Judge rules for Sarah after parents file lawsuit in Pa. lung transplan
Wednesday, June 5, 2013, 5:08 PM
PHILADELPHIA (AP) - A dying 10-year-old girl can move up the adult waiting list for a lung transplant after a federal judge intervened in her case Wednesday, a move questioned by a renowned medical ethicist.
U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson suspended an age factor in the nation's transplant rules for 10 days for Sarah Murnaghan because of the severity of her condition.
The girl's family believes that is enough time to find a match. Sarah has been hospitalized at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia for three months with end-stage cystic fibrosis.
"We are beyond thrilled," Janet Murnaghan, the girl's mother, told The Associated Press, while adding, "Obviously we still need a match."
The Newtown Square family filed suit Wednesday to challenge organ transplant rules that say children under age 12 must wait for pediatric lungs to become available, or wait at the end of the adult list, which included adults who aren't as critically ill. The Murnaghans say pediatric lungs are rarely donated, so they believe older children should have equal access to the adult donations.
Nationwide, about 1,700 people are on the waiting list for a lung transplant, including 31 children under age 11, according to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network.
Experts, though, questioned Baylson's decision on both medical and ethical grounds.
Lung transplants are the most difficult of organ transplants, and children fare worse than adults, which is one reason for the existing policy, said Dr. Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at New York University Langone Medical Center.
He called it troubling, and perhaps precedent-setting, for a judge to overrule that medical judgment, and predicted a run to the courthouse by patients who don't like their place on the waiting list.
"I'm not sure I want judges or congressmen or bureaucrats trying to decide what to do with organs at the bedside," Caplan said.
On Tuesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius declined to intervene in the case, despite urgent pleas from several congressmen from Pennsylvania. She said there were three other children at Children's Hospital alone in the same condition.
Sebelius has called for a review of pediatric transplant policies amid the higher death rates for pediatric patients, but the Murnaghans say Sarah doesn't have time for that.
Sarah's doctors, one of whom testified Wednesday at an emergency hearing before Baylson, believe they can perform a successful transplant on her with adult lungs.
"She definitely understands things have improved quite a bit," the girl's aunt, Sharon Ruddock, said after the ruling.
Baylson's order applies only to Sarah, at least until the scheduled June 14 hearing, when the family will push for a broad injunction on the age limit.
Joel Newman, spokesman for the United Network for Organ Sharing that operates the nation's transplant network, said he was unaware of any previous court order that overruled a transplant policy.
While many more adult lungs than children's lungs wind up being donated, the ruling doesn't guarantee Sarah a new set of lungs. The matches are based on blood type, the risk of dying, the chance of surviving a transplant, and other medical factors. The donor lungs would also have to be an appropriate size for her chest.
Newman said some lungs donated from deceased adults have been offered for children's transplants over the past two years, although he couldn't give a number. But he said all were turned down by the children's surgeons.
The UNOS system was established to avoid bias in determining who gets organs, thus ensuring that the rich or celebrities, for example, don't have a better chance, Caplan noted. He said it is transparent, with policies open to public comment and scrutiny before they're enacted.
"When a judge steps in and says, 'I don't like these rules, I think they're arbitrary,' they better be very arbitrary or he's undermining the authority of the whole system. Why wouldn't anybody sue?"
Lack of transparency a problem for many U.S. banks
From debit card fees to overdraft charges, consumers need clearer policies from their banks to understand checking accounts, according to a report released by the Pew Charitable Trust.
The report identified seven "best" practices and 11 "good" practices that protect consumers by ensuring banks properly disclose relevant information, reduce or eliminate overdraft fees, and provide fair dispute resolution.
The extent to which banks are transparent varies considerably. Out of the 36 banks considered by Pew, eight of them had 12 or more good and best practices combined, with Ally Bank following the most practices. Meanwhile, six banks followed with five or fewer. First Niagara, which observed no best practices and only five good practices, had the lowest possible score.
One of the best practices requires what many consumers would consider the bare minimum. It recommends the use of a summary disclosure box on the checking account agreement form that would identify all the fees and policies for accounts. "Consumers should not have to hunt for this important information about their account," Susan Weinstock, director of the Safe Checking Project at Pew Charitable Trust, told 24/7 Wall St. in an interview. A box disclosing this "should be like a nutrition label."
