Brain-dead girl; family won't let go

[zoosermom]

<p>

What I am saying is that the insu co may not up front deny the continued LOS, but they may likely deny some or all of the claim when it is submitted for payment.

Oh I think you are 100% right. The only question for it will be whether the court proceedings could be argued to have extended its obligation. I bet a lot of young insurance company lawyers will spend many hours researching and writing on that issue.</p>

[sevmom]

<p>I agree, 3Trees. A very chilling precedent.</p>

[EMM1]

<p>Another pompous, self-important medical ethicist chimes in</p>

<p>[Opinion:</a> Let parents decide if teen is dead - CNN.com](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/02/opinion/veatch-defining-death/index.html?hpt=hp_t4]Opinion:”>http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/02/opinion/veatch-defining-death/index.html?hpt=hp_t4)</p>

<p>These are not questions that can be resolved through reasoned analysis (except, of course, the issue of tangible societal costs). We need to decide, as a society, where we draw the line between dead and alive. Even though I might disagree with them, I get the pro-life position on abortion and even keeping the body of a dead woman “alive” in order to give a fetus a chance. But this is an easy case.</p>

[jym626]

<p>I would be very surprised if a precedent was set that the courts could order an insurance company to pay for a hospital stay or any procedures. Thats a slippery slope.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>From the article EMM posted:</p>

<p>

This is a “conscience-based” approach to defining death. We need to have a default public policy – the brain-based definition currently in law – but people like Jahi’s parents should have the option to record their conscientiously held positions and allow pronouncements of death to be based on those beliefs. That’s the law in New Jersey and Japan. That would mean Jahi could be classified as alive if that is what her parents choose.

</p>

<p>What kind of nonsense is this? Plenty of people have “conscientiously held” positions; that doesn’t obligate society to indulge them.<br>
Does that also mean that if someone could choose to classify Jahi as alive, someone else could choose to classify their living children as dead? It’s all just up for grabs? There’s no consensus that anyone should have to deal with?</p>

[kluge]

<p>

It’s unethical for a doctor to perform a medical procedure on a brain-dead person when he knows such a medical procedure is fruitless and fuels unrealistic fantasies in the minds of her loved ones that recovery is possible. Is that better?

Yes, it is better. That is, it’s honest. That’s the real reason, not simply the assertion that it’s “unethical to perform procedures on a dead body” which if true would provide a justification other than “we think the family is wrong, and that we should be able to force them to comply with our opinion.”</p>

[sevmom]

<p>jym, I think the precedent is more about a court being able to compel the hospital to keep a dead person on a ventilator. The insurance issue is really separate.</p>

[Flossy]

<p>Goodness! The tide on this thread does seem to be turning doesn’t it? Nonsense is a word that got me flamed 2 days ago. Now, we have ludicrous, ridiculous, charade, and BULL for starters. Hmmmm.</p>

<p>Carry on.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>Is there anybody who thinks this family should be legally prevented from keeping this child on a ventilator if it can be privately funded and if they can find somebody to do it? I don’t think I’ve heard anybody say that, although many of us think it’s a very, very bad idea.</p>

<p>But there has to be a legal definition of death. To give a trivial example, this child should not be listed as a dependent on anybody’s federal taxes in 2014, because she isn’t alive in 2014.</p>

[Nrdsb4]

<p>^^^^^LOL Flossy. :o</p>

<p>gulp. raises hand…</p>

[cartera45]

<p>Maybe this has been addressed, but she has been without nutrition for 3 weeks, right? Realistically, how much longer do they have before organs shut down regardless of the ventilator? Did they ever petition the court to compel the placement of a feeding tube? If the legal definition of death is capable of being litigated, then couldn’t refusal to provide nutrition be grounds for a wrongful death action?</p>

[jym626]

<p>Hunt, I believe the hospital referenced the legal definition of death in their petition here [Document:</a> Hospital’s petition opposing an independent expert, asking to lift the order to keep Jahi McMath on life support - San Jose Mercury News](<a href=“Document: Hospital’s petition opposing an independent expert, asking to lift the order to keep Jahi McMath on life support – The Mercury News”>Document: Hospital’s petition opposing an independent expert, asking to lift the order to keep Jahi McMath on life support – The Mercury News)</p>

[nysmile]

<p>She’s been declared dead. I don’t think you can cause death to an all ready dead body.</p>

[kluge]

<p>

Another pompous, self-important medical ethicist chimes in
Opinion: Let parents decide if teen is dead - CNN.com

I didn’t find him to be either pompous or self important, although I can see how his stated views might seem threatening to those who disagree with him.

