13 Year old gir declared brain dead has now officially died

[Jessem]

It's too bad medical science hasn't advanced enough to prevent these situations. Sometimes it does more harm than good.

 

[Jessem]

Fortunately medical science does mostly good!

 

[mhfrau]

I don't put the blame on the judge.

Essentially what happened in court --


the hospital told the family that the hospital was going to turn off the vent. The family filed in court to prevent that from happening. The judge held a hearing,heard testimony from witnesses. Ruled that Jahi is dead and that the hospital could turn off the vent, and refused to order the hospital to insert the trach tube and feeding tube. And gave the family time to appeal his decision by entering a temporary restraining order preventing the vent from being turned off.

So, what should he have done differently? He can't just tell the family tgey are wrong without evidence, can he? Especially when dealing with "life or death" issues, and a family that claims their daughter is alive but not getting proper medical treatment.


Do you accept that she's dead without holding an evidentiary hearing? Hypothetically she coukd be in a persistent vegetative state, not brain dead as the hospital asserts, and by discontinuing treatment you could kill a living patient.

And the TRO? Well, what if the judge was wrong, and the appellate court reverses his decision and orders the hospital to leave her on the vent? It's a phyrric (sp?) victory if the hospital already turned off the vent.



Basicaly this judge did what judges do. He gave the parties time to work it out between themselved.

Well, I'm not a lawyer like you so I don't know the laws and statutes, but I just figure that 3 doctors had certified her brain dead already, using the legal definition of brain dead, so I guess that's why I don't understand why a judge would question whether she had met the definition of brain death. I mean, isn't a judge supposed to follow the letter of the law? I thought that is what a judge's job was, not to act as a mediator so the parties could work it out own their own. If that's the case, then why on earth do we have a court system? And doesn't that add a whole new aspect to malpractice lawsuits? If this judge basically already demonstrated by his initial ruling that HE questioned whether the 3 doctors could make the determination of brain death based on California law, it just seems like at what point can any law be valued or validated.

Following this new line of thought, then anybody could keep a hospital from calling time of death I would think. I'm not trying to be contrary or unsympathetic, but it just seems like Judge Grillo just did not want to be the bad guy here and have to tell a grieving mother that he could not compel the hospital to keep someone on a ventilator that was legally dead. I realize that end of life issues are very unpleasant, and I've personally been through it twice with both my parents, but even if the judge wanted to give the family an extreme amount of time, why did he then extend the order a second time?

I just think that this just adds a quart of oil to a slippery slope that people already have a very hard time traversing. But again, I'm not a lawyer so my opinion is only based on what I consider common sense. No matter what it is a very sad case, and I think the poor mother has just gone off the rails with grief and is being manipulated by a fame-loving uncle and a successful ambulance chaser lawyer. But I'm not knocking lawyers... I have a couple in my immediate family

 

[hereyago]

. I don't see a problem.

.

My issue is that she was taking a bed in ICU that a living person could have benefitted from.


I also think that too many people trying to appease the family, but instead it only increased the denial.

 

[hereyago]

On the Keep Jahi Mcmath on life support fb page, a post on Saturday said someone who follows the uncle's tweets report she is doing well. Funny thing though, his twitter page is locked and he has to accept you in order to read it.

 

[mousefanmichelle]

If she were really doing well don't you think they would be singing it from the roof tops?

 

[Lorelei Lee]

Mhfrau,

Let's say there was a car accident. Two cars in an intersection. Driver A got hurt and sued Driver B.

Driver A files papers in court. He claims that his light was green and Driver B ran the red. He also claims he injured his back and his doctor says he will suffer from back pain for the rest of his life.

Driver B says his light was green and that Driver A ran the red. He also says "Ny doctor thinks A is exaggerating his injury, he will recover eventually."

What should the judge do? Make his decision based on the papers filed in court, or make the parties prove their case via testimony and other evidence?

What if he holds a hearing just on what happened in the intersection and determines B ran the red? If he then facilitates a settlement discussion between the parties concerning the monetary value of the back injury, is he prejudiced against one of the parties?


Careful how you answer here, your answer could effectively bring down the entire system of American jurisprudence.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

My issue is that she was taking a bed in ICU that a living person could have benefitted from.


I also think that too many people trying to appease the family, but instead it only increased the denial.

From a moral and ethical view I agree with you. And I am sure the judge was aware of the implications. But courts adjudicate based on facts and evidence.

 

[rigs32]

The judge can't accept the opinions of the doctors just because the lawyers say so - that's hearsay. He needs to take testimony or review certain types of certified documents in order to receive that information legally. In the form of ...... You guessed it..... A hearing.

So no, he wasn't questioning the ruling by the doctors. He was asking the parties to follow the law and provide him with legally admissible evidence of that fact. As he is required to.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

The judge can't accept the opinions of the doctors just because the lawyers say so - that's hearsay. He needs to take testimony or review certain types of certified documents in order to receive that information legally. In the form of ...... You guessed it..... A hearing.

