The article reads as though a new heart would be a cure and all would be well. It isn't and it wouldn't.
I know things have moved on since I worked in Cardiology, but one principle remains, in order to transplant an organ the recipient need to take immunosupresives so their body does not reject the organ.
Which means you have a child who cannot have vaccinations, who is more at risk of catching a childhood illness and if they do of it will, in all probability, become life threatening.
And that is if the transplant works, it might not.
Would a change in the law have 'saved' this baby? We don't know. There are, thankfully, few healthy children who die at this age, and for a donation you need that, the death of a relatively healthy infant or a case like OpiesOldLady, a child who is going to die not long after birth.
As regards the law, I didn't know there was a minimum age, I thought it was up to the parents and I can't find anywhere saying otherwise so the change in law to that of Spain would be to make donating an 'opt out' rather than an 'opt in' system as we have at present.
So when you are saying it might be hard for the parents have a think about what that really means.
What is known as 'hard opt in' means that you have no rights over whether your baby's organs are used for transplant. That means that if your baby is dieing you might not be able to hold them for long, someone is going to take your baby away and cut them up as soon as they have passed away. You would have no choice as to which organs were taken, and many many people who do allow their child's organs to be harvested choose not to donate certain organs, often the child's eyes.
I'm on the organ donor register, but I have specified which organs can be taken.
Medically we are also moving towards more limb transplants.
Do we want a situation where a dead baby is taken from grieving parents, who will, in due course, receive a body for burial that has no eyes, no internal organs and possibly no hands?