<p>Even parents who know about the dangers of baby bottle mouth (rot caused by drinking sugary drinks like apple juice, particularly at bedtime) can make the mistake of giving their kids bottled water instead of fluoridated public tap water.</p>
<p>Some are also just born with bad teeth. I have a friend who is anything but neglectful and her 3 year old had huge dental issues. She couldn’t understand it since she has never had a cavity herself, which I find amazing. But her D has bad teeth.</p>
<p>Now, back to the topic of this thread. The attorney seems to be continuing to give the impression that he is fighting the hospital and slowly wining but time is running out. That’s not exactly accurate although I can see why people who want to believe it, believe it. </p>
<p>[Jahi</a> McMath’s mom clear to take her from hospital | Bay Area | San Francisco | San Francisco Examiner](<a href=“http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/attorneys-agree-on-procedures-for-potential-move-of-jahi-mcmath/Content?oid=2665384]Jahi”>http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/attorneys-agree-on-procedures-for-potential-move-of-jahi-mcmath/Content?oid=2665384)</p>
<p>Why would a three-year-old need multiple root canals?!</p>
<p>This could have been us.</p>
<p>When we took our son to his first dental appointment at age 3, he was found to have soft enamel. He needed multiple procedures already. He had fallen asleep on the way to the appointment so he was clingy and teary, but sat in my lap and allowed the dentist to check his teeth.</p>
<p>The dentist proceeded to schedule him for a cocktail of anesthesia, in her office. They gave us forms to sign that it was needed because he was an uncooperative patient. We politely declined and said we would take him elsewhere for care. The staff was rude and threatening, implying that we weren’t going to have the work done. It was all very unpleasant and upsetting.</p>
<p>We asked around and found a great pediatric dentist near us. They did the work with only nitrous, very well-monitored, with us allowed in the room. They called him a model patient. We’ve been going there ever since.</p>
<p>Fortunately it turned out that the soft enamel was the kind found only in the baby teeth (some unknown cause while the teeth were developing pre-birth) rather than the genetic kind that would have followed him into adulthood.</p>
<p>These parents probably did nothing worse than trusting their medical professional. They didn’t deserve to have their daughter die.</p>
<p>Right. And on the flip side, I didn’t see a dentist till I was 16 (don’t ask.) I had two small cavities then.</p>
<p>Luck of the draw.</p>
<p>Nrdsb4,
Don’t know if it was part of the court record. It wasn’t presented that way. No “filing” stamp. Just a copy of a 2 pg. progress note.</p>
<p>Also, even if the parents neglected their daughter’s teeth, that wouldn’t excuse any malpractice. And this lawsuit brought by the parents is a garden variety malpractice suit. They’re not suing because their daughter is brain dead and they think she is magically going to come back to life. They’re suing because their daughter is dead and they assert it’s the dentist’s fault.</p>
<p>Coincidentally, this was in the paper this morning-the sad death of a 15 year old and the end of life decisions made for him by his parents:
[As</a> his life ends, 15-year-old offers a new beginning | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com](<a href=“http://www.hamptonroads.com/2014/01/his-life-ends-15yearold-offers-new-beginning]As”>http://www.hamptonroads.com/2014/01/his-life-ends-15yearold-offers-new-beginning)</p>
<p>Agree CF, Finley Boyle and Jahi-totally different as I said in #916…</p>
<p>I really think the first court decision to allow this to continue to until after the holidays was based in the belief that more time would help this family come to terms with reality. It’s pretty clear now they are determined not to do that, ever.</p>
<p>I just received a breaking news report that Finley Boyle died last night.</p>
<p>The road to hell is paved with good intentions!</p>
<p>So true!..</p>
<p>So sad about Finley. She was an only child. Can’t even imagine.</p>
<p>I think the McMath/Children’s settlement, as described, is sensible, and can solve a lot of potentially troubling issues going forward as a de facto precedent for this sort of situation. What I find disturbing is that it took so long to get to that point.</p>
<p>The thing I find missing in much of these discussions is a recognition of the proper distinction between required, allowed, and prohibited. Generally, hospitals are required to provide treatment to people who are alive unless that person (or their appropriate representatives) say to stop. Then the cessation of treatment is usually allowed, so the person can die. </p>
<p>Brain death is the point where the law no longer requires medical treatment be provided. But some medical procedures continue past that point - in the case of transplants, for example; because that is not prohibited, although not required; transplants only are performed with the consent of the donor and/or his/her family.</p>
<p>What I have found to be unsatisfactory all along has been the hospital’s insistence that it would be “unethical” to prepare the girl for transport - perform a tracheostomy, etc. One could argue that it would be medically unethical to recommend to the family that they make the choice that they’ve made; and I would most certainly disapprove of a facility that did so for financial gain, for example. But after fully (and quite unambiguously) advising the family that the girl will never recover, I don’t see any ethical basis for refusing to prepare her body for removal to another location without requiring that her heart be allowed to stop beating first. The insistence that the girl be unplugged and her heart be stopped rather than allowing her family to take her wherever else the family wants never made any sense to me. It was coercive in the worst sense - even if the motivation was scientifically sound.</p>
<p>If this case resolves as anticipated - the family takes the girl away under the terms of the settlement, and her heart stops at some point in the not too distant future, and they bury her, I can see it as a template for future events of this sort. People like simple answers; I think we have one here. If brain death has been verified, you either pull the plug in the hospital, or you have a reasonable period of time (10 days? Two weeks?) to arrange to remove her from the hospital. The hospital’s legal obligation to provide care is over. What happens after that is the family’s responsibility, which they will have to formally acknowledge - and yes, that includes a waiver of the right to take her in to the E.R., because the E.R. has no duty to treat her after brain death has been confirmed, any more than they would have that responsibility for a cryogenically preserved body.</p>
<p>That acknowledges the right of the family to make that decision, even if we think they’re wrong, as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. That seems to be the ethical way to handle the matter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Two weeks in the ICU is expensive. Who is going to pay for this expensive use of scarce resources? Private insurance and Medicaid will rightly refuse to pay for care for dead people. Can the hospital require a payment before this futile care? Otherwise, you’re putting a ridiculous burden on the hospital, to provide uncompensated care for dead people.</p>
<p>Leave aside medical issues for a moment - I was under the impression hospitals are legally permitted to release bodies to “appropriate” facilities - coroners, funeral homes, crematoriums, medical schools (if patient so designated), etc. Does this set a precedent? Is there a public health interest in ensuring dead bodies are disposed of properly? I hate to make the comparison to medical waste because I don’t wish to be insensitive, but I kind of have to. </p>
<p>It’s still unclear to me - is she going home-home or to some (alleged) facility that will accept her and maintain her?</p>
<p>The home-home was an error. They are still fighting about facility and surgery.</p>
<p>Agree completely w C Fang in 935. The family has reasonable time. The hospital gave them enough time to come to grips. Their failure to come to grips in a reasonable amount of time shouldn’t be a policy changer.</p>
<p>She’s not going anywhere unless they can meet the conditions of the latest agreement which they have been claiming they will do for a while now. So far, nothing has materialized and the deadline remains Tuesday. </p>
<p>This case is horrific and there is so much confusion about her condition. Sigh…</p>
<p>I predict the family is not going to find a doctor to put in Trach and feeding tube and that there won’t be a facility that will take her (despite that place in NY that said they would.) </p>
<p>As soon as the TRO expires it will be over.</p>