s your point??
The poor people are going to be more screwed under the current system because as it is now, THEY ARE IN THE SAME POOL AS IS THE RICH PERSON…..
They are all waiting on the same dead people to provide organs.

And I don’t get the point of your last sentence….The rich people will not buy organs from dead people that have their organs going to those on the waiting list. The idea is to let living healthy people divest themselves of an organ if they so choose.

Please, read my previous posts and try to comprehend this…..
I am looking at two sources of SUPPLY to help meet DEMAND, vs. the current situation where there is only one source of SUPPLY to meet DEMAND.

I think some conservatives confuse the desire for a small gov’t with the idea that absolutely everything can be done by the free market. That is not true and no serious thinking conservative believes that. There are spheres where gov’t action is appropriate. I believe this is one of those spheres. I don’t condone a market in organs and a market in organs.

I have stated the same earlier, I have never once stated all things can be done by the private sector. Building roads, having a military…things of that nature, yes….Government is the answer.

Something like this cannot be left to government to decide…then we get things like what is happening with this little girl, and it will only get worse.

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 1:31 PM

The discussion/debate over this transplant issue here…you’ll admit it is no way tied to ‘Obamacare’…right?
But Obamacare is what gets attacked.
And it’s really about Obama, not Obamacare (aka Romneycare, Dolecare, GOP-pre-losing-in-2008-care).
This thread is proof of that.
So please save me the speech about ‘true believers’.

verbaluce on June 5, 2013 at 1:02 PM

Agreed, that *right now* the transplant list and associated issues aren’t tied to Obamacare.

However….

It is the perfect example of what happens when you have a scarce resource, and more people needing/wanting it than is available. Under Obamacare, as costs go up, and and they keep cutting, we will see lots of things become scarce, partly because there will be no incentive for medical innovation (why do you think the US leads in that area? It’s not that we’re just more altruistic; we have more money!) and also because there will be less of the things we already have, again because of the lack of funds (and that includes fewer doctors). As we get less and less, a system of allocation will have to be developed, and all you have to do is read the Lancet Op-Ed which Ezekiel Emanuel co-authored to know how that’s going to work. Basically, if there isn’t a chance of you being able to work long enough to pay the system back in taxes, you won’t get the care you need. If you are over 50, you’ve had most of your “whole life” already, so you don’t get the transplant (that you’d live another 25 years, doesn’t matter, you won’t be paying taxes, though that is never explicitly stated). If you are under 15, and/or your condition is likely to leave you without what some bureaucrat defines as adequate quality of life (which seems to mean the ability to work), you won’t get the treatment either.

So this case isn’t Obamacare, but it’s an example of what we will begin to see far too often if Obamacare is fully implemented.

LibraryGryffon on June 5, 2013 at 1:42 PM

How come I do not see a video of this woman pushing a wheelchair with Granny over the cliff like I saw with Ryan!!!

logicman_1998 on June 5, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 12:09 PM

wow, you misconstrue everything i have posted. i am for a free market, not some “benevolent other” as you refer to. let the demand determine the price. the system we currently have is your “benevolent other”. you have trusted govt to devise a system based on “fairness”. it aint working and a 10yo girl will die because of it. under a free market sure, she might die anyway but not because a committee decided on a magical dividing line between adult and child in regard to lung transplants.

chasdal on June 5, 2013 at 2:08 PM

What a Complete Zero!
She can’t even fake empathy.

Another Drew on June 5, 2013 at 2:11 PM

I can’t suspend the lung-transplant rules for a dying 10-year-old

-
And if it was one of the Obama girls, what would you do Kathleen?

diogenes on June 5, 2013 at 11:48 AM

Welcome to socialized medicine. The elites get the best and the rest wait in line, usually dying or getting sicker.

kim roy on June 5, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 12:18 PM

this post and others just leave me scratching my head. you seem to think that this isnt a case of gov’t interference. plus you seem to have seen too many movies. do you think rich people will buy organs and just store them in jars in a vault on the chance they might need them? you’re too irrational to discuss this w/ any further. get grounded and realize life isnt some dystopian futuristic movie plot.

chasdal on June 5, 2013 at 2:14 PM

There goes the “if we can save just one life, it would be worth it” argument.

