<p>The illness is death so that could be significant.</p>
<p>That seems to be what happened in the Baby K case. They released the baby to the mother but she kept bringing the baby back to the hospital ER, continued to insist they resuscitate the child, wouldn’t sign a DNR, etc.
The baby was in a nursing facility but the mother would not sign a DNR and the baby kept being brought back to hospitals in respiratory distress until she finally died in a hospital at age 2. The mother cited her religious beliefs even though treatment was considered futile by medical experts.</p>
<p>[Jahi</a> McMath’s family, Oakland hospital discussing girl’s transfer - CNN.com](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/03/health/jahi-mcmath-girl-brain-dead/]Jahi”>http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/03/health/jahi-mcmath-girl-brain-dead/)
^posted within the last hour</p>
<p>“We have done everything to assist the family of Jahi McMath in their quest to take the deceased body of their daughter to another medical facility,” hospital spokesman Sam Singer said.</p>
<p>“To date, they have been unwilling or unable to provide a physician to perform the procedures necessary, transportation, or a facility that would accept a dead person on a ventilator. Our hearts and thoughts go out to them in this tragic situation, but the statements being made by their attorney and some family members are misleading and untrue.”</p>
<p>Family attorney Christopher Dolan had accused the hospital of being “hell-bent” on ending Jahi’s life.</p>
<hr>
<p>Don’t you love the spin from Christopher Dolan accusing the hospital of being “hell-bent” on ending Jahi’s life? She’s been declared dead and a death certificate has been issued. In other words, her life has all ready ended. One can’t die twice.</p>
<p>I’ll repeat what I said earlier - anybody who treats (or even transports) this child is out of their friggin mind! Their new first name is going to be “Defendant.”</p>
<p>Maybe I’m just being cynical, and I know I’m being unsympathetic . . . but I wouldn’t want to be dragged into this.</p>
<p>This guy really is unbelievable. If he can’t even find and produce a physician willing to put a feeding tube in a dead body, you would think that would tell him something. Yet, he persists in perpetuating this nonsense that she is still alive.</p>
<p>To be a fly on the wall in that marathon court session. Oh my.</p>
<p>they have been unwilling or unable to provide a physician to perform the procedures necessary, transportation, or a facility that would accept a dead person on a ventilator.</p>
<p>So blunt but so true. </p>
<p>While I totally agree that the poor girl is dead, it is a little odd to see a hospital make such a blunt statement. It almost sounds like they’re mocking the family. I know that they’re not, but wow…the words almost go there.</p>
<p>More and more I see the advantage of the Sorry Works! program. Under Sorry Works!, the hospital promptly sits down face to face with people who believe they or their relative has been the victim of an error or malpractice. The hospital promptly investigates and communicates the result of their investigation to the family/patient. If the hospital discovers that a patient is the victim of an error or malpractice, they will admit the error, promptly offer what they think is fair compensation, and also try to figure out ways to avoid the problem happening again.</p>
<p>If they conclude there was no malpractice, they won’t settle, even if they think it would be cheaper to settle.</p>
<p>I don’t know whether there was malpractice in the Jahi case, or whether she was just the unlucky one who had the unavoidable complication. And if she was the victim of malpractice, her parents deserve compensation. But I hate the idea that the hospital might believe that there was no malpractice, and throw money anyway at this ambulance chaser of a lawyer just to stop him.</p>
<p>Clearly, the hospital has had it with this and they’re not afraid to show it. These aren’t slips. So, it has to be a strategy. They are not that stupid. imho.</p>
<p>I think with this family, the hospital needs to be blunt and put nothing to the imagination.</p>
<p>The last thing they want is for this family to “hear” something that wasn’t really said. They need to hear the exact truth without any way to misinterpret the words. Short and to the point is the right way for the hospital to respond.</p>
<p>I agree. And I also do think they have had it with this phase of things (any potential malpractice issue is separate). Most families are given a short period of time after a person is declared dead to be with their loved one and to make arrangements. This is gone on way too long .</p>
<p>Any lawyer consulted by a facility considering a transfer would have to say the idea is crazy. The insurance company of any facility that even hints of accepting her should put the facility on notice that coverage will be denied and/ or dropped.</p>
<p>For the lawyers here, does Dolan have any obligation to keep going along with this because the family wants this? Why would he not be advising his clients that the whole idea is in fact crazy? Is there any chance he really thinks this young girl is alive? I can get that the family consulted a lawyer initially to force a second opinion but that has been accomplished . To also be blunt, this whole thing is pretty crazy.</p>
<p>He has no obligation. I think he wants the malpractice case though so he wants to do what they want. He is doing what his client wants. Their wishes, his words.</p>
<p>In other words, he is in it for the money ?</p>
<p>Uhm, he named a building after himself.</p>
<p>Unless they come up with something viable this is going to end on Tuesday.</p>
<p>Of course, he wants to make money. He has to make lots of money to do what he does. Plaintiffs’ lawyers carry the expenses of litigating cases until they get a judgment. That takes years. It probably takes over two years for him to even get a case to trial in Oakland. Trial preparation is expensive. Experts are expensive. A successful plaintiffs’ attorney dealing in high stakes cases has to be able to carry hundreds of thousands of expenses on the books waiting for payment. Many of his clients, no doubt, are the underdogs who insurance companies and businesses hope will just go away. The vast majority of them do. Do I agree with what he’s saying or how he’s saying it? No. I’m glad there is someone out there who is willing to and has the resources to do it though.</p>
<p>Okay, I get that the lawyer has expenses and I get that sometimes they represent “underdogs” but still trying to find the merit he sees in continuing this aspect of the case (not potential malpractice as that is a separate issue). It seems the malpractice money is where the big money is for lawyers. I’m guessing that most malpractice lawyers want the cases they think they can win before they put much money up? A high profile one like this doesn’t seem like as much of a gamble but of course I may be wrong.</p>
<p>He is a big part of the reason this is a high-profile case. I don’t fault him one bit for doing his job btw. But, he knows what he is doing. He may not even like all of it himself. But he has to get to the goal and he understands media, PR, and public opinion, very well.</p>
<p>Right now, the family thinks he is representing them for free (he is) and they are grateful. They said this publicly.</p>