<p>Sorry my sarcastic response followed yours, Zooser.</p>
<p>It IS profoundly disturbing.</p>
<p>As time goes on and this becomes a long trial we will lose the perspective of urgency that has driven some of these decisions. We will also lose the perspective of the intense emotions driving many of these decisions.</p>
<p>When you look at the facts as they are written down it becomes very unsettling for the hospital. </p>
<p>“if she was dead why did you…?”</p>
<p>Yep. Which is why I reject the notion that if CHO had just been “nicer” they would have accepted it. Can’t get blood out of a turnip and can’t reason with someone who doesn’t want to be reasoned with. </p>
<p>It is kind of interesting that they claim it’s about religious beliefs. Isn’t part of their religion to help you deal with death, to give hope that your loved one is now at peace in heaven with God? Why is death so awful? Which brings it back to - it’s awful for the survivors - them, and that’s what motivates it - trying to assuage their own pain.</p>
<p>I think we all want this to be over. We want her body to rest in peace. Jahi is already gone but what they are doing to her body is a sin. This is why doctors should be the ones to decide death, not families and not the court, as both, here, have failed this child miserably.</p>
<p>A sin? why?</p>
<p>"PG: if you want to prop Uncle Bernie up at the kitchen table it is okay with me. I don’t think it is any of my business. really. "</p>
<p>Is it ok if I want to exhume Uncle Bernie’s body for this purpose?</p>
<p>If it is true, that there were that many visitors (15) with Jahi postop, then this sounds odd to me. My son had cardithorasic surgery at 16 (actually a series), and even out of postop ICU the kids were not allowed more then two visitors at a time. One of his roommates had a very large extended family and the nursing staff had quite a job maintaining that. They were respectful, but clear on the policy. Family would swap out. It shocks me if this wasn’t maintained in OCH. There’s no way you can tell how a patient is doing, if they are taking, or being fed something with that many people around. Perhaps she wasn’t talking, and she wasn’t fed anything, but the point remains the nursing staff can’t maintain a level of care in ICU with that many people.</p>
<p>Is there a culture alive that does NOT believe in treating dead bodies with some measure of respect, even though special burial customs, etc may vary? Any anthropologists here?</p>
<p>PG: There is not a universal standard with regard to respect of dead bodies. There are many different beliefs and customs. Even in this country, at this particular point in time, families can have widely differing ideas as to what is respectful. We get into a lot of religious issues here and I don’t think we want society dictating what families are allowed to do with their dead. When people are concerned, it is possible to address what happens with their remains with a will. </p>
<p>I think catera may have asked the right question.</p>
<p>I find that number of visitors shocking, too. When my son was in the ICU, the hospital was justifiably ruthless in keeping the number of visitors down for every child in the ICU. The only thing I can think of here is that maybe since it was a “routine” procedure maybe they got a little more leeway? But I could see how the totality of the experience could lead to a hostile relationship between the parties. On both sides.</p>
<p>"We get into a lot of religious issues here and I don’t think we want society dictating what families are allowed to do with their dead. "</p>
<p>We already do, though, which is why I can’t prop Uncle Bernie up at the dinner table. I assume funeral homes and crematoriums are licensed by the state, no?</p>
<p>Funeral homes and crematoriums have a huge financial interest in what we do with our dead. I think they usually claim public health issues, not religious reasons, as justification for their involvement.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.amazon.com/The-American-Way-Death-Revisited/dp/0679771867[/url]”>http://www.amazon.com/The-American-Way-Death-Revisited/dp/0679771867</a></p>
<p>That’s not my point, though. If Uncle Bernie dies, doesn’t the state already dictate that his remains need to go to an “approved” place - funeral home, crematorium, medical school, etc? I can’t just keep him in my home.</p>
<p>I think you could in my state. We still have family cemeteries. It is legal to be buried on your property. If you took a long while to bury someone, who’s to know?</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, I think if you had valid religious reasons (his and yours) to keep the body in your home, the government would have to make reasonable accomodations to that religious belief. They might, for example, be able to insist that the body be embalmed, or that there can be no smells or risk of contagion, etc. A court that had to address the issue would perform a balancing test. (I’m not sure that the case we’re discussing here is really that kind of case at all, at least with respect to the family.)</p>
<p>I note that many people do keep loved ones’ remains in their homes, in the form of ashes.</p>
<p>“PG: There is not a universal standard with regard to respect of dead bodies. There are many different beliefs and customs. Even in this country, at this particular point in time, families can have widely differing ideas as to what is respectful. We get into a lot of religious issues here and I don’t think we want society dictating what families are allowed to do with their dead. When people are concerned, it is possible to address what happens with their remains with a will.” </p>
<p>^^^Thank you. I don’t think anyone should be dictating to this family what to do with their daughter.</p>
<p>And no, I don’t think what they are doing is a ‘sin’. </p>
<p>By the way, the scientific standard for death has changed quite a bit in the past centuries. Things like comas, vegetative states, etc. were unknown. Who is to say that in 100 years we won’t have a different understanding of what brain death actually entails?</p>
<p>This is Delawares statement when it comes to abuse of corpse. Many other states have very similarly written laws</p>
<p>A person is guilty of abusing a corpse when, except as authorized by law, the person treats a corpse in a way that a reasonable person knows would outrage ordinary family sensibilities. Abusing a corpse is a class A misdemeanor. -</p>
<p>This is what I found in California…(all I could find)</p>
<p>[CA</a> Codes (hsc:7050.5-7055)](<a href=“http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=07001-08000&file=7050.5-7055]CA”>http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=07001-08000&file=7050.5-7055)</p>
<p>“Valid” religious reasons? Who’s to decide what’s “valid”? The US government – constitutionally – is allegedly prohibited from involving itself in this question, but it can and does. If this family believed in female genital mutilation (as is practiced “religiously” and culturally among many sects in Somalia), would we accept this practice as being protected under the free exercise of their “religion”? Clearly, there are many things that people claim as being part of their “religion” (marrying multiple wives (Mormonism); marrying children (Islam)) that the US government and its law actively prohibit. Claiming that something is part of your religion is no defense against established public interest and public law. Claiming that their “religion” determines that death occurs in the absence of a heartbeat when the black letter of California law says that death occurs in the absence of brain activity is one of those “conflicts” that is not a conflict. The law trumps your “religion” in this matter.</p>
<p>acollegestudent, she is decomposing now. Even I believe that the famly’s rights have been impeccably protected. I’m fine with the pace of the legal process, even if slow, but every I has been dotted and every T crossed. It becomes a public health issue.</p>
<p>The authorities dictate all sorts of things with which parents must comply and even a hardcore, anti-government conservative like me believes that laying to rest a dead child should be one of them.</p>
<p>Sax, sounds EXTREMELY vague and, in my opinion completely inapplicable to this family’s situation.</p>
<p>Zooser, I am not at all anti-government (in fact, would like to work for the government some day) and fine with government dictating some things as well, just not this, because unlike in cases of genital mutiliations, etc., I still firmly believe they are not hurting anyone or being malicious to the body or anything like that. Plus, clearly the judge allowed it, so even the legal system is on their side. It’s not them vs. the government at this point - it’s them vs. the public. All they are really doing is offending some people’s sensibilities.</p>