<p>A couple of things. This case is not frivolous in the legal sense. The fact that there were rulings on behalf of the family shows that there was a legal question to be decided. It doesn’t speak to who is right, just that a legitimate question for the court exists.</p>
<p>Dodgersmom, do you have a link to the engagement agreement with the family’s attorney?</p>
<p>[A</a> personal story of representing Jahi McMath | Christopher Dolan | San Francisco | San Francisco Examiner](<a href=“http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/a-personal-story-of-representing-jahi-mcmath/Content?oid=2658052]A”>http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/a-personal-story-of-representing-jahi-mcmath/Content?oid=2658052)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But in fact most people do not make this choice. </p>
<p>What this girl’s family did is newsworthy precisely because it is unusual. If most families did it, it wouldn’t be news.</p>
<p>I agree it is very unusual.
Four yrs ago, my mother was put into a coma, and less than 24 hrs after they started to bring her out of it, the decision was made by my brother and sister, to remove all life support.
( I was only notified, not consulted)
Generally life support is continued after death only until organs can be harvested.</p>
<p>Such a very sad case, </p>
<p>but it is important to realize that all surgery has risks that cannot be completely eliminated.</p>
<p>In the seven day healing period after every tonsillectomy, there is raw tissue inside the throat that is very close to main arteries, and the risk of severe (life-threatening) bleeding is about 1% as the scab comes off and by bad luck pulls on an artery. </p>
<p>So it is a very small risk, but as a surgeon performing this surgery, yes, I know of some young healthy people who have died. One young woman I recall well, she was one of our hospital nurses, operated on by one of the the best surgeons in the area. It was not an operative mistake, she was already home and recovering well, and we tried very hard to save her when she was brought back in, but could not because the bleeding was so sudden and massive.</p>
<p>Many different techniques have been tried to lower the risk of post-operative tonsillectomy bleeding, but so far none has worked.</p>
<p>I sincerely hope someone has carefully and compassionately explained to the young girl’s family how the autonomic nervous system works- why she may still have some reflexive responses and why her heart is still beating.</p>
<p>“Generally life support is continued after death only until organs can be harvested.”</p>
<p>In TX, a pregnant woman would be kept on “life support” regardless of her own wishes.</p>
<p>Here is a good summary of the case so far:
[Q&A:</a> Girl’s brain death ignites difficult debate - San Jose Mercury News](<a href=“http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_24825015/q-amp-girls-brain-death-ignites-difficult-debate]Q&A:”>http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_24825015/q-amp-girls-brain-death-ignites-difficult-debate)</p>
<p>Jym, I really doubt they would understand. Besides, they found a doctor in Ohio who, without even examining the girl, said that she should be kept “alive” - because of those reflexive muscle contractions.</p>
<p>From the link above:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks for that link, Flossy. So, the lawyer originally took the case as the hospital wanted to take her off the ventilator but the mother disagreed. For the hospital to do that, it takes judicial review. The lawyer asked for an independent medical evaluation. They got that and it concluded the same thing-that the young girl is unfortunately brain dead. Yet, he keeps this going? I agree with jym- I hope this has all been explained to the family. If the lawyer really did care about this family, he should also be explaining that she is not coming back to life. If he is not, he may be in as much denial about this as the family.</p>
<p>Sorry, I apparently misspoke. It seems the publicity-seeking, ambulance chasing s.o.b. who’s representing this family is claiming to be acting pro bono. But all it takes is a simple translation of the phrase “pro bono” to realize that’s not really the case, is it?</p>
<p>Pro bono in this case=pro buckets of free publicity</p>
<p>In my estimation, Dr. Byrne is brain dead too ;)</p>
<p>I’d hope that the more judgmental folks posting here would recognize that if the situation is absolutely clear based on your definition of terms, but nonetheless highly controversial (as this one is) chances are you are defining your way around the hard parts - something that is manifest in most discussions of abortion, for example.</p>
<p>Referring to the girl as a “corpse” or a “dead body” is not only insensitive, it’s not accurate. More than 90% of the girl’s body is quite alive - her arms, her legs, her skin, eyes, heart, lungs, etc. Just one small part has been determined by tests to be dead: her brain. I understand and agree with the policy reasons for making that the determining factor in whether a person is alive or not, but consider: in the past, “death” was determined by a prolonged cessation of heartbeat. That worked well, because without the heart pumping blood throughout the body, the tissues all die - some sooner than others, but all pretty quickly. Hence the need for speed in organ transplants. A person whose heart stopped beating would be “not only merely dead, [but] really most sincerely dead.”</p>