BobMbx on June 5, 2013 at 2:18 PM

wow, you misconstrue everything i have posted. i am for a free market, not some “benevolent other” as you refer to. let the demand determine the price. the system we currently have is your “benevolent other”. you have trusted govt to devise a system based on “fairness”. it aint working and a 10yo girl will die because of it. under a free market sure, she might die anyway but not because a committee decided on a magical dividing line between adult and child in regard to lung transplants.

chasdal on June 5, 2013 at 2:08 PM

So, you want a market for bodily organs?

Good to know. I have misconstrued nothing you stated. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you did not understand what you were proposing – the sale of human organs to the highest bidder.

Now it is clear that is exactly what you are proposing.

Your libertarian belief in the free market is great. But I prefer society to have some values and morals.

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 2:49 PM

you seem to think that this isnt a case of gov’t interference. plus you seem to have seen too many movies. do you think rich people will buy organs and just store them in jars in a vault on the chance they might need them? you’re too irrational to discuss this w/ any further. get grounded and realize life isnt some dystopian futuristic movie plot.

chasdal on June 5, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Please.

I stated that the organ will be used right away. You are irrational. Answer me – who do you propose makes the decision. YOu won’t answer because you can’t. You can’t answer because you are being completely illogical.

If you read my comments, I full admit the agency involved is gov’t authorized. The people creating the rules in the agency, however, are medical. That you can’t understand that is troubling.

Just answer the question I have asked repeatedly to show you have above grade 1 reading comprehension – what do you propose? Who makes the decision. Again, it can’t be her doctor because other potential recipients also have doctors that have just as valid a claim. So who?

You’ve made it clear you don’t want it to be the gov’t or anyone in any way associate with the government. So who do you propose decides who gets the lungs?

Or do you continue to believe in this utopia where organs are growing on trees for all to come and pick if just the gov’t would get out of the way?

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 2:53 PM

So the complaint from the right here is simply that she isn’t showing enough compassion? She’s a political leader, not this girl’s mother and whatever tone of voice she takes in delivering a “no” isn’t going to make the parent’s pain any better. God, are you people liberals or something?

libfreeordie on June 5, 2013 at 11:41 AM

I’m not sure if you’re being ironic or do not see the irony in your own response.

It puts the lie to the argument about “good government” compassion. And it is a starkly mortal example of the “death panel” charge writ large. “Someone lives, and someone dies”. And the government decides who that is.

The claim is that the government is better equipped to make more peoples’ lives better than if all 300 million of us tackled the problems ourselves. PROVE IT.

The Schaef on June 5, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Something like this cannot be left to government to decide…then we get things like what is happening with this little girl, and it will only get worse.

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 1:31 PM

The poor people are going to be more screwed under the current system because as it is now, THEY ARE IN THE SAME POOL AS IS THE RICH PERSON…..
They are all waiting on the same dead people to provide organs.

And I don’t get the point of your last sentence….The rich people will not buy organs from dead people that have their organs going to those on the waiting list. The idea is to let living healthy people divest themselves of an organ if they so choose.

Wow. YOu don’t understand economics or scarcity at all. There is a finite amount of organs. Right now, a poor person has just as good of a chance as a rich person to get an organ (when the person dies – yes).

You do realize that a LOT of people die each year waiting for a donor organ? You apparently do not. You think there is an abundance of organs.

Well, what happens is that when an organ becomes available, it is matched to see which recipients can actually take it, then the rules as to who is 1st in line are used. That is the current sytem.

