<p>Reasonable people argue and litigate over the definition of life all the time. What’s to stop the same over the definition of death?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We regulate other things people do with dead bodies, no? (to the point that we don’t allow Uncle Bernie to be propped up at the dining room table, even though that’s ‘privately funded’ and doesn’t impact anyone else)</p>
<p>3trees, you are acting like the court inserted itself inappropriately. It didn’t. A person with standing asked for consideration and received it. The court ordered an independent evaluation (which many people here supported) and then declared Jahi to be brain dead based on that. Don’t we all want to be treated fairly under the law, regardless of whether our position is popular? The law said that the family was entitled to that evaluation. They asked for it and they got it.</p>
<p>
Aren’t there tweaks between states in terms of the definition? I’ve said all along that the family has a vested interest and the hospital has a vested interest, which are in conflict, so the appropriate place to resolve this is in the court. I don’t know why that is considered such a bad thing. People here often advise others to get a lawyer when faced with difficult or complicated problems.</p>
<p>Doctors should say ‘dead’ instead of ‘brain dead’. ‘Brain dead’ sounds like a qualifier which can and did confuse people.</p>
<p>Have not found the reference yet, but came across an interesting paper:</p>
<p><a href=“http://ccjm.org/content/70/6/548.full.pdf[/url]”>http://ccjm.org/content/70/6/548.full.pdf</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>TatinG - The grandmother is an RN at a neighboring hospital. I just don’t get how they can be confused. But, I agree, brain dead is a difficult concept.</p>
<p>Tatin - good point. The term “life support” should not be used as well, since it is not sustaining life in this case. “Mechanical support” or something like that would be a more appropriate term:
[When</a> ‘life support’ is really ‘death support’ - CNN.com](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/28/health/life-support-ethics/index.html?c=&page=1]When”>http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/28/health/life-support-ethics/index.html?c=&page=1)</p>
<p>I think its the aunt who is the nurse, actingmt. Now if BOTH the aunt and the grandmother are nurses, that would be interesting.</p>
<p>
I understand that people like simple, black/white answers. Yet:
So. I agree with those who say that “brain dead” means dead. But I’m less enthusiastic about the insistence that that opinion should be forced on anyone who doesn’t agree and can pay for the treatment in question without tapping the taxpayers.</p>
<p>The insistence that there is no room for such a compromise resolution of this situation is what is striking me here. What is driving that?</p>
<p>Not many people can pay without taping the taxpayers, though. This family can’t. They have raised some 40K.</p>
<p>So, what then?</p>
<p>Zoosermom, I’m not an attorney and I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that the courts “inserted themselves inappropriately.” I am concerned about setting a legal precedent suggesting that non-medical professionals can compel the use of scarce medical resources for no medical benefit. Again, as a non-legal person I don’t believe that precedent has yet been set–though the stay of the ruling that Jahi is dead certainly sets up a gray area and IMO that too serves no benefit.</p>
<p>
What then is exactly what it always was. On the 7th, Jahi will be removed from the ventilator and all that happened was that her parents were able to have a full, fair and appropriate hearing from the court of proper jurisdiction. Then she will be laid to rest forever and her family will grieve and sue.</p>
<p>
You have to look at it differently. While the practical impact is that the treatment is being “forced,” in the legal situation, it’s withdrawal is being prevented for a set period of time. Which doesn’t seem like much of a distinction, but it is. I think what happened is that the order staying the withdrawal gave the family to come to an agreement with the hospital or obtain a favorable ruling from the federal court. I believe the federal court required briefing by tomorrow in order to make a decision. So, again, the legal process is playing out. The parties aren’t even required to have fully briefed the issue until tomorrow.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is precisely the kind of thing that stirs up uninformed people’s minds. “Ooh, a Harvard professor!” Note how they didn’t say a Harvard-trained or affiliated neurologist. It could be a Harvard French professor for all we know. Anyway, it’s always a weak argument when you have to trot out “but there are a handful of people …!” In every field there are a handful of people who buck the generally accepted consensus in the field; doesn’t make them more knowledgeable and typically makes them less knowledgeable. I’m sure I can find a handful of climate change deniers too. Big whoops. That doesn’t change scientific consensus.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Nurse” covers a wide scope - from people who are very well trained and knowledgeable and can comment intelligently on diagnoses and treatment, all the way down to people who do very basic assisting, take blood pressures and pulses, and so forth. Which was the grandmother, out of curiosity?</p>
<p>Don’t know. News accounts called her a Kaiser RN.</p>
<p>The nursing forum I visit had a post from a California RN who said she looked up the grandmother on the nursing license website (you can verify anyone’s license) and stated that she is actually an LPN rather than a RN.</p>
<p>I did not verify this myself, so I don’t know if this is true.</p>
<p>Agree again with PG on the various ways people are described as “nurses” in the media. Often they are incorrectly labeled as nurses, when in fact they are MAs or nursing assistants.</p>
<p>Even knowledgeable nurses can find themselves incapable of being objective when it’s their own family members. And some nurses are just not very well educated. I have known RNs who insist that you can tell the sex of a baby by how high the pregnant mother carries it, and others who insist that the flu vaccine (which is made with a “killed” virus) can cause the flu, when that is scientifically impossible.</p>
<p>The grandmother or aunt could be the most knowledgeable person in the history of the world, but if Jahi’s mom doesn’t want to hear it, then she won’t.</p>
<p>I mean, heck, don’t all of our kids ignore us about things much less important that this?</p>
<p>There is a reason MDs don’t, or are not supposed to, treat their own family members. No matter the qualifications their objectivity is lost. We can give the same grace to the grandmother. Any knowledge and objectivity she may offer as a nurse in her professional life is compromised when the tragedy involves a loved one.</p>