So no, he wasn't questioning the ruling by the doctors. He was asking the parties to follow the law and provide him with legally admissible evidence of that fact. As he is required to.

Exactly.

Which is also why the judge couldn't take into consideration that someone else might need the hospital bed. His role is to determine the rights of the parties to the lawsuit, nothing more.

 

[Beka]

My issue is that she was taking a bed in ICU that a living person could have benefitted from.


I also think that too many people trying to appease the family, but instead it only increased the denial.

A-FREAKIN-MEN!!!

I work in critical care. I love my job, and I love (most) of my patients. However, many of the treatments we do in ICU could be considered torture. How so you ask?

Plug your nose, and breathe through a straw that's shoved down your throat. If you cough? Better hope I'm there to suction that stuff out cuz you either keep in in your lungs or plug up your straw.

Oh, and lots of the interventions we do to keep you alive makes your skin slough off. Nothing like a blister the size of your hand popping to freak out a family member. Yuck.

This whole situation is disgusting. Thankfully that girl doesn't feel anything since she's dead. I couldn't imagine being the nurse assigned to her case I'd refuse that assignment in a hot second. No way am I thrashing a corpse for hours on end, that's sick. It's bad enough staving off death for 12 hours until the family can come see the patient, praying that your patient doesn't feel anything just so their family can get some peace. Most people are reasonable enough to realize when it's the end.

I hope her family finds peace soon.

 

[Lisa_C]

On a Google search today, I came across an article linking Jahi with a guy called Zack Dunlap. He claims he heard the doctor declare him brain dead (after the same scans as Jahi had) and he was about to have his organs harvested. He woke up and walked out of the rehabilitation centre just over 40 days afterwards. There are claims that the diagnoses is wrong and Jahi will do the same.
Well, I'm guessing that there wasn't as many doctors declaring him dead as Jahi, and he "woke up" 38 hours or so after diagnoses........getting on for over month now so I very much doubt she'll be walking out too....

So enlighten me here. Anyone tell me what really happened? Brain dead = dead, so what was it a wrong diagnoses or have the web fairies been cleaning and creating a false hope for the McMath family? Most articles are "faith" articles, but I find no scientific articles.

I'm rather annoyed at these articles declaring he was brain dead, and then cured! You can't just wake up, so just wondering what the story here is.....

 

[SLP958]

Exactly.

Which is also why the judge couldn't take into consideration that someone else might need the hospital bed. His role is to determine the rights of the parties to the lawsuit, nothing more.

No wonder we have such a screwed up legal system.

Common sense is not allowed in the courtroom.

 

[rigs32]

No wonder we have such a screwed up legal system. Common sense is not allowed in the courtroom.

As soon as a lawsuit, injunction, etc is filed a judge doesn't have the right to apply his "common sense".

It sounds like the frustration is misplaced - aim it at the ability to file for an injunction, not the judge who is trying to follow the rules.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

No wonder we have such a screwed up legal system.

Common sense is not allowed in the courtroom.

I think the legislature is the proper forum for making public policy. Courts can only resolve disputes between parties based on what laws the legislature has put into place.

 

[bcla]

On a Google search today, I came across an article linking Jahi with a guy called Zack Dunlap. He claims he heard the doctor declare him brain dead (after the same scans as Jahi had) and he was about to have his organs harvested. He woke up and walked out of the rehabilitation centre just over 40 days afterwards. There are claims that the diagnoses is wrong and Jahi will do the same.
Well, I'm guessing that there wasn't as many doctors declaring him dead as Jahi, and he "woke up" 38 hours or so after diagnoses........getting on for over month now so I very much doubt she'll be walking out too....

So enlighten me here. Anyone tell me what really happened? Brain dead = dead, so what was it a wrong diagnoses or have the web fairies been cleaning and creating a false hope for the McMath family? Most articles are "faith" articles, but I find no scientific articles.

I'm rather annoyed at these articles declaring he was brain dead, and then cured! You can't just wake up, so just wondering what the story here is.....

Likely an improper diagnosis. I mean - there have been at least 6 diagnoses of brain death for Jahi McMath from at least 3 different doctors, including one who isn't affiliated with Children's Hospital Oakland. The head of critical care of CHO has detailed in court filings other signs of death including lack of bowel movements, stiffening of the skin, and the sloughing off of what used to be her digestive system. She's dead, and the only claim that her body is functioning comes from noted anti-brain-death doctor Paul Byrne.

BTW - there's a photo circulating of the attorney Christopher Dolan with Jahi's uncle at the 49er-Seahawks game.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/22/5506250/fetus-in-munoz-case-is-distinctly.html

 

[sonnyjane]

http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/22/5506250/fetus-in-munoz-case-is-distinctly.html

Dios mio I hope they let them both "go"...

 

[hereyago]

Dios mio I hope they let them both "go"...

I do as well.

 

[wdwmom0f3]

Dios mio I hope they let them both "go"...

So do I, as sad as that is to say.