Under your system, only people with significant money will get the organ. Everyone else will have 0% chance of EVER getting an organ.

You may be fine with that system. I am not.

I am looking at two sources of SUPPLY to help meet DEMAND, vs. the current situation where there is only one source of SUPPLY to meet DEMAND.

Yes? really? Where is this second source? Where is this untapped source of lungs that nobody is currently using? You really do not know what you are talking about.

You are advocating the buying and selling of human organs. How you don’t see that as troubling is odd. You talk around it “I’m going to open a second market” – why don’t you just honestly propose it. Say “I want a free market for the sale and purchase of human organs”. How you believe that will lead to anything good is, strange.

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Only in a communist country would a person be forced by government to sell an organ…..I am guessing it could happen here in the states under current law, but I don’t think it could be forced by government.
By allowing for the selling of body parts, people can than make the choice they want to….

So, what – you think we will not import organs? You think that rich people won’t be buying Chinese prisoner’s lungs?

A free market in human organs will lead to far more evil than what you (wrongly) think has happened under the current system.

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 3:03 PM

What I welcome moving forward is that health insurance companies have much less latitude to deny care or treatment.

verbaluce on June 5, 2013 at 12:38 PM

And instead, THE GOVERNMENT has the latitude to deny care or treatment.

And the best part is, if I don’t like the contract with my health insurance company, I can leave. And the cost of breaking my contract is a termination of services. If I don’t like the contract imposed on me BY the government, there is no other recourse, and the cost of breaking my contract is JAIL.

Yes, I can see why someone might look forward to having them in charge of more things. And besides, just look how efficient and above reproach the IRS is! What could go wrong?

The Schaef on June 5, 2013 at 3:05 PM

But you seem to be pretty dogmatic on the issue.
The discussion/debate over this transplant issue here…you’ll admit it is no way tied to ‘Obamacare’…right?
But Obamacare is what gets attacked.
And it’s really about Obama, not Obamacare (aka Romneycare, Dolecare, GOP-pre-losing-in-2008-care).
This thread is proof of that.
So please save me the speech about ‘true believers’.

verbaluce on June 5, 2013 at 1:02 PM

I am not surprised you don’t understand, considering I’ve seen your comments and I would guess you have about a 10th grade education, but how do you have heard of analogies right? And, comparing an issue having to do with health care to an issue having to do with health care can be pretty analogous, don’t you think? Or is that still too complicated for you.

You are a leftist of the worst stripe, so you will always believe in Obamacare. You are a true believe? Why do you deny it?

I love how you say the GOP lost it in 2008. That was said in 2006, 2004, 2002, 2000, 1998, 1996, and on and on. You lefties never get tired of playing the exact same song.

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Something like this cannot be left to government to decide…then we get things like what is happening with this little girl, and it will only get worse.

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 1:31 PM

You do realize that with organs there is always a winner and multiple losers? it is not a question of the lungs being thrown away or given to someone who doesn’t need them? That if the girl gets the lungs, some other people will die because they did not get the lungs?

Organs, unlike most things in the market, are a zero-sum game. Someone wins and others lose. there is no way around that (under current medical knowledge). So, someone has to decide.

You want money to decide. That is fine. but as I said in a previous comment, you are pretending that money will somehow be better or fairer than the current system which is based on need. Perhaps it is, if you believe that a market in human organs is morally acceptable. I do not.

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 3:11 PM

I think what he meant is that Republicans were somehow all supportive of this idea until they lost the 2008 election, and then were suddenly against it.

Of course, doing so ignores the facts: that it was recommended by one think tank but opposed by several others, was implemented by Romney in a blue state but nowhere else, and was never among the list of alternatives presented when Obama was pursuing the “public option”. Never let facts get in the way of hanging an albatross around everyone you disagree with, right?

