It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In many countries, the loss of function in the brain stem – the part of the brain that controls automatic functions such as breathing – means the loss of life: the person is clinically and legally considered dead.
...The evidence suggests this is reasonable. In 2010, a group of US researchers trawled medical literature seeking any example of a person recovering after a brain-death diagnosis. They did not find a single one....
In adults, there are no published reports of recovery of neurologic function after a diagnosis of brain death using the criteria reviewed in the 1995 American Academy of Neurology practice parameter.
Maxmars
reply to post by Advantage
Thank you for your post.
Clearly, the specifics of the case demand that we slow down on generalizations (where the ethical matter is free from contention.)
Were we to simply accept that if a doctor said this patient is dead, he or she is; is it the same as accepting that if a doctor says it is so, a patient will not recover? Whereas the unfortunate McMath family clearly does not accept that, is it the medical community's prerogative to override them? If so why?
Many flat assertions for which medical science is well known are frequently not among those which endure. Medicine was once an art; now it is a commercial enterprise. When the rationale for discontinuing life support gravitates towards "good business practices ," I am among those who wince. The logic is sound; but lacking in solidity.
If someday I am in such a state, I would hope for choices other than assured death.
If you choose to simply unplug the machinery which supports my life sustaining functions; knowing with scientific certainty that I will pass, why not just kill me outright? It would be quicker, (certainly less grief for the stricken,) more efficient (thus using less resources and more profitable) - and coldly speaking, easier to orchestrate than the options offered, no?
But that would mean doctors would be deciding who lives and dies, wouldn't it?
The McMath case is simply another example of a decision to apply resources to the 'brain-stem dead,' but only in the most expedient way. Her brain-stem death debilitated her body's ability to maintain natural bowel musculature function; thus the sloughing of the intestines which you appropriately liken to 'decomposition.' The standard life-support measures she was provided with did nothing except to keep oxygen moving through her body. In a real sense, she lingers only on what life support we can deliver, not "full life support" - as the profession wants to call it.
I wonder when will we develop technologies to fully sustain a body without a brain? I think perhaps then we will know better what brain-death may mean to each individual human.
Advantage
I do believe she is dead and will continue to decompose. I feel allowing the family to drag around a corpse after the coroner has issued a death certificate is setting a bad bad bad precedent. If there were any forensic evidence of the hospital doing wrong... it will NEVER stand in court now.
redhorse
Advantage
I do believe she is dead and will continue to decompose. I feel allowing the family to drag around a corpse after the coroner has issued a death certificate is setting a bad bad bad precedent. If there were any forensic evidence of the hospital doing wrong... it will NEVER stand in court now.
I do agree with you regarding the state of this girl. She is dead. However, I really feel like the hospital completely bungled this in a way that was callous and defensive. Personally, I think if they had not been so combative and condescending with the process of covering their hiney's for the inevitable law-suit, the family would have been able to come to terms with what had happened and it wouldn't have gotten nearly so messy. As it was, this hospital gave them a nemesis to focus that grief upon in a way that was really negative and arrested the process. They didn't give them a chance to grieve and cope, they just gave them a brawl.
To the OP, I am glad that someone started a conversation about this, and thank you for that.
The case of Jahi McMath, the 13-year-old girl who was declared brain-dead after a tonsillectomy at Children's Hospital Oakland, is now the centerpiece of a political fundraising effort aimed at lifting California's $250,000 cap for pain and suffering awards in medical malpractice cases.
Consumer Watchdog, a Southern California nonprofit that has teamed up with the state's trial lawyers on a proposed November ballot initiative to lift the limit, just sent out a mailer to supporters saying, "Hospitals like Children's actually have an incentive to let children like Jahi die.
Advantage
.. and fed her bits of a big mac. Seriously.. pieces of a big mac.
Advantage
redhorse
Advantage
I do believe she is dead and will continue to decompose. I feel allowing the family to drag around a corpse after the coroner has issued a death certificate is setting a bad bad bad precedent. If there were any forensic evidence of the hospital doing wrong... it will NEVER stand in court now.
I do agree with you regarding the state of this girl. She is dead. However, I really feel like the hospital completely bungled this in a way that was callous and defensive. Personally, I think if they had not been so combative and condescending with the process of covering their hiney's for the inevitable law-suit, the family would have been able to come to terms with what had happened and it wouldn't have gotten nearly so messy. As it was, this hospital gave them a nemesis to focus that grief upon in a way that was really negative and arrested the process. They didn't give them a chance to grieve and cope, they just gave them a brawl.
To the OP, I am glad that someone started a conversation about this, and thank you for that.
I have a dog in this fight is why I keep up with the minutiae of it all! LOL!
I felt that exact way in the begining. Then I realized the time line.. they allowed the child to stay in ICU under medical care WAAAAY longer than anyone else. They made numerous concessions for this family and this case. Then I saw the video clip of the grandmother pretending she was an RN and is in reality a nurse's aid. The grandmother outted the real issue and admitted to actually suctioning Jahi.. which they should not have done.. they were TOLD not to.. and fed her bits of a big mac. Seriously.. pieces of a big mac. The clots dislodged and she started bleeding. This wasnt a routine tonsillectomy. It involved removing much tissue from the soft pallet, much sinus tissue, and tonsils. SHe had major surgery.. and then they go suction the clot and feed her a hamburger. The nurses and Drs instructed them several times NOT to get her laughing, leave the equipment alone, dont feed her, etc. The bleeding started and the mother went to get a family member and not a Dr or Nurse. Then the nurses were informed. Other parents and children in the ICU have come forward.. it was a circus with these people and the hospital was more than accomidating. The hospital has also not been able to release their own side YET. It is hinging on the McMaths lawsuit.. because HIPPA prevents them from commenting.
More kickers to this story?? The uncle wants to get paid. He said 250K ( which is the cap in that state) is "chump change" and he wanted 30 mil. No joke! Then add to that they are obscuring the reason she actually bled out and denying an autopsy. The body being in a healing or decomposing state obscures the real reason of her death. They will get paid ZERO.. unless the hospital just throws them a bone.