<p>
THat’s why I phrased it the way I did. If the plaintiffs can prove to a jury that the McMaths were ignorant and couldn’t have been expected to know better, but of course the medical professionals did, then the medical professionals could lose. It’s the convincing a jury part that’s the issue and I could see it going in favor of the McMaths on this specific issue. At the very least, it’s not a slam dunk for the hospital.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It would be a tough case to make since the procedures she underwent were to treat sleep apnea and other as of now unspecified resultant conditions, which I think I’m safe in concluding included weight gain.</p>
<p>I don’t agree with you Sue. I think this would depend on the jury, the lawyers and the experts. And I bet they all know that. As I said, this is not a slam dunk for the hospital.</p>
<p>From sally’s article: “Why, then, does American law continue to force one standard of death on Jahi’s parents and others who have plausible alternative definitions? Once one realizes that the choice among the options is not a cut-and-dried matter of medical science, why not let people have some choice based on their personal religious and cultural views?”</p>
<p>I don’t mean to be either morbid or disrespectful, but the definition of death has implications in our system far beyond “hurting the parents’ feelings.”</p>
<p>If “parents just get to decide when death is” independent of doctors and medical science, does that mean that we can treat deceased children as dependents on our tax returns for years to come? Are they covered under the family’s health insurance plan just like living children? If a parent dies, does the dead child collect Social Security or share in the distribution of the estate? </p>
<p>Or if you broaden this beyond parents-of-minors, does that mean that parents of adult children get to determine when death is? Or adults for THEIR elderly parents? So if I have trouble accepting grandma’s death and I maintain she is still alive because the pain is too much to bear, does grandma still qualify for Medicare?</p>
<p>“Pure speculation. What specifically are they asking for at this point?”</p>
<p>I agree that at this point they may simply be asking to be let alone. As i have said consistently, my only complaint has been with their insistence that the hospital provide support for the bodily functions of the entity.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s a slam dunk for the hospital either.<br>
There are blogs saying that the mother tried to feed her cheeseburger afterwards (meaning after the surgery), though it’s unclear whether they mean in recovery or after the collapse occurred. It’s also unclear to me whether the popsicle she is reported eating was given to her by the hospital staff or by the family. I am no doctor, but I would imagine they would be loathe to give anything that provides a sucking mechanism for fear of tearing out stitches, but I could be completely wrong.
I am quite sure the hospital is focused now on ensuring all the relevant personnel and records are all brought together and that all care was according to the standard of care.</p>
<p>It seems to me that the family probably is a “low information” family, which is not really their fault–lots of people don’t know much about medical issues. The problem is that their low information status allowed a grandstanding lawyer to lead them astray, as well as other people with an agenda that was not in the family’s best interests. I think my biggest problem, though, is with the first judge who got this case. It was that judge who allowed this to go spiraling out of control. Unless there was some evidence that there was a real issue as to whether the girl was brain dead or not, the whole thing should have been brought to a swift end. So, while I agree that the family had the right to ask for an independent review of whether their child was brain dead, once they got it, that should have been the end of it.</p>
<p>
This is the thing. It’s hashing this out in the court of law that will clarify things going forward. That’s a very good thing in terms of those far-reaching implications. When the matter is settled by having completed its progress through the judicial system, then this won’t happen again. As long as the next case involves the proper following of procedure. Failing to do so will always invite litigation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Doesn’t matter; aren’t judgments are capped at $250k in California? Children’s would never let this go beyond cutting a check asap for a release. The only way this gets to a courtroom is a federal claim.</p>
<p>
THe issue was the specific statute that required a specific process for the independent examination. The family sued for compliance with that, got it, and it was finished then but for the stay. The stay extended to tomorrow because the federal court had to decide whether to take the matter. The state court couldn’t step on its toes. So the state court judge did nothing wrong. There is a procedure to be followed and even unpopular plaintiffs are entitled to have the law followed.</p>
<p>
No. The family does NOT have to accept a settlement and I don’t believe they will.</p>
<p>sax, I’m not sure the family “gets a pass” for this amount of time. Many posting here have dealt with hard decisions or have dealt with things going wrong, deaths of loved ones including deaths of all ages including children, miscarriages, etc. None of this is easy and I don’t think posters in general have been insensitive regarding the tragic loss for this family in losing a beloved child. If anything, most of just seem to wish this child would be laid to rest. I can’t imagine the impact this prolonged experience is having on her siblings.</p>
<p>I can’t imagine the family’s heartache, personally. It’s easy for me to sit and opine about what I would do but in reality, I would expect that I’d be a blithering, incoherent mess who would grasp onto any shred of hope no matter how far-fetched. I had two kids in NICU on life support, one with a intraventricular brain hemorrhage, had to have the “pulling the plug” discussion with the doctors (who thankfully said no, we don’t think that’s the right step here, their prognosis is good). I had a husband who was a physician and knew medically what was going on and I still didn’t know what to believe. So I really am sympathetic to them from an emotional point of view, but at one point facts really are facts.</p>
<p>Even from an emotional point of view their behavior from the beginning was weird. My apologies. I’m skeptical. Low information people die. Their handling of this suggests information. Motivation is unclear and I won’t speculate but people are and it’s not pretty.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl - I don’t know, obviously I’m speculating and as always you bring up good points. My thought is that Jahi was already at the hospital, as is normal in tragic loss time is given to the family to come to terms with their loss, and as we know legal action was taken to prevent the discontinuation of ‘life support’. This is a grossly simplistic statement, but you get the idea. The hospitals hands were tied legally so their preset standard of care was trumped. </p>
<p>My thought is the emergency response teams locally have the benefit of foresight in this situation. They know this family is an extreme outlier, the hospital did not. No EMT should be responding blindly. The address is known, dispatchers can be alerted and responders notified. If an organization chooses to have a firm standard with the family not to engage to a point that might get them legally compelled to continue treatment, or later liable in any way (and I don’t know what this line is), they can have this decided in advance and instruct responders to proceed in this manner.</p>
<p>
I refuse to even imagine it, I can’t even entertain the possibility.</p>
<p>I was the sibling when my sister died when I was 8. My mother, who knew it was coming, was bedridden for months and completely out of my life for that period. I don’t blame her, she was exhausted from fighting so hard and the loss was so crushing. But I don’t blame her and I don’t judge her because we can only prioritize as best we can.</p>
<p>
I thought the location was not yet known. Did I miss that?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, they don’t have to accept anything today, but the number won’t change unless they can make a federal claim of it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[New</a> Consumer Study Debunks Myths About California’s Medical Malpractice “Cap” and Access to Patient Care | centerjd.org](<a href=“http://centerjd.org/content/new-consumer-study-debunks-myths-about-californias-medical-malpractice-cap-and-access-patien]New”>New Consumer Study Debunks Myths About California's Medical Malpractice "Cap" and Access to Patient Care | centerjd.org)</p>
<p>My son works as an EMT in the summer. He is no way trained to revive dead bodies. A ride to the hospital is all they get.</p>
<p>“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” post 103</p>
<p>Actually, Zoosermom, you ARE the one who brought race into the conversation. While you provide good legal insight, you have also been judgmental and contentious.</p>
<p>I hope this child and family can finally find peace.</p>