The Schaef on June 5, 2013 at 3:11 PM

You are advocating the buying and selling of human organs. How you don’t see that as troubling is odd. You talk around it “I’m going to open a second market” – why don’t you just honestly propose it. Say “I want a free market for the sale and purchase of human organs”. How you believe that will lead to anything good is, strange.

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 3:02 PM

How is that troubling?
if a person is given the choice to sell an organ to someone who needs it?
What if a father has a chance to sell his kidney that then allows him to have money to put his children through college?

Yes, I do want a market for living people to decide if they wish too, to sell their organs to benefit themselves and their family as well as the person who needs the organ.

The current system only benefits one person, and that is whoever is getting the organ.
The person that died, that the organ was harvested from, receives no benefit nor does the persons surviving family.

What is wrong with a person (or their family) being compensated for something, since another person was given an extended lease on life.

With our current system you are encouraging a black market, you are encouraging rich people to look for organs overseas…..where people can be forced to give up an organ without benefit.

And yes, I think I do understand economics….your whole view is exactly what Margret Thatcher said, “You are fine with the poor being poorer, as long as the rich are less rich”…..

Wow. YOu don’t understand economics or scarcity at all. There is a finite amount of organs. Right now, a poor person has just as good of a chance as a rich person to get an organ (when the person dies – yes).

The poor person would get a better chance at getting an organ under my idea, because the rich person has done went off and acquired his organ from a living person, not waiting on a dead person to donate one.
People on current waiting lists HAVE TO WAIT FOR A DEAD PERSON to get ANY organs.
And as I noted earlier, I am a “potential” donor…says so I am one on my drivers license….
Right now I can donate organs if I were to die.
But what if somewhere down the road, I contract some disease?
Hep-C, Aids, rabies, etc….
At that point, no one will use my organs…..I am good to no one then when I die.
But if I can choose right now to sell an organ, than I can benefit someone with a healthy organ, as well as benefit my family.

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Of course, doing so ignores the facts: that it was recommended by one think tank but opposed by several others, was implemented by Romney in a blue state but nowhere else, and was never among the list of alternatives presented when Obama was pursuing the “public option”. Never let facts get in the way of hanging an albatross around everyone you disagree with, right?

The Schaef on June 5, 2013 at 3:11 PM

A lefty never acknowledges facts. Otherwise, how could they be a lefty?

the constant dishonesty of everyone and anyone on the left fails to surprise me anymore, but I always wonder – since they know they are constantly lying, doesn’t that ever lead them to the conclusion that they must be wrong? That if they were right in their beliefs, they would not have to lie about every single thing? That never seems to phase them though. People like verbulace will lie multiple times a day on multiple threads and it never seems to bother them. Oh well, it’s how they are wired I suppose.

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 3:18 PM

The poor person would get a better chance at getting an organ under my idea, because the rich person has done went off and acquired his organ from a living person, not waiting on a dead person to donate one.
People on current waiting lists HAVE TO WAIT FOR A DEAD PERSON to get ANY organs.
And as I noted earlier, I am a “potential” donor…says so I am one on my drivers license….
Right now I can donate organs if I were to die.
But what if somewhere down the road, I contract some disease?
Hep-C, Aids, rabies, etc….
At that point, no one will use my organs…..I am good to no one then when I die.
But if I can choose right now to sell an organ, than I can benefit someone with a healthy organ, as well as benefit my family.

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Really, what live person is donating their lungs? Their liver?

You can donate one kidney and live. You can’t donate your heart, your lungs, or your liver. So your argument is absolute and utter nonsense, except perhaps for kidneys. Of course, this entire thread is talking about lungs.

I don’t think you have given this much thought.

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 3:20 PM

@Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Open up the market and see….I am sure people will sign up.

Give them the choice.
I thought the left was all about Choice?

As noted by others, you can donate lungs…..it just doesn’t have a high success rate…..but a person can choose to take the chance.

And those very same people when they die, can still donate their remaining organs all they want.

So exactly where is the problem with a Free Market for organs?

