Pa. girl doing well after 2nd lung transplant
PHILADELPHIA — A 10-year-old Pennsylvania girl who underwent a double-lung transplant amid a national debate over the organ allocation process has undergone a second transplant after the first failed and is now taking some breaths on her own, the girl's parents said Friday.
Sarah Murnaghan's parents said in an email update that the first set of lungs failed after the June 12 transplant at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and Sarah was placed on machines. She received a second set of lungs on June 15.
Sarah initially received lungs from an adult donor after her parents sued over national rules that place children behind adolescents and adults on the list for adult lungs.
The girl's mother, Janet Murnaghan, said Sarah's condition began to "spiral out of control" following the first surgery. A second set of lungs was found and were transplanted though they were infected with pneumonia, making the surgery extra risky.
Her family said the second transplant was a success and Sarah has taken a few breaths on her own.
"Her doctors continue to wean her from her ventilator, her last two chest tubes were removed today we are taking steps to prepare her for extubation again," her parents said. "We're not out of the woods, but Sarah's health is trending in the right direction."
It was not clear if the second set of lungs were from an adult or juvenile donor.
The Newtown Square girl suffers from severe cystic fibrosis.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.