<p>“The Texas woman (40+ days and counting) the child in electronblue’s post (45 days) and the abstract by Shewmon all suggest that the process you described of the brain essentially rotting in the skull leading to relatively prompt total body death (a phrase I’m using for purposes of avoiding ambiguity) may not be necessarily the case in all instances”</p>
<p>Please take a look at the older posts. It depends on what else is being done to slow down the decomposition process.</p>
<p>The CNN scroll across the bottom of the page says a Catholic organization has made it possible for her to receive care in a facility, but the family and attorney will not release the name because of threats (which I think are seriously deluded). If she is indeed in a true medical facility, it won’t take long before word leaks out that she’s there.</p>
<p>You haven’t hurt my feelings at all, kluge. And, no, I don’t want to get into any prolonged debate with you because I am neither capable of understanding nuances nor am I capable of thoughtful consideration.</p>
Actually, comparing one expenditure which people insist must not be undertaken to other expenditures which are routinely undertaken is a very logical argument when considering if the first expenditure should be banned because it is “too expensive.” All cost is relative. In Nicaragua all this would be pointless; they don’t even have dialysis for most of the thousands who die in the prime of life each year of kidney disease, so any of these expenditures would be “too much.” But since we do provide that (very expensive) treatment for everyone here in the U.S. the scale of what is “too expensive” is obviously different.</p>
<p>Billions for hopelessly infirm and soon-to-die nonagenarians, nothing for teens who have been declared brain dead. It’s possible to disagree without declaring that it’s not a valid point for discussion.</p>
<p>You didn’t ask questions, though. You opined, as though it was fact, that the body of a brain-dead person 3 weeks out would be identical in condition to the body of a coma patient 3 weeks out, and that their medical treatment would be identical. If you meant to just ask questions because you didn’t know, that would be great - but you confidently announced it as though you had medical expertise. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We’re happy to address them. We just disagree with you, that’s all. To jump off Hunt’s post, none of us would have had a problem if the McMath family requested their clergyman come in and pray over the young lady, but we would have a problem if they requested an unlicensed alt-med person come in and perform whatever procedure. Because the hospital doesn’t HAVE the ability to just let anyone come in and do whatever. They don’t HAVE that freedom. They have to abide by the laws of their state and by what their insurance company will and will not cover. Repeating ad nauseum “let the patient / family dictate” shows a lack of nuance in understanding that reality, too.</p>
<p>Obviously, your perception is just wrong. But feel free to carry on making up your own nuanced theory based by combining words from different posters. (btw: is that how you practice your craft/profession?)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed, it is, but in this case, the discussion is really about state law, and similar laws in 25 other states. I have yet to hear the attorney make a legal claim that the state law (regarding brain death) is wrong…</p>
<p>You also repeatedly have equated a brain dead 13 year old with an elderly person with Alzheimer’s. There is NO comparison and some of your comments (and tone) about the elderly are actually pretty insensitive. You say you have an 87 year old FIL in a memory care unit. If that is how you see him, I feel very sorry for him.</p>
<p>So, Sevmom, you’ve decided to abandon passive-aggression for direct personal attack? I consider that a step in the right direction. I’ve made no secret of the fact that I think that the elderly and their families are encouraged to authorize expensive medical care and that I think that’s wrong. What’s more, I’d even support withdrawing some portion of the medical subsidy to the elderly after a certain point (85?) to ensure that when they decide on a hip transplant at 92 or a face lift at 87 they actually have to pay for a significant portion of the cost. So, yeah, maybe I am insensitive.</p>
<p>Bluebayou, your posts were quite clear and unambiguous in asserting that the family’s motivation for their actions was to obtain a “payday.” I’m not sure what “perception” I have that is wrong about that. Perhaps you’d care to clarify?</p>
<p>BunsenBurner, thank you for the link. I think that the 107 day “record” is just for a brain dead pregnant woman carrying a viable fetus. Others report much longer lifespans for “brain dead” persons (months and even years) although I suspect that misdiagnosis and differing definitions of “brain dead” may account for that. [Not</a> quite dead?: The case for caution in the definition of “brain death”](<a href=“http://catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0054.html]Not”>http://catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0054.html) Nonetheless, all of that data is inconsistent with Cardinal Fang’s description of the condition of this girl’s body. I don’t think a brain dead woman could carry a baby for 107 days if after three weeks
But I certainly may be wrong. Nrdsb4 seems adamant that there is a significant difference between the physical condition of a person in a PVS for three weeks and a person who is brain dead for that same period and on a ventilator - and Nrdsb4 is a doctor. I just haven’t seen what that difference is, other than inside the skull.</p>
