<p>When there is nothing left to determine, the judge will say so.</p>
<p>I’m not sure where “ethics” enters into it for a family that can pay for the maintenance of the body. I believe very strongly that death is a part of life and we should make our peace with it. But as the cryogenics people illustrate, others disagree. I would not think that it would be “unethical” for a doctor to treat a brain dead patient at the patient’s family’s request; what ethical stricture would prevent that? I think if a family is paying the cost, they should be allowed to take as long as they want to exhaust their options, even if I disagree with that choice.</p>
<p>If they’re not paying for it, though, I think the authorities have the right and the responsibility to decline to have the taxpayers foot the bill indefinitely.</p>
<p>I’d note that the unusual aspects of this case are that its a child, and that there is evidence of “brain death.” In my opinion the issue is faced all the time with the elderly, with less clear cut diagnoses. There, as here, people makes decisions about their loved ones that I disagree with. (I’m looking into renewing my directive to physicians with even firmer DNR language even now.) It’s hard to let go. Maybe the one good thing that might come from this tragic case is more discussion and education dispelling the TV propagated myth of inevitable miracle recoveries.</p>
<p>I have a friend whose 80-something mother has cancer. It’s eaten away part of her jaw; she can’t eat, she needs a tracheotomy to be moved. But her doctors have continued to insist that they can “fix” her.</p>
<p>They can’t. She’s dying. She’ll probably be dead within weeks or months. But pointless and expensive surgical interventions have been suggested, with outcomes 95% “guaranteed” (at first - then 50%, then the doctor backed out.)</p>
<p>If this case involved a person over 80, I’d say that it was the ethical responsibility of every doctor, pastor, lawyer, adviser, friend and relative to advise the family to let go, and shame on them if they didn’t. </p>
<p>But the girl was 13. I’d give them some slack. Another week won’t make that much difference. And Zoosermom is right: they are entitled to have a lawyer speak and act for them; that’s what the constitutional right to counsel is all about. Not every one has the talent and tools to do the things for themselves that they could do if they had a lawyer.</p>
<p>It is possible that even if they can’t pay a religious organization might agree to support Jahi’s care. Maybe funds can be raised. I don’t know, but it isn’t wrong for anyone to ask the court for relief. If a matter were frivolous, it would be dismissed. This hasn’t been because it is a serious and irrevocable matter. I, for one Am grateful that a black family that isn’t wealthy and isn’t powerful is getting representation and respect in the judicial system. I wouldn’t want to live in a place where this decision could be made without careful consideration and where every option hadn’t been exhausted.</p>
<p>Well, either brain death is death or it isn’t. Lawyers can’t change that, but they can drag things out to the benefit of no-one. Does anyone really think this girl is coming back to life. If not, I don’t see the point.</p>
<p>I was okay with giving them till after Christmas but now it’s getting a little silly.</p>
<p>The life and death of a child are nonsense and silly to you, flossy? Aren’t you just a font of wisdom and compassion.</p>
<p>Ugh, compassion again. How about reality?</p>
<p>I’m not saying it’s not tragic but this is not the first time a child has suffered a tragedy, including brain death. Continued denial at taxpayer expense is appalling.</p>
<p>It must be great to be more knowledgeable than the judge reviewing the actual facts of the case.</p>
<p>My understanding is he gave them another week to try to find a facility. Several backed out when they learned the facts. We’ll see what happens.</p>
<p>A 13 year old deemed brain dead by multiple sources is less compelling to me than a potential 70 or 80 plus person with medical issues . My mom had major surgery at 81 and died at 87, still functioning toward the end. My 91 year old MIL died after a few years with Alzheimer’s and a DNR. Most people at 70 or 80 plus do know their number is up at some point. And most responsible people at that age have let their families know what they want at the end-I don’t think most people want extraordinary measures at the end and I doubt most parents would want that for their child either if all hope was lost.</p>
<p>One can have an infinite amount of compassion for the parents, who have shockingly lost their beloved daughter. I cannot begin to imagine the hurt. It is huge. </p>
<p>But there comes a point where we ought to say, “We also grieve the loss of your daughter, but she is now dead.” The parents may be distrustful of the doctors at Children’s Hospital of Oakland – and after their daughter’s experience, that isn’t surprising. Bringing in an outside noted neurologist was a reasonable step, and his conclusion was the same as the doctors’ at Childrens: she is dead. </p>
<p>At some point this past week, this whole process started pandering to the hopes and dreams of the young woman’s family. Are we supposed to be fine with the idea that this shell of a body should be sustained, perhaps for years, because the parents are delusional or poorly educated? Sure, aliens could beam down tomorrow and put her into the reanimation tubes, but that is somewhat more likely than what her folks seem to think will happen.</p>
<p>I’ve also put fairly direct language into my end-of-life wishes, and I most sincerely hope that no family member of mine follows the path this family is trying to take.</p>
<p>Most 13 year olds don’t have end of life plans in place. At the point at which this really is done, the court will say so. I have a problem with judging people in this situation because their actions and priorities aren’t the same as you think yours would be. And calling this silly or nonsense is as ugly as it is possible to be. As kluge said, there is no difference in waiting a week. Jahi has eternity to be dead. My express wishes as an adult were that my mother should decide and her wishes prevail even if it meant keeping me alive artificially. There is not one way to live, die or grieve.</p>
<p>This is a tragic case. </p>
<p>How is this young girl digesting food?</p>
<p>Yes, agree arabrab. It was a relief when my 91 year old MIL died last year (and she had clear directives but her mind went but her body would just not give out). She was a shell of herself when she died last year . I loved her and was glad that her body finally gave out. To keep a brain dead 13 year old alive indefinitely is scary.</p>
<p>Seems like the question boils down to is brain death really death? If so, this is very strange. I wouldn’t call it compassionate.</p>
<p>I think wanting to deprive a family of its legal rights in an irrevocable situation is much more scary. The court is in charge here and surely no one would want the popularity of a litigant’s position to have any bearing on their exercise of their rights.</p>
<p>It’s not all about lawyers and legalese. That is why ethics committees have evolved.</p>
<p>
Not a doctor, but it’s my understanding that someone in her condition could not continue to be sustained indefinitely. One way or the other it’s just a matter of time.</p>
<p>How utterly, utterly tragic, for all concerned.</p>
<p>Who’s depriving the family of their legal rights? The judge has bent over backwards (and done walk-overs) to give the family opportunity after opportunity to move the body someplace else. Every facility that supposedly expressed interest has backed out. Do you think that might be because they get the foolhardiness of putting a ventilator on a dead person, especially if nobody is willing to step forward and pay the ongoing costs? </p>
<p>I’d guess pretty much everyone feels badly for the family. Nonetheless, encouraging their delusions is terrible public policy. The judge should have let the plug be pulled today. (Or better yet, as soon as the independent neurologist provided the court with his report.)</p>
<p>d stark- if she is in a coma and brain dead, then she is not taking in any food that needs digestion. My guess is that she has an IV for fluids, and a feeding tube, with elemental (predigested) formula. As long as she is on life support, she will have enough circulation for her intestines to absorb the formula.
I don’t think she can be sustained indefinitely but in some situations this can last for years. The Terri Shiavo case was also a legal battle. She lived in that state for 5 years.</p>