A significant minority in the medical profession continue to believe people with dead brains and beating hearts are still alive. Believers include some of our wisest minds – a Harvard professor, an National Institute of Health theorist, a chief of neurology at UCLA, and the former chair of the U.S. President’s Council all reject brain-based death pronouncement. They agree with Jahi’s parents that death is linked to circulatory loss.
Others take a position more liberal than the standard law that defines brain death. They favor pronouncing death in some cases even when some parts of the lower brain are still functioning. I have defended that view since 1973.
…
If preserving life requires high-tech support like a ventilator, doctors are the ones who should provide it. The costs shouldn’t be borne by the hospital. The health insurance company or Medicaid shouldn’t pay. But if the family can raise the funds, like Jahi’s parents are doing, and the patient is beyond feeling pain, no harm is done by continuing, especially if they can find a facility willing to take the case.
Whether this right to medical support should extend to those considered dead by one standard, but alive by another is the question we face with Jahi McMath. If the patient does not suffer, and private funding is available, people should have the right to make this decision for their loved ones.

Pompous? Sounds pretty reasonable to me.</p>

<p>Indeed, an interesting part of this debate is the extent to which those rooting for pulling the plug have injected a emotionally-charged tone into the discussion, throwing around terms such as “ludicrous, ridiculous, charade, and BULL” and suggestions of ulterior financial motivations (as if a desire to save the life of a child you believe is not dead is not spur enough) and unethical conduct by their lawyer for daring to help them assert a position others disagree with. </p>

<p>Why the heated stance? Why is this not a matter of calm, reasoned discussion? Where is the emotion coming from?</p>

[actingmt]

<p>[Jahi</a> McMath: Brain Dead Girl’s Mom Says Hospital’s Not Feeding Her - Yahoo](<a href=“http://gma.yahoo.com/jahi-mcmath-brain-dead-girl-39-mom-says-234950235--abc-news-topstories.html]Jahi”>http://gma.yahoo.com/jahi-mcmath-brain-dead-girl-39-mom-says-234950235--abc-news-topstories.html)</p>

[3Trees]

<p>Hunt, because ICU resources are scarce I do believe we should not allow the legal system to direct them to be used for purposes that have no medical benefit. Those with unlimited financial resources should not be allowed to commandeer a scare medical resource for a non-medical purpose.</p>

<p>Kluge, while I believe you are very well intentioned and i respect your passion I think you are being disingenuous when you say: </p>

<p>"a justification other than “we think the family is wrong, and that we should be able to force them to comply with our opinion.”</p>

<p>It’s not what “we” think, the family in this case IS wrong. Their daughter is no longer alive, tragically. “Our opinion” (or theirs, for that matter) doesn’t enter into it, there is unanimous consensus among the (genuine) medical experts who have examined this child. The question that remains is the parent’s ongoing access to a scarce medical resource which is providing no benefit. The standard of care for brain-dead patients is a well established protocol and this family and the courts that have weighed in here have already set a dangerous and subjective precedent, untethered to medical facts, about who is entitled to what and who decides.</p>

[jym626]

<p>California code 7180: [CA</a> Codes (hsc:7180)](<a href=“http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=07001-08000&file=7180]CA”>http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=07001-08000&file=7180)</p>

<p>

7180. (a) An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible
      cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2)
      irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain,
      including the brain stem, is dead. A determination of death must be
      made in accordance with accepted medical standards.
      (b) This article shall be applied and construed to effectuate its
      general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject
      of this article among states enacting it.
      (c) This article may be cited as the Uniform Determination of
      Death Act.

</p>

<p>and re: Brain death [Brain</a> Death.org Legal Resources](<a href=“braindeath.org - braindeath Resources and Information.”>braindeath.org - braindeath Resources and Information.)</p>

[BunsenBurner]

<p>cartera, I read somewhere that 3-4 weeks is pretty much approaching that limit. Younger bodies can last longer than older ones. If I can find that reference, I will post a link. San Jose Mercury has really good, up to date coverage of the story.</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>

It’s not what “we” think, the family in this case IS wrong

Well that’s what it is, at least in terms of this thread and personal emotions.</p>

<p>The legal process isn’t yet complete, which is the bottom line. The court accepted the case and ruled once in favor of the family, when the hospital complied, the court declared Jahi to be legally dead and then stayed the ruling. So the emotion and hostility has to be coming from somewhere and it looks to be frustration with the family. As I said earlier, only the court could require the stay to be vacated and the hospital hasn’t asked for that either. They are just letting it play out till its conclusion next week. It really does seem to be a serious amount of ick about the whole thing that is driving the emotion.</p>

[actingmt]

<p>Okay an observation - The emotion if that’s what it is and I’m not so sure it is emotion as much as it is an acceptance of the terrible situation and a recognition that this is not a compassionate circumstance for anyone involved. </p>

<p>We have to remember that this girl “died” on December 9th. This thread is what 3 days old? There were people posting their deepest sympathies and other posts that were coming from a very different place that may have seemed jarring. True. But, time changes how everyone sees this and there is no disagreement on this thread about facts… although there is in the community where it’s occurring, for sure.</p>

<p>It’s an interesting question, though.</p>