13 Year old gir declared brain dead has now officially died

[Lorelei Lee]

That is a distinct possibility.

I should add the typical disclaimer: I am not involved in this case as a treating physician, and until specific tests can be run on both the mom and the fetus, we may not get a definitive answer.

It's your educated guess, based on what you read in the media and what you know as a professional.

Which makes this even sadder for the family, I think.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

31 states have a law on the books that is similar to the Texas law regarding pregnant patients and advance directive.

It's an unscientific poll, of course, but the overwhelming majority of folks who answered this poll said the law should be overturned.

http://cumming.patch.com/groups/que...advance-directives-of-pregnant-women_a4a2acd5

 

[Deb in IA]

I think one of the key points in this case was that the doctors/hospital had already declared Marlise Munoz brain dead.

So, if she is dead, she can't be a patient anymore, and that law about keeping pregnant patients alive shouldn't apply.

It sounds dumb, but if you're dead, you're dead, and if you are alive, you're alive. You can't be both.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

Exactly.

If I read the court papers correctly, the hospital determined Munoz was dead, but refused to pronounce her and continued to treat her as a pregnant patient. The court's ruling was very narrow, determining only that Munoz was legally dead and therefore not a patient, and thus the law about pregnant patients was inapplicable.

It does leave open the broader proposition as to whether a pregnant patient can leave advanced directives, or whether the law in those 31 states supersedes the patient's intentions.

 

[Disneychick75]

What about the girl in the OP? She's brain dead, right? Did they pull the plug? Or will they only pull it if her family requests it? Will they end her life when insurance no longer covers her?
I remember seeing this on the news a couple of months back and haven't heard anything lately.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

What about the girl in the OP? She's brain dead, right? Did they pull the plug? Or will they only pull it if her family requests it? Will they end her life when insurance no longer covers her?
I remember seeing this on the news a couple of months back and haven't heard anything lately.

Guess you haven't read this whole thread. the family took Jahi out of the hospital to some "undisclosed facility", and that's the last anyone has heard.

 

[hereyago]

What about the girl in the OP? She's brain dead, right? Did they pull the plug? Or will they only pull it if her family requests it? Will they end her life when insurance no longer covers her?
I remember seeing this on the news a couple of months back and haven't heard anything lately.

In a nutshell: her family was able to move her life support and all to some place undisclosed. She never had insurance it turns out.

 

[Disneychick75]

Guess you haven't read this whole thread. the family took Jahi out of the hospital to some "undisclosed facility", and that's the last anyone has heard.

No, I did not.

In a nutshell: her family was able to move her life support and all to some place undisclosed. She never had insurance it turns out.

No one knows if benefactors or tax payers are paying? Is the difference between Jahi and the woman in Texas, the family wants the plug pulled in Texas? I don't understand why the judge has ordered life support discontinued in one case but not the other.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

No, I did not.



No one knows if benefactors or tax payers are paying? Is the difference between Jahi and the woman in Texas, the family wants the plug pulled in Texas? I don't understand why the judge has ordered life support discontinued in one case but not the other.

In the Texas case, the family wanted the vent removed and the hospital refused. The court ruled that Munoz was legally dead and that the vent should be removed.

In the California case, the hospital pronounced Jahi dead and wanted to remove the vent. The family objected. The court ruled Jahi was dead and that the hospital could remove the vent. The family made arrangements to take Jahi to another facility, one that would continue to provide care.

And you've asked the key question, who's paying the bill? No one seems to know.

 

[Disneychick75]

In the Texas case, the family wanted the vent removed and the hospital refused. The court ruled that Munoz was legally dead and that the vent should be removed.

In the California case, the hospital pronounced Jahi dead and wanted to remove the vent. The family objected. The court ruled Jahi was dead and that the hospital could remove the vent. The family made arrangements to take Jahi to another facility, one that would continue to provide care.

And you've asked the key question, who's paying the bill? No one seems to know.

Thanks for the information.

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...t-distinctly-abnormal-family-lawyers-say?lite

The statement issued through Munoz's attorneys apparently seeks to bolster the claim that keeping the mother alive for the sake of the fetus is a lost cause.
“Even at this early stage, the lower extremities are deformed to the extent the gender cannot be determined,” the statement says.
In addition the statement says the fetus has swelling of the brain — “hydrocephalus” — as well as a possible heart problem.

 

[bcla]

No one knows if benefactors or tax payers are paying? Is the difference between Jahi and the woman in Texas, the family wants the plug pulled in Texas? I don't understand why the judge has ordered life support discontinued in one case but not the other.

I heard the family had insurance, but I guess that understanding could have been incorrect. Grandma was supposedly a licensed vocational nurse for Kaiser and the employment status of the uncle was known. I thought mom or stepdad had a job with insurance. Or at the very least I'd think they'd be eligible for Medi-Cal.

Children's Hospital Oakland is interesting. It's considered a world-class hospital but its patient base is distinctly poor. Oakland isn't 100% poor underclass, but that describes a lot of the city. Most of their patients are on Medi-Cal with low reimbursements. They heavily rely on paying and insured patients to afford to pay for their indigent care.

They weren't happy about Stanford's Lucile Packard Children's Hospital setting up a clinic near Oakland. They were worried that they might siphon off many of their insured patients.

Is Stanford Trying to Put Children's Hospital Oakland Out of Business?
The new Lucile Packard Children's Hospital in Emeryville could siphon off wealthier patients and thus make it harder for Children's Hospital Oakland to serve low-income residents.

