<p>“So not to digress (well, only a little), but what IS the appropriate “ask” for money when someone dies? After not having been to a funeral in 10 years, I have–in the past three weeks–attended a memorial service (more like a “celebration of life” party) for an old friend who committed suicide and one for my friend’s elderly mother who died on Christmas.”</p>
<p>First off, sorry for your losses, Sally.
The “appropriate amount” to ask for? None IMO. If someone wants to do something like set up a college fund for surviving children or a fund to defray burial expenses or whatever, I think that should be done separately and not tied in with the funeral. I’ve never seen this done and it strikes me as inappropriate, however well intended.</p>
<p>I apologize for even bringing up the issue of the biological father. I did so, only wondering if he had been a presence and/or if he might have any luck in getting through to the mother. Many people here seem to have information about him; I’m wondering if anyone could provide a link to any articles that mention his presence.</p>
<p>"In your last example, PG, yes, there are health laws that prohibit keeping uncle Bernie on the front couch. And dogs might dig him up from the flower bed, even if his dying wish was to be fertilizer for the roses. "</p>
<p>That’s my point, though, it doesn’t really harm UB to be dug up from the flower bed by dogs, so why don’t we allow it under kluge’s premise of “harm to no one”?</p>
<p>“The arguments that it would “harm” the girl based on the assertion that she’s already dead - even though it’s not unethical to do the same thing to a different dead body - strike me as particlarly strained. Yes, it’s different from a practice operation on a medical school cadaver. But the difference does not impact the ethics of doing it.”</p>
<p>The difference between performing surgery on this dead girl, and med students performing surgery on (consented) cadavers for training purposes ABSOLUTELY are differences that impact the ethics of each act. </p>
<p>I note you never answered - what if the girl was of age and had planned breast implants or a nose job? Would it be ethical of a plastic surgeon to do those things at this point in time? Why or why not? </p>
<p>Medicine is not like a Chinese menu, where you can just order things to your heart’s content.</p>
<p>Who IS paying for this girl’s body’s expensive treatment? Last I heard, the family had raised about $30K, which probably wouldn’t even cover the post-death treatment she has already had, let alone the surgery on her dead body that they want to compel a surgeon at the hospital to do.</p>
<p>This Dr Paul Byrne in NY is a board certified neonatalogist and pediatrician, but NOT a neurologist, much less a pediatric neurologist. Classic doctor shopping. It impresses stupid laypeople who don’t know the difference, but different specialties are different specialties for a reason, and he is simply not qualified to opine on whether she is dead any more than my husband who’s a board-cert ob-gyn.</p>
<p>“…Therefore, medical doctors are legally and ethically obligated to discontinue medically futile care when brain death has been determined. In most cases, the family will be informed of the situation, given a chance to gather and say goodbye, and the machines will be turned off. This is the standard of care. This is what happens in intensive care units throughout the world. For some reason, which is not fully apparent, this is not what happened to Jahi McMath in Oakland.”</p>
<p>Pay attention to when she says–“My daughter is a bed space and they need to get her out of there so they can put another child in there and kill them too.”</p>
<p>Sadly, there is some truth to this. This is where kluge’s assertion that this situation hurts no one is complete nonsense. ICU beds are very hard to come by. The highly specialized personnel who have the qualifications to staff them is in short supply. Working the units is frustrating when the ICU is full, yet there is someone critical being careflighted in and administration is beseeching you to find a way to transfer a less critical patient to stepdown or the floor. If this case establishes precedent, I cannot imagine the harm done. We do NOT have the infrastructure to keep brain dead patients in ICU until their hearts and organs finally wear out, and the floors are not able to manage a patient of this kind. How do we make room for critical viable patients if we have even one or two “brain dead” but still “alive” in respect of the family’s religious beliefs patients taking up valuable space and resources in the ICU? The answer is, we don’t. Medical resources of this kind are in short supply, and don’t assume that if this case is allowed to proceed there won’t be many more following. If staff can be compelled to continue this kind of treatment and even compelled to place tracheostomies and feeding tubes for transfer, there will be a move toward compelling payment for such. If you don’t believe that, I’ve got some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you. Won’t harm anyone else my butt…</p>