The good practices are "those that provide some protection to consumers but are not as expansive or effective as best practices." For example, good practices include the disclosure of penalty fees for overdrafts and identifying the overdraft default option.
Five of the six banks with the lowest scores according to Pew's measure only observed one best practice. Dispute resolution agreements for these banks, like nearly all the 36 banks considered, do not require customers to cover bank expenses, such as attorney fees, even if the customer wins the dispute. Weinstock said this "heads-I-win, tails-you-lose" provision could discourage consumers from fighting unnecessary charges in their accounts. First Niagara Bank failed to observe even this best practice.
The banks on this list performed poorly in many of the good practices as well. For example, none of these banks let customers know they had options for avoiding overdraft fees. Nor did any of these banks provide a grace period before charging overdraft fees.
Only two of the banks, Sovereign Bank and BBVA Compass, disclosed the fee for overdraft transfers — a practice that allows money to be transferred from another account to prevent negative balances. Of the six least transparent banks, only First Tennessee included a dollar amount that an account holder must overdraw before being charged an overdraft fee.
Based on the 50 largest banks in terms of total deposits measured by the Pew Charitable Trust report, "Checks and Balances: Measuring Checking Accounts' Safety and Transparency," 24/7 Wall St. identified the six least transparent banks. These banks have implemented one or fewer of the seven best practices. In addition, the banks implemented four or fewer of the 11 good practices that Pew identified. While Pew initially considered the 50 largest banks, 14 of the banks did not provide information, narrowing the field to just 36 banks. According to Pew, this information was compiled in October and November of 2012. As a result, some banks' practices may have changed since that time.
These are America's least transparent banks.
6. BBVA Compass
Number of best practices: 1
Number of good practices: 4
Total assets: $740 billion (Compass Bancshares)
Primary region: South, Southwest
BBVA Compass is a subsidiary of Compass Bancshares Inc., which has a presence in more than 30 countries worldwide and has about $740 billion in assets. The bank had some of the worst policies and transparency among all banks, following just one of seven best practices and only four of the 11 good practices that were outlined by Pew. For instance, unlike a majority of the 36 banks surveyed, the bank did not prohibit or limit the reordering of transactions, which is often used by banks to generate more overdraft penalties. This was despite the fact that in July 2012, the bank agreed to pay $11.5 million to settle allegations that it manipulated checking-account transactions in order to garner more overdraft fees.
5. First Tennessee
Number of best practices: 1
Number of good practices: 4
Total assets: $25.2 billion (First Horizon)
Primary region: Tennessee
First Tennessee, a subsidiary of First Horizon National Corp. (NYSE: FHN), operates 180 branches exclusively in Tennessee. First Tennessee was among a minority of all banks surveyed that did not disclose a specific fee for an overdraft transfer — a policy that allows people to avoid overdrafting by automatically transferring money from another designated account. It was also one of just a small group of banks not to offer an opportunity for customers to opt-out of arbitration, a dispute resolution process taking place outside of the courtroom. On the positive side, it was the only bank among the least transparent that allowed overdrafts up to a certain amount before an overdraft fee was triggered.
4. Sovereign Bank
Number of best practices: 1
Number of good practices: 4
Total assets: $1.2 trillion (Santander)
Primary region: Nationwide
Sovereign Bank is a subsidiary of Santander Group, one of the largest banks in Spain. Sovereign operates more than 750 branches and 2,300 ATMs across the country. It was one of just two banks out of all 36 measured that did not adhere to a single best or good practice meant to help customers avoid overdraft charges. For example, it was one of a small handful of banks to not include a limit on the number of overdraft fees it charged per day, a policy aimed to help prevent people from incurring massive charges for minor overdrafts.
3. Union Bank
Number of best practices: 1
Number of good practices: 4
Total assets: $97 billion
Primary region: Six states
The San Francisco-based Union Bank, a subsidiary of Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc. (NYSE: MTU), has 443 retail branches in California, Washington, Oregon, Texas, Illinois and New York. It was one of just a few banks that did not allow those opening debit accounts to opt out of arbitration. In addition, the bank failed to identify a specific dollar threshold overdraft fees were triggered, nor did it disclose the overdraft fee for people applying for an account. Back in November 2011, the bank agreed to pay $35 million to settle a lawsuit claiming it had charged debit card transactions in a different order than the purchases were made in order to generate overdraft fees.