Children's Hospital Oakland has, for many years, operated as a "safety net" institution that sees primarily low-income patients and does not turn away the uninsured. And unlike the majority of children's hospitals across the country, it is freestanding a private, nonprofit hospital that is not part of a larger system. That means that the income Children's receives from the small percentage of patients who are privately insured is especially critical to the hospital's sustained financial health and continued efforts to serve all in need regardless of their immigration status or ability to pay.

So when word spread recently that Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, part of Stanford Medicine, was expanding its presence in the East Bay, some Children's Hospital Oakland and Alameda County officials questioned Stanford's motives and expressed concerns about how a new clinic, now open in Emeryville, could hurt the existing system.

"They are another great institution," Bert Lubin, president and CEO of Children's Hospital Oakland, said of Lucile Packard. "In this particular case, though, I still question, why did this need to happen? I feel that we provide the services that they are offering there, and if our goals as children's hospitals are for the health of children, was this really for the health of children or was this really to capture a part of the market?"

Alameda County health officials echoed this same fear: Is Stanford looking to siphon off privately insured families from Children's Hospital Oakland, which already has a uncommonly high rate of government-sponsored patients?

** **

At Children's Hospital Oakland, about 90 percent of primary care patients are government sponsored, primarily through Medi-Cal, the state's medical welfare program, and in 2012, nearly 70 percent of emergency department cases involved government-sponsored patients. Children's Hospital Oakland, in a 2012 community benefit report, estimated the value of its charity care, meaning free care to uninsured and underinsured patients, to be $10.8 million (and $146 million in government-sponsored healthcare). The high rate of Medi-Cal patients translates directly to financial losses. The hospital's profitability report cited a net loss (after operating costs and reimbursements) of $15 million in fiscal year 2013 and $17 million in fiscal year 2012 for its Alameda County patients.

By contrast, Lucile Packard's finances are much more stable because the majority of the hospital's patients are privately insured. Only 45 percent of primary care patients are in Medi-Cal at Lucile Packard about half as much as at Children's Hospital Oakland.

"I welcome Packard's interest in East Bay children and I'm deeply respectful of their skill and talent and sophistication," said Alex Briscoe, director of the Alameda County Health Care Services Agency. "I am concerned that any service focused on commercial pay in Emeryville and Berkeley and more privileged parts of Alameda County could have the unintended consequence of destabilizing our critical safety net at Children's [Hospital Oakland]."

 

[lizzi6692]

I heard the family had insurance, but I guess that understanding could have been incorrect. Grandma was supposedly a licensed vocational nurse for Kaiser and the employment status of the uncle was known. I thought mom or stepdad had a job with insurance. Or at the very least I'd think they'd be eligible for Medi-Cal.

Children's Hospital Oakland is interesting. It's considered a world-class hospital but its patient base is distinctly poor. Oakland isn't 100% poor underclass, but that describes a lot of the city. Most of their patients are on Medi-Cal with low reimbursements. They heavily rely on paying and insured patients to afford to pay for their indigent care.

They weren't happy about Stanford's Lucile Packard Children's Hospital setting up a clinic near Oakland. They were worried that they might siphon off many of their insured patients.

It doesn't matter if the family has insurance. She is legally dead, no insurance company is going to pay for medical care for what amounts to a corpse.

 

[mom2rtk]

I just head the hospital is going to comply and remove life support for Marlise Munoz.

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

"Brain-dead, pregnant Texas woman at center of court battle has been removed from ventilator, family's lawyers say." -- CNN

 

[Lorelei Lee]

I hope so. This isn't a good bellwether case.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

Just heard on the news that the hospital complied. Rest in peace, Marlise.

Sent from my iPad using DISBoards

 

[bcla]

Lots of reporting confirms this:

http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/...-in-munoz-case-discontinue-life-support.html/

Update at 12:54 p.m.: Attorneys for the Muñoz family said in a statement that Marlise Muñoz was withdrawn from life support about 11:30 a.m. Sunday.

“The Munoz and Machado families will now proceed with the somber task of laying Marlise Munoz’s body to rest, and grieving over the great loss that has been suffered,” the statement says. “May Marlise Munoz finally rest in peace, and her family find the strength to complete what has been an unbearably long and arduous journey.”

The statement was released by attorneys Heather L. King and Jessica H. Janicek.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/01/25/5513457/hospital-discussing-future-of.html

FORT WORTH — Life support was removed from pregnant brain-dead Haltom City woman shortly before noon Sunday after John Peter Smith Hospital said it would not appeal a state district judge’s ruling to remove life-sustaining measures.

“Our client, Erick Muñoz, has authorized us to give notice that today, at approximately 11:30 a.m ... Marlise Muñoz’s body was disconnected from “life support” and released to Mr. Muñoz,” said a statement from the family’s attorneys. “The Muñoz and Machado families will now proceed with the somber task of laying Marlise Muñoz’s body to rest, and grieving over the great loss that has been suffered.”

“May Marlise Muñoz finally rest in peace, and her family find the strength to complete what has been an unbearably long and arduous journey,” said the statement released by attorneys Heather L. King and Jessica H. Janicek.

I also read somewhere that not only was the Tarrant County DA involved, but the Texas AG's office might have been involved in the defense. So in that case it wasn't just the hospital "going rogue" by their interpretation of the law but implicit instruction by the state that they believed the law applied even to a brain-dead pregnant woman.

 

[Disneychick75]

Bless Marlise and her baby, RIP.

 

[North of Mouse]

So !! One never knows what kind of situation you may find yourselves through no fault of your own. So very sorry for all this family has suffered!