<p>Momfromme - I don’t think we can assume that the family would have agreed to organ donation even if they had given consent to withdrawal life support days after their daughter was pronounced brain dead on December 12th. Some families are just fundamentally against this. Or they believe in it but the tragedy of their loss is too overwhelming to consider this. </p>
<p>I want to be an organ donor if my passing allows. My DL does not reflect this, nor is it written anywhere else. My DH knows. I do not want him hounded, rushed, or pushed to make any decision based on organ retrieval. That’s not primary frankly. If I’m gone, yes he knows what to do. But if he’s at all not ready or hesitant I don’t want him rushed because of that. </p>
<p>I’m surprised it’s been mentioned so often here. While organ donation is ideal it’s obvious the parents are not coming to terms with their daughters death. If no alternative is found before next week, and the judge does not extend the deadline again, life support is discontinued, I honestly do not see her parents agreeing to organ donation under those circumstances (I doubt I could).</p>
<p>The fact that he doesn’t know how ventilators work (“Only living patients can exhale on a vent, corpses cannot exhale”) makes me question him in more ways than as competent in matters of pediatric neurology…</p>
<p>Well, I’m the one who called Attorney Dolan an ambulance chaser and now I’ll go one step further and say he ought to be disbarred (or, more accurately, reported to the State Bar for disciplinary action) based on at least one of the declarations made in support of the family’s [ex</a> parte application](<a href=“http://media.nbcbayarea.com/documents/JahiDeclaration.pdf]ex”>http://media.nbcbayarea.com/documents/JahiDeclaration.pdf). It’s one thing to tell the press that this was just a “routine tonsillectomy,” but to repeat that hyperbole in a sworn declaration to the court is something else entirely. What’s his defense going to be - that he’s repeated the same lie so many times that he’s finally starting to believe it?</p>
<p>Really interesting article, nysmile. The difference in this case is the family went to the local news accusing the hospital of wanting to kill a child. I was reamed for saying I thought that was odd at the time but I’m sticking to it. How often does this happen in hospitals? Reporters are not often invited into these tragic circumstances. </p>
<p>Enter lawyer. Then they got an injunction until after the holidays and yet another delay because of promises that they had a facility to take her. Strange since the same court also found her to be deceased weeks ago, now. But, nobody wants to be the bad guy. It snowballed.</p>
<p>His defense is that it is a question for the trier of fact, typically a jury. You may also want to look up the word, “routine.” Someone can do something complicated over and over and over again until it becomes routine. The word does not carry a legal definition of “without risk.”</p>
<p>I believe this. So wouldn’t the ethical compromise of accommodating Jahi’s family’s wishes be outweighed by the potential (clearly ethical, life-saving) benefit to more people who could use the bed in the ICU?</p>
<p>Wait, if the mother said publicly that the hospital needs the bed so they can “kill another child”, is that admitting that her child is, in fact, dead? </p>
<p>It really sounds like she is going through the typical phases of grief, but in a very public and disruptive manner, enabled by these lawyers and doctors who are encouraging this pursuit. </p>
<p>I’m starting to wonder if the judge keeps extending with the belief that the rest of the girl’s body will break down and the artificial means won’t work anymore, thereby ending the whole issue. </p>
<p>All the articles and doctors are starting to run together, but I believe at least one of them admitted he hadn’t read her records and believes there needs to be more explanation. </p>
<p>Do those who believe movement means the brain is functioning at some level not know about spinal reflexes?</p>
<p>No, cartera45, this was not simply a tonsillectomy, routine or otherwise, and to state that it was is disingenuous. Three separate procedures were involved. For an attorney to pretend otherwise, in a sworn declaration to the court, is a breach of his obligations to the court.</p>
<p>I’m not so sure it would. If “brain dead” isn’t really dead, then how is another “not dead” necessarily going to get the other patient moved? The brain dead but not really dead requires just as much intensive care (if not more) than the patient wanting a bed. And clearly, people who scream louder seem to get more relief than those who don’t. And finally, as kluge pointed out, “ethical” is in the eye of the beholder.</p>