You still get what you want….

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 3:23 PM

if a person is given the choice to sell an organ to someone who needs it?
What if a father has a chance to sell his kidney that then allows him to have money to put his children through college?

Yes, I do want a market for living people to decide if they wish too, to sell their organs to benefit themselves and their family as well as the person who needs the organ.

Once again, the only organ a living person can donate is the kidney. Most other organs you can’t live without. So you are being a little dishonest from the get-go.

Next, if you don’t see a problem with trafficking in human organs, I don’t see the point in arguing about it. there is a reason that almost nobody, anywhere, proposes this as a good idea. I’ll leave it at that.

And yes, I think I do understand economics….your whole view is exactly what Margret Thatcher said, “You are fine with the poor being poorer, as long as the rich are less rich”…..

Wow, you know one Thatcher quote so you keep throwing it out there hoping it’ll stick. that quote does not apply to every situation and Thatcher never supported and never would have supported trafficking in human organs. Not every single thing is a free-market issue. This is one that isn’t.

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 3:24 PM

@Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 3:24 PM
So let people sell the organs they can, if they so choose.

You do like Choice, right?

Yeah, what I propose is trafficking…..

So I guess any time I go to the store, I am trafficking merchandise…

It is not trafficking if it is an open market place, with willing participants….

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Gee, do you folks think the HHS will treat conservatives like the IRS does? or the BATF?

Just asking.

How are you going to like waiting for three years for Chemo?

Go ahead, tell me it wont happen.

dogsoldier on June 5, 2013 at 3:28 PM

I thought the left was all about Choice?

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 3:23 PM

If you search for me on this site or at Ace’s you will see that I am not a lefty. I haven’t seen you before on the site, but perhaps we frequent different threads. I would guess I am further to the right than you.

Being against the trafficking of human organs does not make one a lefty.

There are a myriad of moral reasons for opposing the trafficking of human organs, but that is not an argument I’m in the mood for right now. You see nothing wrong with it, I have seen no evidence of widespread support on the right for anything even close to the idea of a free-market for human organs.

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 3:28 PM

You are more to the right than I?
hmm…..color me shocked on that statement….

Please explain to me your definition of “trafficking”

And how is the current donor system setup, not trafficking human organs?

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 3:31 PM

It is not trafficking if it is an open market place, with willing participants….

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 3:28 PM

I’m using trafficking as shorthand for the purchase and sale of human organs. It would obviously not be illegal if it was legal.

The bottom line to our argument appears to be that I believe human organ trafficking would be immoral and lead to greater evil (people being killed for organs, particularly in countries like China) than it would do good. You obviously don’t believe that.

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 3:35 PM

The bottom line to our argument appears to be that I believe human organ trafficking would be immoral and lead to greater evil (people being killed for organs, particularly in countries like China) than it would do good. You obviously don’t believe that.

You don’t think this is not happening now??

Sex trafficking is illegal, but how rampant is that around the world?
Here and overseas.
What happened during prohibition??
And then what happened when prohibition ended??

Why can’t a person giving up the organ benefit themselves or their family in the same way that the person receiving the organ is benefited?

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 3:37 PM

you are more to the right than I?
hmm…..color me shocked on that statement….

Whatever. Read my comments on many, many, many threads on Hotair over the last 10 years. Today is the first day I’ve seen you here. Perhaps we just missed one another?

Please explain to me your definition of “trafficking”

And how is the current donor system setup, not trafficking human organs?

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 3:31 PM

I did not intend to use trafficking as pejorative. I was trying to use it as shorthand for “buying and selling organs” so I did not have to write that out each time. Upon reflection, it did not work.

However, under that definition (i.e., “buying and selling”) the current system is not trafficking,as the organs are not being bought or sold. they are being donated.

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Also based on what you said….
It is immoral for a living person to give up an organ out of choice….

But it is not immoral for an organ to be harvested from a dead person and given to another?