2. KeyBank
Number of best practices: 1
Number of good practices: 3
Total assets: $89 billion
Primary region: 14 states
Cleveland-based KeyBank provides a wide range of financial services, including consumer banking, investment banking and wealth management. It has $89 billion in assets under management and 1,076 branches spread over 14 U.S states. In addition to adhering to just one of seven best practices, KeyBank followed only three of the 11 good practices laid out by Pew, fewer than any of the 36 banks considered. It was the only bank on this list, and one of just five banks overall, that did not allow relatively minor disputes to go through small claims court rather than mandatory arbitration.
1. First Niagara
Number of best practices: 0
Number of good practices: 5
Total assets: $35 billion
Primary region: Northeast
No bank was less transparent than First Niagara, a regional bank serving upstate New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Massachusetts. It was the only bank out of all 36 measured by Pew that failed to conform to any of the best practices laid out in the report. In addition, it only adhered to five of the 11 good practices laid out by Pew, lower than most other banks considered. It was the only bank on the list, and one of just three banks of all 36 measured, that did not disclose its overdraft penalty to people with a checking account.
Reclaim Your Angus: CEO Goes on Offense Against McDonald'sIt's the advertising equivalent of rubbing a burger in a competitor's face.
Following McDonald's decision to do away with its Angus Third Pounders, the CEO of CKE Restaurants, the parent company of Hardee's and Carl's Jr., has taken to YouTube to sympathize with disgruntled customers and invite them to visit his restaurants instead.
"I've heard that McDonald's abruptly stopped selling their Angus beef burgers, leaving many of you angry, frustrated and confused," said Andy Puzder, CKE's chief. "In fact, it seems you've taken to Twitter to express your frustrations."
Then in a moment made possible only through social media, Puzder shares a couple McDonald's customer laments.
Source: Carl Jr.
Carl's Jr.'s Six Dollar Angus Burger.
Puzder quotes user ErickRast86, who says, "My angus deluxe was replaced by a quarter pounder with cheese deluxe, wthell man ... not even full #mcdonalds"
Tweeter TheRealAdamGee opines, ".@McDonalds why did you get rid of the angus third pounder? I'm sad, hungry, and want my money back! :("
Hoping to attract these unhappy customers, Hardee's and Carl's Jr. are offering a coupon at ReclaimYourAngus.com for their 100-percent Black Angus Beef Six Dollar Burgers. The burgers are actually $6 in name only and refer to the amount consumers would pay for the same type of sandwich at a casual-dining restaurant.
In response to the ad, McDonald's declined to speak via interview. In a statement, Danya Proud, a company spokeswoman, said: "We can confirm that McDonald's is removing the Angus Third-Pounder burgers from our national U.S. menu to make room for new and exciting choices including the new line of Quarter-Pounder flavors. We remain focused on our business and serving our customers and invite them to try the new line of QP (Quarter-Pounder) flavors which include: deluxe, bacon habanero ranch and bacon and cheese."
The Six Dollar Burgers' launch in 2002 prompted a wave of fast-food chains, including Burger King and McDonald's, to follow suit. Gradually though, the chains abandoned these pricier burgers.
"When McDonald's kind of pulled out of the field for competition for a restaurant-quality burger, we decided it was time to take advantage of that and let people know that the first major fast-food chain to have black Angus burgers still had them," Puzder said.
McDonald's decision to do away with the Third Pounder came down to wanting to give consumers more options and a burger that's less expensive than the Third Pounder, said Darren Tristano, executive vice president at Technomic, a market research firm.
"For most consumers, McDonald's price point makes McDonald's relevant," Tristano said. "When you start to get to that $7- or $8-dollar range, which is what an Angus burger, french fries and a beverage cost, you start to get outside of that."
Play Video
.
The new Quarter Pounders are also less meaty, which might appeal to a female consumer, he hypothesized. Consumers wanting a heftier meal can merely upgrade to a Double Quarter Pounder, which provides another option.
Cutting-Edge Restaurant Menu Items)
Strained consumer demand because of a payroll tax hike and higher gas prices has also caused restaurants to rethink their menus, which resulted in stripping out some of their higher-price items. McDonald's decision to do away with its Third Pounder in favor a three new Quarter Pounders is one example of this.
