13 Year old gir declared brain dead has now officially died

[lsyorke]

You'd think that Oregon Health & Science University would see the circus this has become. They'll be next in the lawsuit list when this poor childs heart finally gives out.

 

[mnrose]

Latest news:

After huge media ordeal they made over Jahi McMath, the family is now suing the hospital for violating their privacy. insidebayarea.com/news/ci_248407…


And


Oregon Health & Science University has agreed to accept her according to the family's FB site.

OHSU Vision | General Information | OHSU

This would be plausible as it is a medical research facility and as such can take donated bodies, and a body with an active heartbeat would be a unique learning/research opportunity. And as a research facility, it could also perform the procedures the family wants done without all the legal and ethical.

I was trying to find the story you linked and I cannot....on the invasion of privacy thing. The link isn't complete, and a google search gets me no mention at all.

 

[DisneyJamieCA]

I was trying to find the story you linked and I cannot....on the invasion of privacy thing. The link isn't complete, and a google search gets me no mention at all.

I couldn't find anything either. And I went to the "Keep Jahi on life support" FB page and saw nothing about the facility? Is that not the official page?

 

[skylizard]

Hmmm... I'm typing from my iphone but don't know why it shortened the link. I'm trying to find the whole article again.

Here's something else posted on the twitter feed of Bay Area news channel kron4

#JahiMcMath's uncle @_iamOMARI just told @kron4news "We’re making great strides right now. We’re getting really close to getting her moved."
8:21pm - 4 Jan 14

Wonder where they are going to move her...

 

[Tozzie]

I know my opinion is not going to be popular but I think the family knows exactly what they are doing. California caps lawsuits and because the girl has been declared legally dead they can't claim future medical costs so by suing for what they claim is privacy violations they might actually get a settlement. Sometimes, even if their is no basis for a lawsuit, it is cheaper and quicker to settle it out of court than it is to fight it.

Personally, I nor anyone I know would still be grieveing and a lawsuit, especially for invasion of privacy would be the furthest thing from my mind.

 

[mnrose]

I know my opinion is not going to be popular but I think the family knows exactly what they are doing. California caps lawsuits and because the girl has been declared legally dead they can't claim future medical costs so by suing for what they claim is privacy violations they might actually get a settlement. Sometimes, even if their is no basis for a lawsuit, it is cheaper and quicker to settle it out of court than it is to fight it.

Personally, I nor anyone I know would still be grieveing and a lawsuit, especially for invasion of privacy would be the furthest thing from my mind.

I think you are right...as least as far as the lawyer goes. He well knows that the damages on a DEATH case are capped (at a fairly low level). But, if your malpractice claimant is "alive" (albeit severely damaged), the sky is the limit. I hope I am wrong about that, but I fear I am right. I think this is NOW all about the $$$ (at least for the lawyer...and the mother is so blinded by grief and guilt that she is going along).

 

[LilyWDW]

I think you are right...as least as far as the lawyer goes. He well knows that the damages on a DEATH case are capped (at a fairly low level). But, if your malpractice claimant is "alive" (albeit severely damaged), the sky is the limit. I hope I am wrong about that, but I fear I am right. I think this is NOW all about the $$$ (at least for the lawyer...and the mother is so blinded by grief and guilt that she is going along).

But they wouldn't be able to claim she is alive. She has been declared dead by the State of California as of the day she was declared brain dead. You can't sue on behalf of someone and say they are alive when they legally are not. It would get thrown out in a heartbeat.

 

[kristenrice]

Wow! It took me almost 2 hours to read this entire thread with great interest.

Two questions/comments popped into my mind....

First, someone mentioned changing the vent settings. Since the mother believes that as long as she sees her child breathing, she must be alive. Why not set the vent to a respiratory rate of 4? What harm would it do? She has already been declared dead so there is no way to make her worse.

Second, as a critical care transport paramedic, I have to wonder what they are planning for the actual transport. What ambulance company is going to take this on? If the legal paperwork says that the mother is responsible for her care after she has been transfered out of the hospital's bed, an ambulance company would just be making themselves another target of the family's misguided anguish. Does the mother think that she can just pop the kid into the family station wagon and drive her home? Certainly not...and how does mom think that she is going to manage the vent and all of the other medications that she is on? Do they have licensed caregivers that are planning on providing said care without compensation? I can't believe that the ambulance company would transport her either, not without pre-payment. That is one costly ambulance transport and there is no medical necessity in transporting a person who has been declared dead.

I cannot imagine this family's grief right now and it is very hard for me to read all of this knowing that my own daughter will be undergoing "routine" out-patient knee surgery in a few weeks. I can't put myself into their shoes and I don't ever want to. Would the family have asked that CPR be continued indefinitely if her heart had stopped before her brain? If they'd insisted, surely the hospital would not be under a legal obligation to comply. I'm not sure why the ventilator is any different.

