<p>@sally - I’ve seen the envelopes at funeral before. They were used for people that wanted to make a donation in the name of the person who died . For example to the local hospice or cancer research if the person died from cancer…</p>
<p>I think Sally was referring to the families soliciting donations for themselves / their own financial benefit, not for a hospice or a donation towards cancer research or that type of thing.</p>
<p>I’ve been to funerals where, knowing the family could barely afford funeral expenses or who may have huge medical bills that have accumulated during a long illness, people donate money directly to the family. </p>
<p>When my mom passed, some people just gave us cash or checks. We turned those into donations to her favorite charities because there was enough money in her estate to cover all expenses.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think any normal qualified medical doctor is well qualified to understand and opine on death. The doctor shopping seems to have gone so far as to seek and find a doctor who is willing to be irrational and foolish in his professional opinions.</p>
<p>Byrne is certainly qualified to recognize death.
However, his religious beliefs are at odds with donating organs even when the patient is dead using neurological criteria.
He has an agenda & he has not even examined the girl.
[Determining</a> death: Catholic teaching examined - The Catholic Transcript Online](<a href=“The Catholic Transcript”>The Catholic Transcript)</p>
<p>He’s not a board-certified neurologist. It’s not his area of expertise. In the medical community, good doctors are very careful to delineate what is in their field of expertise and what is not. </p>
<p>This happens all the time in med mal cases too - people doctor-shop for “a doctor, any doctor” who will say xxxx. Uneducated laypeople don’t get that the opinion needs to be from someone in that specialty, who has the training and certification. Doctors are not interchangeable just because they have MD after their names.</p>
<p>To follow up PG’s post, in court testimony, as an expert witness, a person would need to be deemed to be an “expert” in a certain field. So it would be unlikely that, for example, (using these specialties purely as an example- please don’t ping off it), a dermatologist would be testifying or would be deemed an expert, in an anesthesia case.</p>
<p>According to this article from the NY Daily News, one of the Drs. from that foundation are en route to, or already in, CA [New</a> York doctors urge ?hope? for ?brain-dead? Jahi McMath - NY Daily News](<a href=“National News - New York Daily News”>New York doctors urge ‘hope’ for ‘brain-dead’ Jahi McMath )</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not if uncle Bernie has been cremated. There’s no health risk from cremated remains, and you can just take them home if you want to. My dad had his sister’s ashes at his house for several months before the family made a decision about what to do with them. No laws were broken.</p>
<p>Yes, that goes without say. Cremains are a totally different situation. PG (in post 536) was talking about an intact body in her example, to which I responded.</p>
<p>This article shows the bio dad at a press conference Dec. 17 with Jahi’s mom, uncle and the family attorney, Chris Dolan [2nd</a> opinion ordered for teen declared brain dead - Connecticut Post](<a href=“http://www.ctpost.com/news/medical/article/2nd-opinion-ordered-for-teen-declared-brain-dead-5087264.php#photo-5613830]2nd”>http://www.ctpost.com/news/medical/article/2nd-opinion-ordered-for-teen-declared-brain-dead-5087264.php#photo-5613830)</p>
<p>As a follow-up to the report from the Drs from NY linked above, in the article linked, the CEO of this foundation says:
Would be interesting to hear more about their theories and his ideas.</p>
<p>Drag enough potential dollar bills around and you can always find some doctor willing to say anything, even if it’s not in line with the standard beliefs, data and practice of that field. That’s why you have to go with the standard of care in a field.</p>
<p>The article that emeraldkity4 linked to (in post #565 above) is helpful. Not only is Byrne an outlier in the medical community, he’s an extreme outlier in the religious community, as well. No one wants to be associated with this guy!</p>
<p>I don’t know why anyone should have to apologize for bringing up the bio dad or anything else for that matter. Characterizing these questions as family bashing is misguided at best. This case is intentionally being turned into a public spectacle and the effort to shape public opinion is in full swing. That’s not being insensitive it’s just stating the obvious. It doesn’t make the observer any less compassionate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually I believe that varies state by state. I seem to recall that my state, for example, either was considering or recently passed legislation requiring that the testifying doctors be of the relevant specialty. But there certainly have been med-mal cases in which the testifying doctors were not of the relevant specialty.</p>
<p>Finding medical experts to testify in malpractices cases is one of the toughest parts of bringing a case. In Baltimore, it it hard to find docs who will go up against docs from Hopkins and some of the other prestigious hospital systems. This is particularly true in specialties in which there are very few experts. Bringing in experts from outside the area can cost thousands a day. The defense, on the other hand, has doctors lined up to testify. If doctors testify too often on behalf of plaintiffs’ their credibility is suspect to the jury. All of that comes out under cross exam. A lot of otherwise strong cases are not pursued because of the inability to find a doctor, who won’t bankrupt the plaintiff’s lawyer, to testify in a particular specialty.</p>
<p>This is a PR battle right now and the hospital is at a huge disadvantage. By the time this thing gets to court people will already have chosen sides. Of course, that’s not news.</p>
<p>That’s interesting, PG. So someone can be sworn in to testify and deemed an “expert” in an area that is not their area of expertise? I would think they’d get chewed up in court. For eg:</p>
<p>Atty- “Dr. X - you are a dermatologist, yes?
Dr. “yes”
A: And you are here to testify as an expert in a neurosurgery malpractice case involving a clipped AVM?”
D: Yes
A: How many of these procedures have you performed?
D: I received surgical training during my internship and residency
A: How long ago was that?
D: 20 years ago
A: And how many of these procedures did you perform?
D: I received surgical training during my internship and residency
A: Did you personally perform any of the neurosurgical procedures being addressed here today?
D: No, not directly</p>
<p>blah blah, blah. Doubt the jury would take his testimony with any seriousness</p>
<p>The hospital spokesperson has accused their lawyer of creating a hoax in suggesting that she is still alive and can somehow be brought back. And of doing a disservice to his clients by perpetuating this notion. I do think there is support for the mother, in that any person can empathize with a parent who had unexpectedly lost a 13 year old child. But I’m not sure there is widespread support for the mother’s position that her daughter is alive and that the hospital should keep her on a ventilator. The mother has only been able to raise about $42,000 from about 1200 donors on her funding site. If there really was more support for her position, I think those numbers would be through the roof.</p>
<p>But all that matters is the Oakland jury. It’s a big deal in that community. The lawyer knows what he is doing. He’s very good. I don’t fault him for that btw, but it would be na</p>
<p>Well, maybe any trial would need to be moved out of Oakland then. But I imagine any malpractice issue from this would be settled out of court anyway.</p>