That about right?

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Whatever. Read my comments on many, many, many threads on Hotair over the last 10 years. Today is the first day I’ve seen you here. Perhaps we just missed one another?

I have not been registered for 10 years…more like a year for me.
But I don’t often post, because I would be preaching to the Amen choir….
So I don’t post often.

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 3:40 PM

you don’t think this is not happening now??

Sex trafficking is illegal, but how rampant is that around the world?

To the extent it is happening now, it would only increase with an open market.

Why can’t a person giving up the organ benefit themselves or their family in the same way that the person receiving the organ is benefited?

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Well, the reality is that it would likely price the vast majority of people out of being able to get the benefit. But again, the reason is it is immoral to buy and sell humans or their parts. You obviously disagree with that and on questions of morality, people can seldom change each others minds, so not sure it is worth trying.

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 3:41 PM

Also based on what you said….
It is immoral for a living person to give up an organ out of choice….

But it is not immoral for an organ to be harvested from a dead person and given to another?

That about right?

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 3:39 PM

No – it is immoral to sell the organs.

A living person can donate an organ just as a dead person can.

Putting a price on organs means putting a price on human life and on down that path . . . But, as I said in my last comment, morality is an area where people seldom convert one another, and I am not particularly good in that arena, so I think that about ends our debate.

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 3:44 PM

So when Alonzo Mourning was given a kidney by one of his family members to prolong his NBA career….that was immoral.
And he would have been better served in your eyes (A rich NBA player)go on a waiting list and wait for a kidney along with poor people???

You didn’t answer my questions earlier about prohibition….

What evidence do you base your assumption on the fact that an open market would increase human trafficking?

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 3:44 PM

But I don’t often post, because I would be preaching to the Amen choir….
So I don’t post often.

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 3:40 PM

that’s why I like to pick fights. Makes it more interesting.

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 3:45 PM

@Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 3:44 PM

We all put a price on human life….sorry to inform you.
It may suck, but that is how it goes.

My idea I think would be the most “fair”….
Because it opens up two sources for organs.

What makes organs so sacred in your eyes?

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 3:46 PM

You didn’t answer my questions earlier about prohibition….

What evidence do you base your assumption on the fact that an open market would increase human trafficking?

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 3:44 PM

What was the prohibition question? whether more people drank when it ended than before it ended? Whether the black market in alcohol cleared up?

The black market for alcohol cleared up after prohibition, but that is because legal alcohol was plentiful and cheap, so there was no need for a black market. Black markets happen when goods are either a) illegal or b) very scarce with price controls and the like.

Not sure that that has to do with organs. Is it your contention that organs will become cheap and plentiful for whoever needs them once organ sales are legalized?

As to increase in human trafficking – my point is that when it becomes legal for people in the U.S. to purchase an organ, there will be a rush to supply that need. Because most organs can only be harvested on the death of the donor, what do you think will happen?

So when Alonzo Mourning was given a kidney by one of his family members to prolong his NBA career….that was immoral.

No. Again, it is the sale of organs that is immoral, not the donation of an organ.

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Morticia Sibeleius has no trouble granting waivers to her union supporters but has trouble actually helping a patient.

Why didn’t she quote her boss and say “Take the pain pill”?

virgo on June 5, 2013 at 3:50 PM

What makes organs so sacred in your eyes?

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Human organs are different than other commodities because a human being usually has to die to get the organ.

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 3:52 PM

I guess I am trying to understand your premise, and maybe re-think mine….
I am a christian so I think abortions are immoral, since over 95% of them have nothing to do with rape, incest or the mother’s health.
Because in abortion, one entity has no rights, or freedoms, and are the weakest among us. And the result is they are thrown on the scrap-heap of US statistics.