If she meets the definition of dead, why is this even up for debate? The medical professionals (unbiased) have said repeatedly and unanimously that she is DEAD, but the family has said, "no she's not". Why is the hospital under any further obligation? She should be taken off the vent, sent to the morgue and the family escorted from the property after appropriate support has been provided or arranged. This has turned into a huge circus which has cost the taxpayers MILLIONS of dollars and the end result will be the same...she is dead. She has been dead since December 12 and she will continue to be dead...today, tomorrow, next month. Dead is a very stable condition and her family really needs to come to grips with this reality.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

I know my opinion is not going to be popular but I think the family knows exactly what they are doing. California caps lawsuits and because the girl has been declared legally dead they can't claim future medical costs so by suing for what they claim is privacy violations they might actually get a settlement. Sometimes, even if their is no basis for a lawsuit, it is cheaper and quicker to settle it out of court than it is to fight it.

Personally, I nor anyone I know would still be grieveing and a lawsuit, especially for invasion of privacy would be the furthest thing from my mind.

Yes, but this family already has a lawyer and other advisors, and is already in a court battle. They haven't accepted reality and they are strategizing how to get money for Jahi's "care".

 

[pigletgirl]

Wow! It took me almost 2 hours to read this entire thread with great interest. Two questions/comments popped into my mind.... First, someone mentioned changing the vent settings. Since the mother believes that as long as she sees her child breathing, she must be alive. Why not set the vent to a respiratory rate of 4? What harm would it do? She has already been declared dead so there is no way to make her worse. Second, as a critical care transport paramedic, I have to wonder what they are planning for the actual transport. What ambulance company is going to take this on? If the legal paperwork says that the mother is responsible for her care after she has been transfered out of the hospital's bed, an ambulance company would just be making themselves another target of the family's misguided anguish. Does the mother think that she can just pop the kid into the family station wagon and drive her home? Certainly not...and how does mom think that she is going to manage the vent and all of the other medications that she is on? Do they have licensed caregivers that are planning on providing said care without compensation? I can't believe that the ambulance company would transport her either, not without pre-payment. That is one costly ambulance transport and there is no medical necessity in transporting a person who has been declared dead. I cannot imagine this family's grief right now and it is very hard for me to read all of this knowing that my own daughter will be undergoing "routine" out-patient knee surgery in a few weeks. I can't put myself into their shoes and I don't ever want to. Would the family have asked that CPR be continued indefinitely if her heart had stopped before her brain? If they'd insisted, surely the hospital would not be under a legal obligation to comply. I'm not sure why the ventilator is any different. If she meets the definition of dead, why is this even up for debate? The medical professionals (unbiased) have said repeatedly and unanimously that she is DEAD, but the family has said, "no she's not". Why is the hospital under any further obligation? She should be taken off the vent, sent to the morgue and the family escorted from the property after appropriate support has been provided or arranged. This has turned into a huge circus which has cost the taxpayers MILLIONS of dollars and the end result will be the same...she is dead. She has been dead since December 12 and she will continue to be dead...today, tomorrow, next month. Dead is a very stable condition and her family really needs to come to grips with this reality.

Ditto!

What transport company is going to take her?

 

[barkley]

Yes, but this family already has a lawyer and other advisors, and is already in a court battle. They haven't accepted reality and they are strategizing how to get money for Jahi's "care".

to get on-going care monies as a settlement the person would have to be 'alive'. California and Oregon have the same (from what I've read) death criteria so an on-going medical care law suit would have to occur in California (from time of surgery to legal day of death-like 3 or 4 days). I assume the state of Oregon is accepting her in as a decedent (since they have the same definition of death as California). as far as 'pain and suffering' California caps it at $250,000.

as for a violation of privacy lawsuit-I suspect the hospital's lawyers would only have to pull from the print/video/audio/internet media all of the private information that has been put forth by the family/legal team/pastor to show that all that has been put forth has been on their part (I've yet to see anything from the hospital or their reps. that hasn't had wording that they are precluded by hipaa from releasing/disclosing information.

 

[ronandannette]

Here's an ideal that I've been contemplating in light of comments like Jana's above. I'm NOT advocating it, just putting it out there for review and I realize my comments are addressing a hypothetical using Jahi's case as a catalyst, not as a direct example:

If we agree that brain-dead is dead, and that dead means all sentience has ceased in this temporal plane, then it would follow that we also believe that
a) the transcendent part of the person (if we believe there is one) has entered into whatever eternal state comes next and is beyond the reach of any intervention (not intended to open debate about those options here) and;
b) the body is beyond physical suffering as the mechanisms necessary to register any such conditions are completely absent.

Supposing this, what then is the difference between the present state of this body and one that's been donated to research? How is the indignity any greater than being chemically preserved, dissected, poked, prodded and observed for months or years on end in the interest of advancing medical science? Other than our visceral reaction to the concept is there truly a material difference?

Again, I realize the case at hand does not fit the scenario I've proposed, but all cadavers were once as Jahi was - living and loved, and now are no longer.

