<p>You are making lots of assumptions, m2ck. Unless you are privvy to the girl’s medical history, whether she was developing any associated medical problems/risk factors (HTN, diabetes, pulmonary hypertension, CHF, risk of significant apneic episodes during sleep due to fatty deposits in the upper airway enlarging the tonsils and causing collapsing of the airway, to name a few) you are assuming that the three procedures performed were done without careful consideration. Its likely that they tried less invasive procedures (CPAP or BIPAP, perhaps weight loss, who knows) and articles have said she got a second opinion before moving forward with the complex surgery (which included a T&A and shaving of her uvula). The risks and benefits of “elective” surgery were surely discussed.</p>
<p>Re: the Texas situation: Nobody said the child might not have feelings about the loss of their mother and the challenging decisions that were made. And I used the term “normal” generically to mean able to understand the complexities of the issue. Feel free to parse the post idf that is your pleasure. I again liken it to challenges and decisions made by couples facing decisions about pregnancy termination after abnormalities are identified on ultrasound. But I do NOT want to turn this thread into an abortion discussion.</p>
<p>
So in your family’s case a “normal” (for lack of a better word) child was told he was possibly aborted? Who in the family chose to share this with the kid and why? In the Texas case, it is being discussed that the dad considered this based on the probability that the fetus was going to have significant disabilities. So in a similar circumstance, he was possibly making a different decision than your BIL/SIL. I respect his right and his ability to choose.</p>
<p>Re Jahi, if there is any possibility that best medical practice would have avoided the surgery, then, again, that is a legal question to be decided in a court. As kluge said, that is how our system works. And if a poor, uneducated family can’t count on some officer of the court stepping up on their behalf, then we are in trouble. What many people who choose to demonized lawyers as a matter of course don’t realize is how deeply committed many lawyers are to social justice issues. Based on where the lawyer in this case went to law school, I would bet dollars to cupcakes that there is an element of social justice here. Someone had to represent this family because there was, in fact, a valid question. It was posted above. A poor and unsophisticated family should never sign away any legal rights without representation. Some lawyers are sleazes. Some do really good things for people. Some doctors are heroic. Some are also criminals, and sometimes malpractice happens. Maybe this child was not an appropriate candidate for this surgery at this time. I would be curious about how many people would be more uncomfortable with this family not having representation in a situation where the hospital and doctors had excellent representation to protect their interests. Anyone?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A woman in my extended family aborted her final pregnancy because serious depression was already making it difficult to care for her family, and she and her husband did not feel she could cope with one more child. Her children (who are now adults) know this, and they realize that if they had been the last one conceived, they would have been aborted. It doesn’t bother them a bit. One of them, in fact, has said that he believes his mother made an intelligent decision.</p>
<p>Of course, nobody was stupid enough to discuss this topic until the young people were around college age.</p>
<p>Don’t see anyone suggesting the family shouldn’t have adequate legal representation, zoos. But also don’t see anyone addressing, at this point, whether or not the surgery could/should have been avoided. The current issue seems to be the decision to d/c the ventilator, and the side issues, as I read between the lines in some news reports, is whether the staff responded appropriately when the child began to hemorrhage.</p>
<p>and +1, Marian!</p>
<p>There are people calling the lawyer names and complaining about the continuation of the matter. As long as there is a legal question pending before the court, he has to continue to represent the family to the best of his ability. There is a great deal of sympathy for medical professionals, likely warranted, but it isn’t a cut and dried legal matter by any stretch of the imagination. At this point, the ideal situation would be to let her go. The doctor from New York appears to be a very disturbing individual. But it may be that the hospital has so completely poisoned the relationship with the family that it might have been over already had it been handled differently.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think that’s the issue here. If anything the court is bending over to accomodate the family’s wishes. The court heard them and sided with them to have an independent party to examine the girl again. The medical profession and the court agree that she is dead. The question is where we go from here with the dead body. If there’s malpractice, that will be a separate issue.</p>
<p>It is no doubt very tragic and the mother is probably grieving beyond anyone’s imagination. The thing is we can’t bring back the girl. There’s no answer to this. That’s why we have art, music and other creative process to help us deal with events that don’t make sense. We can’t demand everything make sense and go to the court to get an answer to something there’s no answer. Let’s pause a moment and see what it would be like if we keep the girl alive. Let’s not think about the cost or ethics or even the decomposition that will happen inevitably. The girl isn’t any better than a fish in a tank. It is gruesome.</p>
<p>Of course, nobody was stupid enough to discuss this topic until the young people were around college age.</p>
<p>Yes, ideally that would be the case. However, when something has been nat’l news, that probably wouldn’t happen in this case. In my BIL/SIL’s case, since they nearly divorced over the issue, too many people knew the “why”, and in such a case “secrets that are best kept secret” didn’t remain so.</p>
<p>More from the article I linked earlier (indicating she got a second opinion before proceeding with surgery), and a follow-up article about the guilt of a grieving parent:
</p>
<p>Follow up article, with an interesting opinion
[Herhold:</a> At bottom, the Jahi McMath story is a tale of a mother’s guilt - San Jose Mercury News](<a href=“Herhold: At bottom, the Jahi McMath story is a tale of a mother’s guilt – The Mercury News”>Herhold: At bottom, the Jahi McMath story is a tale of a mother’s guilt – The Mercury News)</p>
<p>
??? You mean the Dr from Ohio who claims she is alive and responding to the mom?</p>
<p>Of course, she feels guilty. But every parent of a 13-year old makes these decisions. That’s not unusual.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This doesn’t ring true to me. I would feel just as guilty in this situation because it would mean that I had failed to teach my child to refrain from the unsafe behavior. </p>
<p>Parents can blame themselves for pretty much everything that has to do with their child.</p>
<p>Good point, Marion. Parents feel responsible for the protection of their kids, and guilty if something happens to them, especially if they lose a child. Survivor guilt is particularly powerful in a parent/child dynamic.</p>
<p>The bio of the Dr. the parents brought in (who isn’t licensed in CA so hasn’t examined the child) is an interesting read. Not exactly unbiased.
[Paul</a> A. Byrne, M.D. column](<a href=“Paul A. Byrne, M.D. column”>Paul A. Byrne, M.D. column)</p>
<p>The mere fact that they had to go to Ohio from California to find an expert on their side after 5 physicians who actually examined the child including one selected by the court declared her dead is quite telling in itself.</p>
<p>And more from his bio:
</p>
<p>[Jahi</a> McMath’s family says hospital blocking transfer - SFGate](<a href=“Jahi McMath's family says hospital blocking transfer”>Jahi McMath's family says hospital blocking transfer)</p>
<p>This case is very strange.</p>
<p>Interesting article. The hospital has been clear that no member of their medical staff will perform a tracheostomy on a deceased individual, yet the attorney is saying that without is she “will die”. It is a horrible situation, but he has the tense wrong. She is dead.</p>
<p>*** ETA now THIS is interesting. Another judge is scheduled to hear additional arguments a few hours before the restraining order expires on Monday.
</p>
<p>Right, and he has to know this even if they don’t. It’s very disturbing.</p>
<p>Exactly, actingmt. The attorney continuing to make these kinds of statements
[quote]
“It is clear to me that Children’s is placing impediments in our way,” Dolan said Tuesday. “A trach and feeding tube - everything she needs to stay alive - they’ve stripped from her.”<a href=“bolding%20is%20mine”>/quote</a> may not be acting in the best interests of his client from a moral standpoint.</p>