Dana Summers by Dana Summers

Dana Summers

Comments (9) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. TJDestry

    TJDestry GoComics PRO Member said, about 2 years ago

    Sibelius declined to let someone jump the line, but perhaps Summers has a name of someone who should die instead, bearing in mind that an adult receiving an adult lung would have a better chance of survival than a child receiving a modified adult (rather than straight-transplant pediatric) organ.

    Sibelius did order the policy reinvestigated and pointed out that if more people became donors, the problem would be less urgent. If you aren’t a registered donor, you’ve got nothing to say against her position.

  2. dannysixpack

    dannysixpack said, about 2 years ago

    it’s unfortunate when there is no good answer. the o-haters come out on both sides of every issue.

  3. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, about 2 years ago

    The issue at hand is someone somewhere decided that 12 years old is the cutoff to receive adult transplants. The kid is 10 years old, and won’t make it to 11 years old without a transplant. I think the kid has weeks to live. There are those receiving these adult transplants that have years to live. So that’s what this whole issue is about: why are we giving organs to someone who can wait when someone who can’t is being denied those organs because of an arbitrary number?

    Even a reduced shot at success is better than a zero shot chance at success. That arbitrary limit should be eliminated, not bypassed in this one case. The need should be based on the individual case and severity of the patient, not the age.

    But the point of this toon is it brings up the risk of having an arbitrary panel managed by the government deciding who lives and who dies. It gives life to the moniker: Death Panels. While not entirely fair or accurate, it’s not a stretch of the imagination to see that fear coming to fruition.

  4. PlainBill

    PlainBill said, about 2 years ago

    @Wraithkin

    You miss the point, of course. Lung transplants are very difficult, and the 50% survival point is only 6 years for adults. It’s even worse for children, and worse yet when an adult lung is transplanted into a child.

    Medical experts have examined the evidence and deemed 12 years as the youngest age at which a recipient can receive an adult lung. To suggest a political appointee should arbitrarily overrule medical advice is asinine.

  5. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, about 2 years ago

    @PlainBill

    The problem I have with that is the political appointee answers to no-one, and can make arbitrary decisions. Not only that, but the focus of this appointee is to save money, not lives. Given the track record of this particular appointee, I highly doubt she’s going to take all opinions in making these rules, and rather cherry pick those that fit her mindset. This is the danger of having anyone of any political bent in this kind of position.

  6. d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C's Release

    d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C's Release said, about 2 years ago

    “The problem I have with that is the political appointee answers to no-one, and can make arbitrary decisions. Not only that, but the focus of this appointee is to save money, not lives. Given the track record of this particular appointee, I highly doubt she’s going to take all opinions in making these rules, and rather cherry pick those that fit her mindset. This is the danger of having anyone of any political bent in this kind of position.”


    Then you obviously didn’t read her position regarding this one case. Its not that she doesn’t want to, she’s not a doctor and advises that doctors should make that decision, not politicians. Plainbill is right on this. I would also like to add that an adult lung is simply too large for a child’s chest cavity, unless of course you opt to cut up a lung to her size, which decreases her odds for survival. I don’t know why Summers would even politicize a medical decision.

  7. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, about 2 years ago

    @d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C's Release

    The problem is that this child’s doctor is saying that it should be done. So who’s more right? The doctor who is utilized for the policy review, or the child’s physician who is fighting for this child’s life? If this were your child, which one would hold more value to you?

    And yes, I recognize an adult lung is too large for a child. And yes, I recognize it increases the risk of failure. But, it at least gives the child a chance. I look at it this way: A 5% chance is better than a 0% chance.

    And Summers is bringing up the point of this is just the beginning of situations like this. This kind of issue, where a policy is in place because of a decision made in DC, is going to be a lightning rod for the PPACA. And it’s only going to get worse as more and more decisions are handed down from Sibelius and the HHS regarding policy. It’s only going to get worse, mark my words.

  8. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, about 2 years ago

    Transplants can run into the millions. My daughter’s father-in-law got a liver, and it was $2.8 million, and he only required it because for decades he ignored doctor’s orders, and trusted to Jesus to heal him.


    CF is a terrible disease, and I’ve known several folks who died of it, after years of “very difficult” life regimens. Transplants have improved, but are still not a “guarantee” of anything.


    The real sickness in our lawmaking is too many politicians illegally trying to practice medicine, and of course brilliant folks like Rush and Hannity certainlly have the needed expertise, right?

  9. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, about 2 years ago

    @dtroutma

    The worry, here, is that someone at the top of the HHS is dictating what a human life is worth, monetarily. That’s really the biggest fear. “Is he worth $35,000? Nope, he’s too old, not enough taxable years left in ’em. Denied.” Don’t think it can’t happen? Coraryan is a perfect example of that review process. How can someone be too old to protect their life? My father is 63 this year. I hate to think of some bureaucrat deciding what medical care he receives, based on cost. It’s a travesty.

  10. Refresh Comments.