In the face of rising labor costs and the looming implementation of Obamacare, which also is anticipated to raise the company's costs, CKE is finding other ways to tinker with costs rather than cut the beef.
The company is testing out having people use tablets to order rather than speaking with employees and paying more attention to scheduling. It's also promoting whatever commodity is most reasonably priced at the moment—in this case, beef.
Although beef prices for items such as steak and pot roasts have risen, prices for one cut used in ground beef, called lean trimmings, have actually fallen from year-ago levels.
"I think it's probably been a pleasant surprise for the fast-food industry because they came into this year envisioning having to pay higher prices, which is what's been the trend since the recession," said Kevin Good, a senior analyst at Cattle Fax, a beef industry research firm.
Because of a severe drought in the U.S. central and southern plains, many farmers chose to slaughter their older cows rather than pay for feed, Good said. This led to an increase in supply and drove down prices. But recent moisture in the northern plains will likely cause an uptick in lean trimmings in the second half of the year, he forecast.
Although Puzder's ad might seem confrontational in other industries, Technomic's Tristano insists that poking fun at rivals in ads has been occurring more in the burger biz.
"I think when you're in the fast-food category, you can't take yourself too seriously," he said.
According to a report from the auto-industry research firm R. L. Polk, the average age of vehicles on U.S. roads has reached a record 10.8 years. At an average of 15,000 annual miles, a typical vehicle may now have 162,000 miles on the clock. Today's cars and trucks are simply built better than ever, thanks to improved engineering and materials. But for those who want to get even more from their cars, how can drivers take a vehicle to the 250,000 milestone and still have wheels that are reliable and cosmetically appealing? To get answers, we interviewed service writers and auto technicians certified by the National Institute for Automotive Service Excellence.
According to a recent report, “F as in Fat” by the Trust for America’s Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, “The number of obese adults…are on course to increase dramatically in every state in the country over the next 20 years.” According to their analysis of government data, “If obesity rates continue on their current trajectories, by 2030, 13 states could have adult obesity rates above 60 percent, 39 states could have rates above 50 percent, and all 50 states could have rates above 44 percent.”
This sobering news has doctors, health care providers and politicians asking the same questions: how do we prevent this scenario from happening, and how do we help people take control of their health?
America has a long history of solving complex problems. And while obesity is a complex problem about which not everything is understood, it is not beyond the grasp of better understanding and prevention. Over the last several decades, many factors have converged: a reduction in the amount of exercise we get (especially children) fueled by sedentary jobs and the elimination or reduction of P.E. in schools; the explosion of entertainment options that keep us indoors; growing safety issues for children that keep them from being outdoors; and a change in our diets that includes an increase in the number of dietary calories; as well as cultural changes that have led to more dining outside the home.
Despite these environmental changes, one thing remains constant: Weight loss and gain is about energy balance – calories in, and calories out. Recently this point was reinforced on NOVA’s website by two obesity experts, Marion Nestle and Malden Nesheim, who wrote, “The easiest way to prevent weight gain is to eat less by choosing smaller portions, fewer snacks, and healthier meals in general. It also helps to be physically active and to monitor weight status with regular weighing.” Theywent on to write – and this is important – “Until research convinces us otherwise, we believe a calorie is a calorie.”
These two statements are critical and must factor into the current national policy debate about how we help people understand calories and whether or not government has a role in restricting consumer access to certain calories.
Unfortunately, the hyperbole expressed about why obesity is increasing drowns out reasonable voices in search of workable solutions. One of the loudest and most quoted voices is Dr. Robert Lustig from the University of California San Francisco, who recently said about sugar, “We’re being poisoned to death.”
