<p>All this talk of bioethics makes me recall Octomom and that whole fiasco. </p>
<p>I wonder what changed after her case.</p>
<p>I’m not seeing the patient dictating the care here. The family just wanted to have their daughter released.</p>
<p>I’d say the “professional ethics” for a critical care team transporting a dead person on a ventilator are not entirely clear. Critical care teams don’t have a lot of experience transporting people who have been dead for three weeks.</p>
<p>It seems to me that there is a question of line-drawing as to how much a hospital should have to accommodate the views of patients, even when the hospital disagrees with those views. I assume we’d all be outraged if a hospital refused to allow a patient’s clergyperson to visit and pray, even if the hospital administration believes prayer is useless. On the other hand, we might side with the hospital if the patient wanted the hospital to allow an unlicensed practitioner of some kind of alternative medicine to apply those treatments to the patient in the hospital. (Even then, it would probably matter just what the treatments were.) Surely none of us would criticize a doctor for refusing to remove a healthy hand, even if the patient insisted that the hand had offended him and had to be removed to avoid damnation.</p>
<p>In this case, perhaps there is some disagreement about the point at which accommodation became unreasonable (if it ever did). Personally, I think it was at the point of the independent evaluation of brain death.</p>
<p>[KTVU</a> Live News (Updated) | <a href=“http://www.ktvu.com%5B/url%5D”>www.ktvu.com](<a href=“http://www.ktvu.com/videos/news/ktvu-live-news/vtSfR/?updated]KTVU”>http://www.ktvu.com/videos/news/ktvu-live-news/vtSfR/?updated)</a></p>
<p>
THey were legally entitled to that and I, personally, see that as a completely reasonable request. Some of the stuff that came after, such as the request for the Ohio doctor to do an exam, not so much.</p>
<p>
I do, too, especially if they felt they couldn’t trust the hospital. But I still think the judge should have taken a firmer position at that point. I don’t see why he issued a fairly lengthy stay, just because they had also gone to a federal court. I don’t think there was any ground for a stay–and they could have sought an emergency stay from the federal court. It probably would not have been granted, and this would have been over much sooner. Perhaps some of the parties involved were hoping that her heart would stop beating and render the whole thing moot before further rulings were required.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the same distinction I was talking about. Having the clergyman come pray isn’t using the hospital’s resources or making the hospital legally liable for anything. Having an unlicensed practitioner come in and administer alternative medicine is using the hospital’s resources, which now means the hospital is on the hook from a liability standpoint. Can’t have it both ways, and kluge’s belief that the hospital / doctors exist merely to “serve” without thinking through liability and ethical implications is, dare I say, not very nuanced.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>zmom, you keep circling back around to this, but I don’t think anyone on here has had a major problem with their asking for an independent evaluation of brain death. They wanted it - it was granted - that’s when the Stanford guy came in and said, yep, sorry, she’s indeed dead.</p>
<p>Dolan says the nurses were very nice. The doctors, however, not so much.</p>
<p>Jahi is receiving antibiotics and nutritional support.</p>
<p>
It’s procedural. The state court could not act while the matter was still pending before the federal court and the people involved with the federal action had to be allowed to complete their work. It really is that simple. For the state court to terminate the matter before the federal court had spoken would have unequivocally violated their rights. Think of it in terms of a situation that is less clear-cut, where civil rights issues could legitimately be involved. The plaintiffs’ rights have to be protected.</p>
<p>PG, didn’t Hunt’s post that I quoted (1284) say that asking for that evaluation was the point at which accommodation became unreasonable? Maybe I’m misreading that?</p>
<p>Hunt’s post wasn’t clear, but I interpreted it as saying that once the independent evaluation had been done demands for further accommodations were unreasonable.</p>
<p>
I don’t really see that, even from a procedural point of view. If the federal court wants to preserve its jurisdiction, it can issue an emergency stay. I see no reason for the state court to do so, except maybe for just a couple of days to allow the parties to seek a stay from the other court. They shouldn’t have been allowed to drag it out by going from court to court–that’s the mistake the state court judge made, unless there are some unusual procedural elements that I don’t understand.</p>
<p>Listening to this press conference now- shocked that they keep talking about her surviving, saving her life, etc.</p>
<p>It is truly amazing what’s going on here. Dolan says precedent has been set.</p>
<p>
The stay was to be lifted 48 hours after the federal court briefing deadline.</p>
<p>Dolan has compared the extraction from Children’s Hospital to the movie “Argo” and says afterwards they were hungry and went to McDonald’s. Am I dreaming?</p>
<p>
Absolutely terrifying.</p>
<p>Does anyone know what role Angela Clemente has been playing in all of this?</p>