<p>I am not trying to personally attack you. Sorry you feel that way and I apologize. I am stating how I feel about some of your remarks though and I genuinely do wonder how you view your FIL.</p>
<p>I don’t think that at all. I don’t think they were motivated by money-grubbing. I think they are motivated by futile, hope-against-hope beliefs that she’s still “in there” to be woken up one day, combined with anger against the hospital, because I don’t think they are high-information enough to process that a) brain dead IS dead, there is no “her” any more and b) a bad outcome means someone did something incorrectly. I’m agnostic on whether malpractice was committed and agree they have every right to investigate that, and if indeed malpractice did occur (which is not the same as “bad outcome”) then I have no problem with them recovering whatever is the award in CA. I feel sorry that low-information people are being fleeced and given false hope. It’s disrespectful to them to continue to feed them mistruths about the nature of the situation.</p>
<p>This concept of “there’s no such thing as knowledge, everyone’s opinions count as equal in the matter” is precisely what’s wrong with this case. Kluge, Nrdsb4 knows more about the physical sequelae of these conditions than you do. It doesn’t matter what your hypotheses or opinions are; she’s a higher source than you or I. Similarly, when it comes to brain death, the mainstream neurology community knows more, has a better basis for decision-making, and are better sources of opinions than you or I.</p>
<p>Sevmom, my wife and I love my father in law. We speak with him often and he has entrusted me with a lot of responsibility over his life. We have been at his side through most of the serious deterioration he has seen in his capabilities over the past year. We are two of the few people he recognizes any more. </p>
<p>He is confused, afraid and unhappy. He wakes up every day not knowing where he is, or where he is “supposed” to be. This frightens him and makes him anxious. He constantly talks about “getting out of this place” but he has nowhere to go. </p>
<p>My wife is more blunt than I am. She just says, flat out: “If he just didn’t wake up tomorrow that would be better.” We would be sad, but his misery would end.</p>
<p>Sorry, but he will never “get better.” The next “big step” for him is death. And he’s not even particularly physically infirm. I’ve heard my colleagues describe conversations with elderly, bedridden clients who beg to die.</p>
<p>My wife tries to make me promise that if she ever gets like her Dad and I’m around and capable, I will smuggle drugs to her so she can “just go to sleep and not wake up.” The problem, as I point out to her, is that I’ve heard the same from many people (including my Dad) but there’s a Catch-22: once you’re at the point where that step should be taken, you’re too far gone to take it. This is a huge issue for the near future, as we baby boomers are numerous, spoiled, and likely to have long life spans. I don’t think our children’s generation will be able to support all of us in the manner we will expect.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, Nrdsb4 (doctor or nurse - sorry; I assumed) described a specific case within his/her experience. I’m not expressing “an opinion” - I don’t have the knowledge. I’m just referencing a pretty substantial body of literature which suggests that in at least some (many?) cases brain death is not followed by the symptoms described by Nrdsb4 and Cardinal Fang. And I’m not questioning the diagnosis of brain death in this case; I assume it was thoroughly checked out. I was just responding to the assertion that a critical care transport team would be faced with a novel situation in transporting this patient; as of yet no one has suggested anything about that function which would, in fact, be significantly different between this case and a PVS case. There may be; but nobody has said what the critical care team would be doing differently. If it’s that obvious, a “higher source” should be able to articulate it.</p>
<p>Didn’t you reference Dr Alan Shewmon, who, as I mentioned, is seen as unorthodox within the medical community?<br>
This is exactly what I mean. My H deals with this with patients all the time who think that Google = a medical degree, or that they read something on the internet which obviates his degree, residency, teaching experience and 25+ years hands-on in his field. Without realizing it, you’re doing the same. You didn’t ask questions - how does a coma patient 3 weeks out differ physically / medically from a brain dead patient 3 weeks out? You opined they were the same, based on stuff you read on the internet.</p>
<p>In 2001 my 18 year old brother was put in a doctor induced coma and later he was in a PVS. Because of the expense required and minimal hope for recovery, Kaiser did not allow the trauma hospital to install a shunt that would have reduced the swelling to his brain until six months after the accident. Had they allowed the installation when the trauma hospital recommended, his brain injury wouldn’t have been as severe. At the time, TBI was much less researched than it is today and it was extremely common for lay people to equate PVS with brain death. Lay people would call my brother brain dead all the time because they didn’t realize the difference. He is not PVS anymore and has almost the same cognitive abilities as he did before the accident, but extremely little motor function. Case in point, PVS is not brain death because there is a chance in PVS cases that there will be improvement. Frankly, to treat the two as if they are interchangeable is insulting.</p>