He calls sugar “toxic,” comparing it to tobacco and alcohol and blames it for the rise in obesity. His number one culprit is soda. (Robert H. Lustig, Laura A. Schmidt & Claire D. Brindis (02 February 2012) Public health: The toxic truth about sugar, Nature, doi:10.1038/482027a)
Variously, despite no actual evidence of causation, soda and even diet soda are claimed to be responsible for heart attacks, stroke, asthma, COPD and even death. Another vocal opponent of soda, Kelly Brownell from Yale University wrote, “To me, there is no difference between Ronald McDonald and Joe Camel. Are we going to have legislation tomorrow? No. But we have to start thinking about this in a more militant way.” (Baltimore Sun, Nov. 17, 1998)
Toxic, poison, militant. I reject this rhetoric in the discussion about obesity and encourage you to do the same. Drs. Lustig and Brownell should know better than to make such comparisons. The Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University was founded with an initial donation of $7.5 million from the Rudd Foundation – created through the passion of Leslie Rudd with funding in large part from his very successful wineries. Wine contains ethyl alcohol, an addictive substance.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released a study that finds Americans get almost as many calories from alcohol – approximately 100 per day – as from soft drinks. Does that warrant referring to the vineyards of Napa as toxic? (NCHS Data Brief, No. 110, November 2012, Calories Consumed From Alcoholic Beverages by U.S. Adults, 2007–2010)
The risk of singling out certain foods as unique contributors to obesity and then demonizing those foods and advocating punitive (or “militant”) government intervention is that people will tune out the obesity debate at a time when we most need them to listen.
Likewise, regulations that ban soft drinks containing more than 16 ounces lack public support and will do nothing to reduce obesity. New Yorkers immediately saw through what amounts to a gimmick. Americans like choice and the freedom to choose what’s right for them. If they don’t want the medicine being prescribed, don’t believe it will work and don’t trust the doctor prescribing it, progress stalls.
On The New York Times Opinionator blog earlier this year, Ronda Storm, a Florida state legislator, was quoted as saying, “It’s just bad public policy to allow unfettered access to all kinds of food.” And in the same article in The Times, food columnist Mark Bittman wrote, “All of this is part of the bigger question: How do we regulate the consumption of dangerous foods?” Consuming paint thinner is “dangerous.” Let’s keep things in perspective, shall we?
Denmark’s Parliament was hit over the head recently with a big dose of perspective. The country that imposed the world’s first-ever “fat tax” only a year ago was forced to repeal it earlier this month because Danes were driving across the border into Germany to purchase their butter and cheese. Or, they purchased cheaper versions. Attempts to restrict “unfettered access” to high fat foods resulted in food inflation and lost jobs, according to the Danish Ministry of Taxation, but not thinner Danes. Having learned their lesson, Parliament also abandoned a “sugar tax” proposal. Unfortunately, these same failed ideas also permeate America’s national debate.
Whether it’s soda, butter, cheese, wine or beer, no one food is the cause of obesity. For more than a decade, consumption of full-calorie soda has declined 12. 5 percent (Beverage Digest), yet obesity rates have climbed. A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2011 finds that added sugar calories from soda are down 35 percent since 2000. (Welsh JA, Sharma AJ, Vos MB (2011) Consumption of added sugars is decreasing in the United States, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, doi: 1-.3945/ajcn.111.018366)
Do the math. It doesn’t add up that soda causes obesity. According to a peer-reviewed data analysis in the American Journal of Public Health, total beverage calories in schools are down 90 percent between 2004 and the end of the 2009-2010 school year.
So why is soda the target? It’s an easy, well-known target that most Americans enjoy in some amount. But that is not a legitimate reason to try and use it as the lever in the debate over how to reduce our obesity rate.
The answer to the question of how we should reduce our obesity rate is summed up well by Dr. David Katz, another noted obesity expert from Yale who is not an advocate for sugar-sweetened beverages yet wrote in The Huffington Post, “As dietary guidance, the vilification of one nutrient at a time has proven as flighty as hummingbirds, propelling us from one version of humbug to another. My advice is to grasp firmly your common sense, and stay grounded
LOS ANGELES — A Chinese-American businessman who was held in China for nearly five years after he became involved in a dispute with a competitor has been allowed to return to his Southern California home, his wife said Tuesday.
Hong Li said her husband, Hu Zhicheng, arrived at Los Angeles International Airport from China on Monday night.
"We're grateful, we're very, very grateful for everybody's help and we're really happy to have him back home," she said of herself and the couple's two children.
She told The Associated Press in a brief phone interview Tuesday night that her husband was asleep and still jet lagged and did not want to talk about his ordeal or his return home.
Hu was released just ahead of a summit between President Barack Obama and Chinese leader Xi Jinping, but Li said she didn't know if that played any part in her husband's return.
She said the first she learned that he was coming home in a call Monday from a relative in China, who told her was on a plane to the United States.
"I don't want to say too much at this point," she said. "I don't really know too much."
A spokesman at the U.S. Embassy in China had no immediate comment.
