Casey calls on organ donors
U.S. Sen. Bob Casey plans to work on ways to encourage organ donation after a federal judge's decision that allows a 10-year-old girl to seek a life-saving lung transplant from an adult donor.
“Over the next few weeks, he's examining what the federal government is doing, the private sector and nonprofits, and see if there are ways to improve that,” said John Rizzo, press secretary for the Scranton Democrat.
Rizzo said the senator is responding to the needs of his constituent, Sarah Murnaghan of Newtown Square, who has spent more than 100 days at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia awaiting a lung transplant. Under current organ transplant rules, children younger than 12 must wait for the donation of an organ from another child.
Rizzo said Casey's website will promote organ donation. There are 118,295 people waiting for an organ in the United States, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. Of those, more than 8,000 are from Pennsylvania.
The agency estimates that 18 Americans die every day waiting for an organ and that one donor can save as many as eight lives.
Rizzo said the senator was pursuing the cause from a public policy standpoint but acknowledged his personal interest. The senator's father, the late Gov. Robert P. Casey Sr., received a heart-liver transplant in 1993 and lived seven more years before his death.
Bill Zlatos is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7828 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
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.