Recently, the medical needs of a ten-year old Pennsylvania girl has drawn national attention and raised serious ethical issues. Sarah Murnaghan was born with Cystic Fibrosis (CF), a terminal genetic condition that affects the entire body. In worst case scenarios, the individual requires a lung transplant due to the destruction of the lungs from secretions. Sarah needed new lungs. However, due to the transplant rulings, she qualified for pediatric lungs. She could only receive adult lungs if all other adults on the list refused them or were not a good match. Her parents believed this was discriminatory against their daughter. They first courted media publicity. When the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services would not intervene, they petitioned a judge. Sarah was added to the adult list and received a set of adult lungs. In the article “Girl’s Lung Transplant Leaves Thorny Ethical Issues” by Alan Zarembo in the Los Angeles Times, the author discusses the difficult ethical issues surrounding this case.
After the court’s decision, the national review board held an emergency meeting to discuss the rules that allowed. They created a new ruling that allowed children under twelve to be treated as adolescents. For Sarah, the rule was bent. The agency created a false birthdate for her that would trick the system into believing that she was over twelve. Another important issue is that the adult lungs given to Sarah needed to be “modified” or cut to fit her body. However, there are ethical implications for this modification. A set of pediatric lungs would grow with the child; an adult set that was cut will not grow. Because of this, Sarah will likely require another set of lungs as she grows. Even if the transplant rules required some changes, the proper decision-makers of these changes should be doctors, not courts. Furthermore, is it ethically fair for Sarah, and other children like her, to receive two sets of lungs?
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"The Ethics of Lung Transplantation".
While no one wants to see a child suffer or die, the courts were wrong to intervene in this case. The rules were clearly established by physicians and transplantation experts to improve the likelihood of survival for the entire population of individuals who need transplant organs. These current rules appeared to offer this potential. Furthermore, it raises issues regarding the courting of the media to intervene in, what should be, an anonymous process. This girl was a cute, white girl. Would the public and the media acted so voraciously if she was a young black boy? Another child, Javier Acosta, was also added to the list after suing. He is a Hispanic boy, who already lost a brother to CF. In terms of sadness in stories, his story clearly is more compelling. Yet, his case has not received as much attention. Society may be exerting some racial and sexual preferences in this case.
Furthermore, is it fair for an adult individual to not receive the lungs? The judge’s decision may result in the death of another individual. Whenever one person receives an organ, it may result in the death of another. For this reason, the system should be anonymous and be based upon only scientific evidence. The system was anonymous until the parents decided to involve the media and the courts. While no one could blame parents for doing everything possible to save their child’s life, others should not bow to their emotional demands. Emotional demands, especially those involving a cute little white girl, essentially are emotional blackmail. They should not be allowed.
- Zarembo, Alan. “Girl’s Lung Transplant Leaves Thorny Ethical Issues.” The Los Angeles Times. 12 June 2013. 15 June 2013. http://www.natlawreview.com