An internationally recognized expert in the development of catalytic converters that are used to limit pollution in automobiles, Hu holds a doctorate in engineering and more than 50 patents. He has performed research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and worked for international companies.
He returned to China in 2004 after years in the U.S., hoping to get in on the ground floor building cleaner-running automobiles just as smog-choked China's economy was booming.
Hu became chief scientist and president of a company trying to build top-grade catalytic converters and was honored by the province of Jiangsu as one of its leading innovators. Li, meanwhile started her own business supplying materials to the company that employed her husband. She also holds a doctorate in engineering.
Eventually, a competitor accused Hu of stealing information and providing it to his wife's company. When Li and the couple's children returned to the U.S. for a summer visit in 2008, he was nervous enough to warn them not to come back to China. Shortly before Thanksgiving that year, he was arrested.
Hu was jailed for 17 months while police investigated the case. He was eventually cleared of any wrongdoing and released, but authorities refused to let him leave China after his business rival filed a lawsuit seeking financial damages.
Li said Tuesday she didn't know if that case has been resolved.
After his release from jail, Hu moved to Shanghai and worked for the company that employed him. He was allowed to travel freely within the country, but he could not leave. Asked Tuesday if he would consider returning at any point, Li laughed.
"No, I don't think so. I doubt it," she said.
The couple were born in China and became U.S. citizens several years ago. Both of their children were born in the U.S.
Their daughter, Victoria Hu, visited her father in Shanghai in 2010 and since then has kept up a relentless campaign from the United States seeking his release.
She posted a petition to Change.org that collected more than 60,000 signatures and started a Facebook page called "Help Victoria's Father Dr. Zhicheng Hu Come Home."
Her mother, meanwhile, contacted the State Department and other officials for years.
All of those efforts had seemed to lead nowhere until Monday.
PHILADELPHIA (AP) — The U.S. health secretary said she won't intervene in an "incredibly agonizing" transplant decision about a dying Pennsylvania girl, noting that three other children in the same hospital are just as sick.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a congressional panel Tuesday that medical experts should make those decisions.
However, relatives of 10-year-old Sarah Murnaghan said Sebelius' remarks confused them because they want a policy change for all pre-adolescent children awaiting lung transplants, not just Sarah.
The Newtown Square girl has been hospitalized at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia for three months with end-stage cystic fibrosis and is on a ventilator. Her family wants children younger than 12 to be eligible for adult lungs because so few pediatric lungs are available.
Under current policy, only patients 12 and over can join the list. But Sarah's transplant doctors say she is medically eligible for an adult lung.
The change would add perhaps 20 children from ages 8 to 11 to the adult waiting list, which has more than 1,600 people on it, according to Sharon Ruddock, Sarah's aunt.
"One moment they say we're asking for an exception for Sarah. The next moment they say we're asking for sweeping changes and it has to be studied," Ruddock said Tuesday.
Sebelius has called for a review of pediatric transplant policies, but the Murnaghans say Sarah doesn't have time for that.
"I'm begging you. ... She has three to five weeks to live. Please suspend the rules," Rep. Lou Barletta, R-Pa., urged Sebelius at a House Education and the Workforce Committee hearing on her department's budget.
Sebelius conceded the case was an "incredibly agonizing situation" but said many complex factors go into the transplant-list formula.
Researchers have less data on lung transplants in pre-adolescents because only about 20 a year are done. And young children suffer from different lung diseases, making it harder to weigh their risk versus their chance of surviving a transplant, according to a letter to Sebelius from Dr. John P. Roberts, president of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network.
Amid concerns about the higher mortality rate in pediatric patients waiting for lung transplants, the network has tweaked its policies in recent years, Roberts said. The new rules give the younger children priority over adults when adolescent lungs become available and give the sickest children priority in a 1,000-mile radius, a broader range than used in the adult system, he said in the letter, which was shared by the office of Rep. Patrick Meehan, R-Pa.
Meehan, in a letter to Sebelius, said Sarah's doctors are confident they can perform a successful transplant on her. And he said she would jump to the top of the adult list if placed there, given the stage of her disease.
Ruddock, the aunt, called it "a question of morality" that children get a place in the adult line, given that a far higher percentage of children die waiting for pediatric lungs than do adults on that waiting list.
"Do you put them at the back of the line if you're not sure how to measure (their potential outcome)? Or do you put them in the line?" she said.