<p>But with modern technology that doesn’t happen. Her heart still beats. Blood still flows. If her artery was cut, she’d bleed out and die in the traditional sense. So she’s not “dead” in other than the technical meaning of the term. She’s not a “body” or a “corpse” - she’s a 13 year old girl whose brain has been deprived of oxygen until its tissues have died.</p>
<p>Now, as Nrdsb4 has pointed out (correctly, I have no doubt) the situation will resolve itself over a fairly short period of time. Having a sizable lump of dead tissue inside your body is not consistent with continued life. And the tissue can’t be cut out under the circumstances. So if her brain is dead her body will follow.</p>
<p>But in the traditional sense she’s really not “dead” yet. I understand why the traditional definition is not adequate to deal with current reality, but pretending that there’s no ambiguity about whether the girl is “dead” in anything beyond the legal and technical sense of the term is simplistic. And therein lies the problem.</p>
<p>Yes, policy issues abound. Which child will be next? She isn’t the first, she won’t be the last. But it’s not simple, and castigating the family or the lawyer who is working for them is neither helpful nor charitable.</p>
<p>I am a lawyer, and I would never arrogate unto myself the right to tell a family that they should pull the plug on a family member. I have a lot of skills and training, but that’s not my privilege or my responsibility. Lawyers work for their clients, and should only refuse to do so if the requested action is illegal or immoral. This situation doesn’t even come close.</p>
<p>Dodgersmom, have you seen the retainer agreement? Do you know what it says or are you assuming?</p>
<p>I have worked for several law firms that have represented death row inmates. Very unpopular, as you can imagine. Hate mail, death threats, the whole nine yards. Along with other very unpopular representations. Always pro bono. Which is not to say it is completely altruistic. While no money changes hands, there are other significant benefits to the firm. But unpopular people received representation. Which is their right. The McMath family is entitled to representation and an impartial court of law indicated that there was a valid legal question. I am not sure why that is problematic to anyone. I will be very surprised if the judge doesn’t lift the stay on January 7, at which time all that will have happened is that the judge respected the law to the point at which any outstanding issues were resolved. We should all support that.</p>
<p>As far as ambulance chasing, that happens. But so does honest-to-goodness malpractice. is it likely here? Probably not. But if the court of public opinion was the ultimate arbiter, then the Duke Lacrosse students would still be in jail. The legal process hasn’t played out yet, but it will and the little girl will be laid to rest. Forever.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would hardly consider the brain to be “one small part”. The child is dead. Her family needs to stop this futile misguided mission and accept the sad truth.</p>
<p>In TX, a pregnant woman would be kept on “life support” regardless of her own wishes.</p>
<p>Sometimes, Im surprised Texas is still in the USA.
Is it the only state that has such a law?</p>
<p>[Mom</a> of pregnant woman on life support: Change the law - CNN.com](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/24/health/pregnant-life-support-texas/]Mom”>http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/24/health/pregnant-life-support-texas/)</p>
<p>The size of the “part” does not equal its functional and vital importance.</p>
<p>Jym, I think so, too. 
Or at the very least he should be required to re-take whatever licensing exams they have for MDs.</p>
<p>Ek4</p>
<p>Since no one really knows what the woman would have wanted in THAT particular situation, I don’t blame Tx for having that law.</p>
<p>The family says she is being kept alive on a ventilator at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth, Texas, even though she would not want her life prolonged by a machine.</p>
<p>BS…I highly doubt any pregnant woman would have expressed that. Whatever she expressed while not-pregnant is irrelevant. </p>
<p>Now, if Tx and other states want to have pregnant women sign papers upon learning of their pregnancies of what they’d want done in such a case, I think a gov’t is right to side on the side of baby.</p>
<p>This is an emotionally charged topic, and folks have strong opinions. This may not be the best analogy, but I liken it to a car. The radio, horn, windshield wipers, brakes and seat warmers may still function, but the engine is dead.</p>
<p>I think the complicating factor in the Texas case is that the fetus has likely been deprived of oxygen and, if born alive, is likely to be born with significant disabilities.</p>