On the news this morning they said that there are other kids in the same hospital on the children's lung list - so I am guessing that the judge's ruling does not cover those kids.

Also, I wonder where on the list for adult lungs she will be?

Wish the article had more details.

Anyway, I hope they are able to find lungs for her in time.

Very sad situation.

I believe I read that only older children can medically receive adults lungs. The other children may be too small.

The girl in the OP is 10 - and the other kids they mentioned on the news this morning are under 12 years old.

but her doctors are saying that at 10 this girl is large enough for the adult lung and therefore the rule should be changed to be based on medical appropriateness/size rather than a strict age limit, if I am understanding correctly. Even if the rule changed an adult lung but not work for a much smaller child.

It seems wrong to me that most of the people on the list are in the AARP years, and they'd deny one to a 10 year old.

underlying disease. Average life expectancy for someone in her condition is four years after transplant.

A Republican nominated judge rules against a decision made by Obama admin. Right wing media already seung Sarah as the first death panel victim.

Our this is just another opportunity to oppose EVERYTHING this admin does. If Sibelius chose to allow Sarah to be on the list they would complain about the OTHER people who need lungs.

Damned if you do, damned of you don't.

.... now that there is a president, rich people may be able to buy a judge?

Naw, they wouldn't do that.

made no decision, other than to follow the guidelines that have been in place for years. Guidelines set up by medical experts, not bureaucrats.

1) Who now doesn't get a lung?
2) What about other kids that need a transplant?

That's the problem. You change the rules to save the girl, but you might kill someone else.

If they really are maintaining that she is just as likely to do well as an adult receiving a lung.

A one-time exception is unfair to a whole lot of people.

Not a change in rule. The actual decision will be made later as the result of court testimony.

It's better that a judge do this than an HHS Secretary, but it's not permanent either.

I'm not going to second-guess the judge because I don't know what he has in front of him that caused him to issue the injunction.

I'm not going to blame the family because they are just advocating for their child, as they have the right and duty to do.

But there are hosts of rules as to who does and doesn't get a transplant, and I would be appalled if all these rules ever got litigated. So I don't know what to think.

btw, why is the commerce in pieces
of dead people, a federal issue?