<p>^^Indeed, the family is actively soliciting the public’s money in the form of donations…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. They can always claim that they were “pressured” to sign in the ER, when their loved one was bleeding out…thus, the arb agreement should be voided.</p>
<p>
Binding in the legal sense is binding. Public relations are another matter entirely, but signing an informed consent to binding mediation/arbitration is common in all sorts of contexts all the time. There are not loopholes, a plan like this would close the loopholes that currently exist.</p>
<p>Yeah, they are soliciting donations to do what they feel is best for their loved one. Again, if someone was soliciting donations for a cryogenic freeze, I am willing to bet they would not get as much judgment directed at them. People solicit money for FAR, FAR worse things than something this harmless, and I usually don’t see people on CC or anywhere else up in arms. If people want to give them money, that’s a legitimate way of getting money.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sheer and utter speculation on your part, and which I disagree. I’ll take that bet.</p>
<p>Keeping a dead body artificially “alive” is not the same as freezing a dead body. True, people are more than welcome to give them money. That is not really the issue. The issue is far more complicated.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I said earlier, I’m agnostic as to whether there was malpractice committed or not. I don’t know. I wasn’t there and don’t have access to the records. I don’t know what the standard of care is for PICU patients and whether it was followed or not. From what I hear (and again, who knows if this is correct, just what I’m hearing), the mother, grandmother and stepfather all suctioned her. I don’t know if it’s standard protocol to have relatives suction or to have it done by a nurse. I’m also hearing that she was talking and that protocol was that she should keep quiet, that talking would inflame the stitches. And the mother is apparently on tape as saying she fed her a bit of cheeseburger, though it’s not clear when, which would be obviously against medical advice. Maybe the monitoring was substandard. Maybe the monitoring was just fine and this was one-of-those-things. I don’t know. It doesn’t change how I feel about the rest of it, though.</p>
<p>One of the most unexpected things I have learned on this thread is how many educated people are so “low information” about legal matters and how much vitroil against the legal system they bring with their ignorance.</p>
<p>I fully admit I’m low information about legal matters (not a lawyer, nor do I play one) which is why I defer to lawyers about legal matters. I’m also lower-information about medical matters as I am not in the medical field, which is why I defer to the medical community, specifically neurologists and those who have hands-on experience with this type of patient, such as Nrdsb4. You’ll never see me assert, for example, that the body of a brain dead patient 3 weeks out is unequivocally the same medically-speaking at the body of a PVS patient 3 weeks out, as though it was incontrovertible fact. I might ask questions about the difference, but I wouldn’t opine.</p>
<p>Thanks for posting that article, zoos. The worst part of it is, black people get worse medical treatment than white people of the same age, insurance status, income and health status. That’s worse than an isolated case of a family trying to reanimate their daughter’s dead body, however gripping the story has been for us. </p>
<p>If you know that people who look like you get inferior treatment, it’s going to be harder to trust doctors and nurses. And then, in most cases the care providers who are giving lesser treatment to black people don’t intend to do it-- just like everyone else, their judgements are affected by things not under their conscious control-- so it’s harder to get them to change. It’s an ugly self-perpetuating system.</p>
<p>Well, I suppose you can just wallow in victimhood then. Do you <em>really</em> think that the doctors there decide “hmmm, I’m going to bring my best game to operating on Pretty White Girl but when it comes to operating on Poor Black Girl, I don’t really care to do a good job”? Do you think the nurses think, “I’ll make extra sure to provide extra care to Pretty White Girl but Poor Black Girl can go bleed out in the corner and I don’t care, I’m on my break”?</p>
<p>I certainly am not a lawyer either. zoosermom, you said that binding arbitration cannot be voided or challenged, no loopholes. When I google binding arbitration, I see things coming up that say it can be challenged. So, I am confused. I really don’t see much “vitriol” here about the legal system. That’s a very strong term. Some of us HAVE made unflattering statements about this particular lawyer.</p>
<p>The only legal complication that I have issues with is that she was declared dead on Dec 12th and then the family was given more time. More time for what? There is no legal remedy for death. This is a genuine question, btw.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think that at all. But the fact remains, black people get worse health treatment than white people.</p>
<p>People’s subconscious beliefs inform our actions in ways we don’t recognize. For a similar example, look at the experiment where researchers sent out “male” and “female” resumes to scientific labs at universities, and the hiring people reported that the male applicants were more qualified-- even though the resumes were identical except for the names. If you asked the scientists in the hiring labs, they would deny that they were prejudiced against women scientists. They were telling the truth as they knew it, because they were not intentionally prejudiced. And yet, the end result would be hiring males over identically qualified or better qualified females.</p>
<p>I find the Implicit Association Tests revealing. Warning: don’t take these tests if you don’t want to find out something about yourself that you might not like.
<a href=“https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/[/url]”>https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/</a></p>
<p>That’s the issue I am confused about as well,actingmt. As I said, I had no issue with this going to court to get an independent evaluation but having this turn into a judge agreeing she was brain dead but not allowing the hospital to turn off the ventilator is certainly confusing.</p>
<p>^^IMO, sevmom, the judge did the only thing he could have. He made his ruling in accordance with state law (as he interpreted the laws), then put a stay on his ruling to give the family time to appeal his ruling. (Every one deserves their days in court…) </p>
<p>Then he negotiated a settlement – if the family wants the body that badly, they can have it, since it obviously does not belong to the hospital or the Coroner…</p>
<p>(No judge wants this kinda case.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>More time to accept the devastating facts. IMO, it was an act of judicial mercy gone wrong.</p>
<p>
It’s been explained a bunch of times. And as I said just above, once litigation commences it takes on a life of its own. This is that. ANd is why I think litigation should be avoided at all costs by putting procedures in place ahead of time. Laws actually do work. It is not impossible, as some people here seem to think. to craft legislation and regulations that protect the rights and interests of all parties involved.</p>
<p>Okay, that makes sense, CF. But it does seem to open the floodgates to more of these kinds of cases. I hope not though. Luckily, this seems very rare.</p>
<p>
Maybe the judge wanted it to, but the thing to remember is that without settlement, the stay would have been lifted 48 hours after the federal briefs were filed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, yes it is, and that is by design, at least until the Supremes rule.</p>