<p>BULL. The first, foremost, and most valid reason for “pulling the plug” here is documented BRAIN DEATH. </p>
<p>Additionally, it makes absolutely no sense for a body with a DEAD BRAIN to be taking an ICU bed and associated resources. ICU beds are OFTEN in short supply.</p>
<p>I don’t believe for a second that her private insurance is going to pay for continued treatment when she is legally dead. It’s hard enough to get them to pay for necessary valid treatments which have demonstrated benefit.</p>
<p>It isn’t ethical for a doctor to perform procedures on a dead body/corpse.</p>
<p>The hospital said they would allow a doctor outside the hospital to perform the procedure, but the family has not found one willing to perform a procedure on a dead body.</p>
<p>Despite what the family and their lawyer are spouting to the press, they do not have a solid transportation plan in effect for the body. </p>
<p>The longer this goes on, the more I feel it is not that the family is hoping for a miracle, but that the family feels this is one way to get back at the hospital for their belief that they killed their daughter.</p>
<p>Again, this is not the case of a person in a vegetative state. The girl is dead. It’s a sad, but true fact.</p>
<p>When I worked in mental health, the insurance stopped paying for treatment for someone who was depressed if anybody documented that the person smiled. I cannot imagine they will pay for any of the treatment after the patient was declared dead. </p>
<p>I think if the body could be transported without additional surgery, the hospital would gladly comply. If a facility can take on this patient, then why can’t that facility do the additional surgery necessary?</p>
<p>The judge set a date. January 7 will come right on schedule next week. Until then, the legal process is still active, and only the court court order a change to the current situation.</p>
<p>That is what I have been trying to say too, zoosermom. As I asked Nrb a few pages back, isn’t the more pressing issue making sure no living, breathing kids are turned away from the ICU because of Jahi’s presence there? (kluge makes the point that they may not be at capacity, but that has been part of the “ethical” argument against continuing to keep her there.) If my hospital were responsible for a botched surgery–and we were already facing a likely multi-million-dollar settlement–I would want to just end the situation so the media could move on to other stories.</p>
<p>In order to be able to transport, the person would have to be off the vent and on a trach, and a feeding tube inserted. These have to be done BEFORE transport.</p>
<p>They certainly have said that they would help if certain conditions were met and the receiving facility can demonstrate the ability to handle her care. Last they spoke, the hospital said NO physician had contacted them offering surgical services and NO facility had contacted them, nor had any transport service contacted them to demonstrate ability to transport the patient to her destination. </p>
<p>The “out patient facility” in NY which has allegedly agreed to take over Jahi’s care is a total joke and is just another bizarre chapter in this sad tale.</p>
<p>This is tangential, but in my field sometimes a judge will order an evaluation, but insurance will not cover it. Then again, the reason is usually that it is for forensic purposes and not considered “medically necessary for evaluation and treatment”. Not sure if the insurance carrier has to pay for the continued procedures if the person has been declared dead, not matter what the judge orders.</p>
You are missing my point. I’m talking about the public relations end. The details of what they require simply don’t need to be stated publicly because it’s not good PR. I am curious about the PR aspect. NOT the medical aspect. You are unquestionably the medical expert. I am wondering about the PR.</p>
<p>I would not be so sure of that. The court has declared the patient dead. I imagine insurance companies would fight tooth and nail against being compelled to finance long term care for dead patients. Which brings it back to John Q. Public.</p>
<p>Jym, it’s not a permanent matter, just that the status quo more than likely has to be maintained during the period of the court’s order. Which is only 7 days. It would undoubtedly be more expensive for the insurance company to file its own suit to stop paying. If it appears to be an indefinite timeframe, they probably will sign on with the hospital, but that’s not necessary yet and they likely expect that January 7 is a date certain.</p>
<p>I don’t believe the insurance company will be obligated to pay for anything after the patient was declared dead. I don’t see how the court’s order to keep her on a vent could change that–the insurance company’s obligations are governed by its policy, which almost certainly won’t cover such charges. It’s possible that somebody with an ideological position and a lot of money will pay for the care.</p>
Orders are often stayed. That doesn’t mean invalid or cancelled or never mind. It just means that this doesn’t happen until that date. Which is what has happened here. A date was set. It’s not an outrageously long timeframe, and then the order would be carried out unless it was changed. The order declaring Jahi dead still stands. It’s just waiting.</p>
I didn’t say I wanted or didn’t want them to say anything. I just said I was curious about the PR. There isn’t always an ulterior motive. Sometimes a statement is just a statement. I am curious about the PR. That’s all.</p>
<p>Because it has to be done where she is. Hospitals can’t just allow Dr. Joe Schmoe from Wherever Medical Clinic to show up and use their facilities to perform surgery! That’s ludicrous!</p>