<p>Christianity may be a mainstream religion, but many of the people who follow it do not use science as the basis of their beliefs. </p>
<p>According to a recent Gallup poll, 46% of Americans believe in creationism instead of evolution, and regular church attendance is strongly correlated with belief in creationism.</p>
<p>My point in mentioning this is that it is not a stretch to imagine some “mainstream” Christians believing in magic with regard to Jahi’s chance of returning to life.</p>
<p>I get tired of having to indulge religious beliefs as imbued with special rights or as something other people need to bow down to (no pun intended). Does it make a difference if Jahi’s mother simply “felt strongly her daughter was still alive” versus “had religious beliefs that her daughter was still alive”? Either way, according to medical science, the best neurological thinking, and the laws of the state of CA, she’s sadly incorrect.</p>
<p>Thank you, terriwtt. And I agree with you that making comparisons between the care of a brain dead child and the care of an elderly Alzheimer’s patient is not realistic.</p>
<p>So kluge, if an elderly patient has dementia and needs long term care but is not yet terminal and has nothing to “turn off,” what are we to do? Smother them with a pillow? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Sally - Respectfully, Christians die every day and nobody is waiting around for any magic. I personally know Christians who have made the painful choice to donate organs in situations not dissimilar to this one. Minus the public drama, of course. Religion is a red herring. imho.</p>
<p>actingmt, I know. You mentioned Christianity as a mainstream religion in the context of People Making Logical Decisions about Death. Jahi’s family may or may not be among that group. There are absolutely Christians who believe in miracles and absolutely Christians who deny basic science. And grieving and potentially guilt-ridden parents, I would imagine, might be especially susceptible to crazy, ill-founded ideas about their kids.</p>
<p>Sally - I understand that you understand and despite the fact that you have basically just called Christians crazy, I’ll ignore that. Since, if we now have courts pandering to crazy people out of sympathy we are all in very big trouble. The end.</p>
<p>No miracle, wishful thinking, hoping, praying, lighting of candles, begging, pleading, wishing upon a star, or anything else is going to bring this girl back to life. If the family is so religious, then why won’t they disconnect the mechanical ventilator and let the inevitable be in God’s hands? Why?–because deep down, they know the reality of the situation.</p>
<p>I have a gut feeling that the real reason they are continuing with this charade is for something far from religious reasons.</p>
<p>Isn’t heaven wonderful? Wouldn’t you rather your loved one be free in heaven than miserable and encumbered and bedridden on earth? It’s about the parents’ own pain (which is of course devastating).</p>
<p>If God is miraculous, why would he require a ventilator? Why would he have caused the young lady to fall ill in the first place? Spare me.</p>
<p>Check out this quote from the mom. What grieving mother is concerned about “media attention”? What Home Depot employee uses that phrase? No disrespect intended but this doesn’t ring as an authentic reaction. Bothered me then. Bothers me now. Sorry.</p>
<p>Also, in the raw footage someone posted above the family attorney insists vehemently that he doesn’t care one bit what is reported saying his only concern is saving a life. Very telling is when the reporter genuinely asks why then he keeps calling them to these press events.</p>
<p>A cease and desist letter is procedural. It is generally the first necessary step in a legal dispute, and the wording is pro forma. The mother didnt decide “hey I want to say this” it is a form letter that was sent at the proper time. If you ever have a legal dispute, sending or receiving a variation of that letter will be the first step.</p>
<p>Oh, good! Another bioethicist. Now I understand the issues a LOT better.</p>
<p>But seriously, suppose you actually believed that God had spoken to you and told you that stopping life support in this situation was morally wrong. (it could happen). Why would you change your mind just because some person with an irrelevant degree told you otherwise/</p>
<p>Zoosermom - If that was for me I was referring to her quote. She talks about how shy Jahi is and how she would be embarrassed by all of this “media attention”. Having worked in the media for decades now I can tell you that people don’t say this. Typically, in the midst of a family tragedy it’s the last thing people want and it’s a horrible position to be in as a reporter to have to say to a family, “So, tell me, how did you feel when you’re child coughed up blood and died”. This isn’t done. It’s invasive, exploitive, and completely inappropriate. </p>
<p>I was in journalism school during Pan Am 103. There were huge policy discussions about filming grieving families. This was not a breaking news event where bad things happen and the camera is on and even those are edited to be as sensitive as possible while telling the story. The first time they were on television was very emotional, very loud, and very odd given the context that reporters were called to the hospital. It may mean nothing. But I was struck by how unusual it appeared at the time. It just doesn’t happen.</p>
<p>This early article really makes it sound like she knows her daughter is gone and is angry with the hospital. Rightly so, if they did something wrong of course. </p>
<p>Could not post this yesterday due to the CC server issues, so here it is for anyone interested in the subject - an article from Journal of Healthcare Law and Policy discussing pregnancy and living wills in the US and Canada:</p>
<p>It sure does! Unfortunately, the press has one very quotable and media-savvy source right now who is basically writing their headlines. No other side. It’s troubling.</p>
<p>I understand that using the term “life support” is misleading . . . but what else is one supposed to call it? It’s not like there’s a name for what’s going on here. Yes, I realize that the machine is a "ventilator” and that’s what people should call it, but that’s not a term commonly used by lay people. I honestly believe that people are grasping for a way to describe something for which we have no name.</p>
<p>Think about it. Before this all happened, if someone had asked you, hypothetically, what you would call the process of maintaining bodily function in a dead person, over a period of weeks, would you have had an answer?</p>