Denied Heart Transplant Due to Vaccination Status: A 12-Year-Old’s Struggle Sparks Legal and Ethical Debate

A 12-year-old girl, Adaline, has been denied a life-saving heart transplant at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital due to her unvaccinated status against COVID-19 and the flu. Her family, including distant relatives of Vice President J.D. Vance, is raising concerns over the hospital’s vaccine mandate, which they believe infringes on their religious rights.

Adaline’s adoption from China at age 4 came with the knowledge that she would eventually require a heart transplant due to her congenital heart defects. Despite receiving nearly a decade of care at Cincinnati Children’s, the family now faces a heartbreaking dilemma: their daughter’s life hangs in the balance as the hospital requires both COVID-19 and flu vaccinations for placement on the transplant list. The family, who follow nondenominational Christian beliefs, believes the vaccines contradict their religious and medical convictions, making it impossible for them to comply with the mandate.

Janeen Deal, Adaline’s mother, criticized the hospital’s stance, asserting that the policy undermines the child’s right to receive life-saving care. This situation has ignited wider discussions about the role of vaccination requirements in medical treatment, especially when it involves deeply held religious beliefs. The family is now exploring options at other transplant centers, hoping to find one that won’t impose such strict vaccination rules.

JD Vance’s 12-year-old relative ‘denied a heart transplant because she’s not vaccinated against COVID and flu’ https://t.co/9Eg0TP9d8J

— Daily Mail Online (@MailOnline) February 11, 2025

The controversy has drawn political attention, with Ohio Representative Jennifer Gross proposing new legislation aimed at protecting families from being denied medical care based on vaccine status. Her bill seeks to safeguard religious freedoms and prevent discrimination, especially in medical contexts like this one.

Adaline’s story is not an isolated case but part of a growing trend of families pushing back against vaccine mandates, particularly in life-or-death situations. As the legal battle continues, this case may have far-reaching implications for healthcare policy and religious freedoms across Ohio and beyond.