Oregon Health & Science University has agreed to accept her according to the family's FB site.

OHSU Vision | General Information | OHSU

This would be plausible as it is a medical research facility and as such can take donated bodies, and a body with an active heartbeat would be a unique learning/research opportunity. And as a research facility, it could also perform the procedures the family wants done without all the legal and ethical.

I guess I kind of "called it", although at the time of my post I never dreamed this actual case would play out like this. I wonder if the mother has had to sign the consent forms for whole-body donation for research purposes. This is NOT the same as the facility offering on-going medical treatment. I'm not a medical professional but I know several and they tell me that the decedents become objects, not subjects and beyond being treated with basic dignity, care and comfort measures are never provided.

 

[leebee]

The fetus was deprived of oxygen for possibly over an hour. What kind of life do you think that child will have? What kind of life do you think the child's father/caretaker will have, being forced to care for this child that should have died with its mother?

The woman's wishes should have been taken into consideration and she should have been taken off life support. Frankly, I find it appalling that the state of TX thinks they know better when it comes to something like this.

That is all I can say without crossing over into political territory.

I so totally and completely agree! Talk about letting religious beliefs and viewpoints direct governmental legislation and oversight…

 

[mnrose]

But they wouldn't be able to claim she is alive. She has been declared dead by the State of California as of the day she was declared brain dead. You can't sue on behalf of someone and say they are alive when they legally are not. It would get thrown out in a heartbeat.

The family will argue, as they have already, that it is a question of "fact" whether Jahi is dead or alive. They will therefore claim that the jury gets to decide this question, and not the court. I can, unfortunately, easily see a jury which would decide that she was "alive" and therefore the hospital must pay for on-going care. All you have to do is read the comments on their FB page to see that there are a significant number of people who do not understand, or choose not to believe, the fact that she is dead. Dead. Dead.

It would be absurd, but having personally faced juries in California, I can tell you that anything is possible. I would hope the Court would decide the issue as a matter of law, but I think that is far from certain unfortunately.

 

[mnrose]

I so totally and completely agree! Talk about letting religious beliefs and viewpoints direct governmental legislation and oversight…

And, as I said before, it is the same political faction who is aghast at parts of the ACA as an unlawful intrusion into their lives. I can imagine no greater intrusion, however, than the government hooking my body up to machines to keep it going...despite my EXPRESS wishes, the wishes of my husband and the wishes of all other members of my family. It is horrible.

Anyone against government intrusion should be screaming loudly about this. But strangely, they are silent.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

to get on-going care monies as a settlement the person would have to be 'alive'. California and Oregon have the same (from what I've read) death criteria so an on-going medical care law suit would have to occur in California (from time of surgery to legal day of death-like 3 or 4 days). I assume the state of Oregon is accepting her in as a decedent (since they have the same definition of death as California). as far as 'pain and suffering' California caps it at $250,000.

as for a violation of privacy lawsuit-I suspect the hospital's lawyers would only have to pull from the print/video/audio/internet media all of the private information that has been put forth by the family/legal team/pastor to show that all that has been put forth has been on their part (I've yet to see anything from the hospital or their reps. that hasn't had wording that they are precluded by hipaa from releasing/disclosing information.

I am not disagreeing with you.

To get money for her ongoing expenses the family either has to legally challenge that she is dead and/or find other caused of action for which they can recover damages.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

The family will argue, as they have already, that it is a question of "fact" whether Jahi is dead or alive. They will therefore claim that the jury gets to decide this question, and not the court. I can, unfortunately, easily see a jury which would decide that she was "alive" and therefore the hospital must pay for on-going care. All you have to do is read the comments on their FB page to see that there are a significant number of people who do not understand, or choose not to believe, the fact that she is dead. Dead. Dead.

It would be absurd, but having personally faced juries in California, I can tell you that anything is possible. I would hope the Court would decide the issue as a matter of law, but I think that is far from certain unfortunately.

I disagree with you. Have you read the pleadings? They cannot argue "facts" unless and until they successfully challenge the legal definition of death. That's what they have been arguing. They don't dispute the medical findings about brain activity, only the conclusions drawn as a result.

But yes, I've seen some whacko decisions by juries in your state, and elsewhere, so if it ever got that far . . .

 

[Callie]

How are they going to argue she's alive when they signed off on a deal with a death certificate being issued?

 

[Lorelei Lee]

How are they going to argue she's alive when they signed off on a deal with a death certificate being issued?

My guess? They challenge the definition of death, then chalkenge the validity of the certificate because she wasn't dead.

 

[DisneyJamieCA]

If this place in OR is where she is going, what is the family's hope for what's going to be done? It sounds like a research facility, not an acute care one. I almost feel like if they are accepting her, it's on a completely pretense than what the family has envisioned.

I know the TRO was cancelled with this new ruling, but does the hospital still have the right to remove the vent tomorrow at 5 if they haven't moved her by then?