If we did allow for a market place for organs to be bought and sold, I think that would actually benefit people in other countries. Because we cannot control what other countries and government do to their citizens….
So if someone here can purchase an organ from a poor Chinese person, why not allow that?
Then they would have money to better themselves…

I mean there are a few people in my church who have adopted Chinese girls…I would say that is a “moral” thing to do…
Left to live in China they would have been aborted or treated like garbage, they have no respect for girls in that country.

I hear your point on views of morality between people being different….but I honestly don’t see how that applies when a person is given a choice and are not forced.

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 3:54 PM

My idea I think would be the most “fair”….
Because it opens up two sources for organs.

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 3:46 PM

I’m not sure I understand what you believe to be the 2 sources of organs? Once organs can be sold, people would put their organs on the market to sell. What is the other source?

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 3:52 PM

Ok…
But why does someone being at room temperature make it ok
While someone at 98.6 become immoral?

Especially if the person giving up the organ can choose to or not to.

I mean we have reports of certain organs being able to be grown on pigs and then transplanted onto humans…..
Is that immoral?

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 3:54 PM

And those who die, and have opted to be organ donors.

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 3:59 PM

You also have the pancreas and liver as options.

I think those two can re-grow themselves from a small portion being cut-off

But I could be wrong

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 4:02 PM

And those who die, and have opted to be organ donors.

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Wouldn’t they put their organs on the market rather than donating them freely?

If the market exists, I don’t see people giving organs away for free.

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 4:10 PM

No. Again, it is the sale of organs that is immoral, not the donation of an organ.

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 3:50 PM

You don’t think Alonzo paid this man for his kidney??
Seriously??

But to get to the issue of “putting a price on human life” as you stated…
We do that when people here adopt children from China (typically girls)….
This process is not cheap, it costs Tens of thousands of dollars to be able to adopt a child….
So I am sure you are fine with people here adopting some kid from china, and giving them a better shot at life.
How is that ok, “trafficking” a WHOLE human being….vs. the same scenario of doing a body part, that is willingly given up.

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Ok…
But why does someone being at room temperature make it ok
While someone at 98.6 become immoral?

Especially if the person giving up the organ can choose to or not to.

I mean we have reports of certain organs being able to be grown on pigs and then transplanted onto humans…..
Is that immoral?

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 3:58 PM

It is immoral to sell all organs, whether the person is living or dead, because creating a market for organs will incentive people to kill.

If we lived in a world where there were not unscrupulous gov’ts, or doctors, or whatever (in other words, in a world without sin), then there would be no problem in having an organs market.

But, by monetizing human organs (and they would likely be sold at high prices, making them a valuable commodity), you create incentives for people to go to extreme lengths to harvest them.

the potential risks are too significant. there are other, secondary moral considerations, but that is the main one.

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 4:17 PM

@Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 4:10 PM

well here we have some options…
1) Charities could be setup to help people purchase the organs (same can be done with a living persons donation). They do this for cancer patients.
and other diseases.
2) Government grants can be handed out to organizations to assist with this.
3) People like you, out of the goodness of their hearts, can will their organs to the waiting list, and not be sold.

I am certain I can think of more options

You could set up the law so that once dead, organs can’t be sold…..this would be my least favorite option….

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 4:19 PM

But why does someone being at room temperature make it ok
While someone at 98.6 become immoral?

Especially if the person giving up the organ can choose to or not to.

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 3:58 PM

He has mentioned several times that he does not have a moral barrier to a person giving up their organs. The issue is selling them.

You don’t think Alonzo paid this man for his kidney??
Seriously??

You do realize “this man” was his own cousin, right?

If we did allow for a market place for organs to be bought and sold, I think that would actually benefit people in other countries.

Based on this, what is your position on embryonic stem cell research?

The Schaef on June 5, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Fun talking with you mate.

I am heading out, but I Have enjoyed an enlightened debate.

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 4:20 PM

@The Schaef on June 5, 2013 at 4:19 PM

And you don’t think he paid his cousin?

