Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The committee that set transplant rules were doctors.
The girls personal doctor pushed for her to get on the list, just like most doctors push for their patient.
That doesn't change the fact that the guidelines were put in place for a reason, and now 2 sets of lungs that should have gone to people with a better survival possibility have now gone to a child with an aggressive disease that will kill her with or without transplants.
And all because a judge felt that they knew better than the doctors that put the protocol in place.
Well said. The worst part of this sad story is that it sets a terrible precedent. These rules are in place to take emotion and favoritism out of the equation, the criteria looks at disease process, survivability, and physiological eligibility. How sad the story does not come into play, and nor should it. The submissions are not even accompanied by identifying data.
But you are for judges over ruling the will of the people.
If the will of the people is unconstitutional, then yes, I am.
If the will of the people was to ban all guns, I would be perfectly fine with judges over ruling them.
If the will of the people was to enslave others, I would be fine with judges over ruling them.
If the will of the people is to deny citizens civil rights, I'm fine with judges over ruling them.
Well the government are the ones who set the mandate on the age to get lungs. The doctors wanted them to ease it for her.
Her doctors disagreed with the doctors who wrote the guidelines. Her doctors lobbied for a government official - a judge - to push their agenda through. And as is clearly evidenced by this sad outcome, her doctors were wrong.
Last edited by Dane_in_LA; 06-28-2013 at 03:40 PM..
Ah - you are another one who has reconsidered their position on Roe v. Wade, and not only that, you also apparently oppose Obamacare.
Welcome to the light, brother(or sister)!
How does Roe V Wade equal government making medical decisions? If anything it's the opposite, it allowed women to make their own decisions. How does "Obamacare" enable government to make medical decisons? Having to buy health care isn't a medical decision. My state requires me to buy auto insurance in order to drive, what's so different about this?
Her doctors disagreed with the doctors who wrote the guidelines. Her doctors lobbied for a government official - a judge - to push their agenda through. And as is clearly evidenced by this sad outcome, her doctors were wrong.
Her doctors were wrong? You loons just got done arguing that doctors should have the final say? I guess you are playing the usual both sides of the coin liberal game. What happened to "anything to save a child" mantra you loons were squealing about when you wanted to take all our guns away.
That is why it ticked me off so much when the idiots politicized this whole event. MAYBE the standards are in place for very good reasons????
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.