The journey to survival is often not as rosy as many would like it to be. The same was no different for Sarah Murnaghan, who had suffered from cystic fibrosis since birth. Her condition was rapidly worsening as both her parents and doctors never thought she would live more than ten years. At this age, Sarah was already experiencing the effects of the final stages of her medical condition. Sarah's condition came to the fore in early June 2013 when controversy emerged over whether Sarah should undergo a lung transplant. The dilemma in Sarah's case was that she desperately needed a lung transplant as she was destined to succumb to disease, but was not entitled to adult lungs, which were plentiful due to her age. Sarah had been on the transplant waiting list for around 18 months as of June 2013. She had been put first in line to receive a lung transplant from child donors, basically classified as under 12 years of age. This was, however, a rare case as childhood lung donors were in short supply and his condition could not wait. As a result she was put at the bottom of the waiting list for adult lungs, which would only come into effect after every single person aged 12 and over with her matching blood type did not want lungs, including those less sick than her. However, adult lungs were abundant at a ratio of 1700:10 compared to children's lungs (Welch and Carroll, 2013). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The current system required that children 12 years of age and older be given preference over adult lungs. This principle took into account the age, severity of the patient's condition and probability of survival. However, in essence, dictating who dies and who lives is an impossible decision. This didn't sit well with Sarah's parents and so they launched a campaign to change the "under 12" rule which they said was age discrimination. They described Sarah's case as bureaucratic meddling, and her dilemma gained a significant amount of media attention. This publicity campaign paid off when a judge ordered the temporary suspension of the "under 12" rule and forced the United States Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) to add Sarah to the list of lung transplants in adults. The OPTN also decided to create a committee to hear similar appeals and decide whether to make permanent changes to the rule or temporary specific exceptions (Welch and Carroll, 2013). This has obviously raised questions among some pediatricians based on medical ethics about how organ donation laws are developed and the circumstances under which they might be ignored. The judge, however, had argued that the rule was discriminatory and Sarah was granted the option to obtain a lung transplant as an adult based on her desperate need for the lung transplant and the limited time she has left to live if was unable to get a transplant. In contrast, bioethicists argue that the main reason children have a low priority for lungs is that adult lungs barely adapt, forcing only a fraction of a lung to be used. The use of only one lobe subsequently has a negative impact on the chances of survival (Welch and Carroll, 2013). Nonetheless, Sarah's parents decided to hang on.