Regarding embryonic research.
Many reports i have read on the issue, say they don’t offer the Divine Mana people have made it out to be.

Some Germans did some research on the issue, and they found stem cells taken from other places….out of adults….did yielded better results

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 4:22 PM

You don’t think Alonzo paid this man for his kidney??
Seriously??

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 4:13 PM

If he did it is immoral. I’m sure there are other people out there who have paid for organs. What is your argument, that because people do it, it must be moral?

But to get to the issue of “putting a price on human life” as you stated…
We do that when people here adopt children from China (typically girls)….
This process is not cheap, it costs Tens of thousands of dollars to be able to adopt a child….
So I am sure you are fine with people here adopting some kid from china, and giving them a better shot at life.

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 4:13 PM

If you are equating adoption with purchasing a child, then I don’t know what to say. If that is your mindset, then yes, all human life has been priced out and we should legalize everything dealing with buying and selling the human body.

What if a very rich man with a sadist/torture fetish offered to pay me $1,000,000 if he could torture me and cut off one of my legs. He would have a doctor on site to make sure I lived through the experience. Should that be legal?

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 4:22 PM

You could set up the law so that once dead, organs can’t be sold…..this would be my least favorite option….

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Nearly all those organs can’t be sold when you’re ALIVE. That’s the POINT.

And by the way, you absolutely CANNOT survive without your liver. Even with life support doing all your body’s waste handling, you’d only get by for a short while.

The Schaef on June 5, 2013 at 4:23 PM

And you don’t think he paid his cousin?

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 4:22 PM

I have no information that he paid his cousin, so I think nothing that is not in evidence. Do you have any to present or are you simply making a blind, cynical accusation?

Regarding embryonic research…

I’m not talking about the (alleged) effectiveness. I’m asking about your stance on the practice from a moral standpoint, given your opposition to abortion.

The Schaef on June 5, 2013 at 4:25 PM

I am heading out, but I Have enjoyed an enlightened debate.

MityMaxx on June 5, 2013 at 4:20 PM

At the end of the day, if I trusted humanity I would agree with you on having an organ market.

I think much of humanity is too depraved and buying/selling organs will lead to all kinds of horrors.

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Remember the good old days?

“The Secretary shall determine…”
“The Secretary shall determine…”
“The Secretary shall determine…”
“The Secretary shall determine…”

Now suddenly, the Secretary has no power to determine.

The Schaef on June 5, 2013 at 4:33 PM

Good news, maybe.

22044 on June 5, 2013 at 6:10 PM

Death panels for thee, but not for me!
/Dinosaur Democrat Congress

Decoski on June 5, 2013 at 7:03 PM

The parents might belong to the tea party?

duncantwn on June 5, 2013 at 10:03 PM

Just as a point of information, you CAN donate part of your liver while alive.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/liver-transplant/living-donor-liver-transplant.html

Cadaver livers can in certain circumstances be split for implanting into two recipients.

LibraryGryffon on June 5, 2013 at 11:59 PM

Death Panels.

That Sarah Palin is a real doofus, isn’t she?

KMC1 on June 6, 2013 at 2:17 AM

Just as a point of information, you CAN donate part of your liver while alive.

LibraryGryffon on June 5, 2013 at 11:59 PM

A part, yes, but the poster was suggesting you could just rip the thing out in total. You can’t.

And in an open organ market, the average citizen isn’t going to know how much of his organ is “safe” to sell, or will try and do it over and over and over again, like giving blood.

The Schaef on June 6, 2013 at 9:30 AM

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Monkeytoe on June 5, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Well put.

GWB on June 6, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Multi-millionaires, the families of high government officials, the famous and the Hollywood elite will get the timely transplants.

The rest of you must take a number and wait until you are called.

Wallythedog on June 6, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Only applies when it’s a relative, friend or family of friends. The elite circle I allowed such luxuries. The rest “Let them eat cake”

RdLake on June 6, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4