<p>I wonder if they’d even tell anybody if her heart stopped beating in spite of the efforts to keep it going.</p>
<p>The fruitcake Dr. Byrne is a Catholic. But his stated beliefs about brain death go against mainstream Catholic thought. Catholic hospitals accept brain death as death.</p>
<p>[Jahi</a> McMath family attorney fires back at medical ethics critics - latimes.com](<a href=“Jahi McMath family attorney fires back at medical ethics critics”>Jahi McMath family attorney fires back at medical ethics critics) Dolan claims he’s not giving them false hope. Really???</p>
<p>[Jahi</a> McMath Q&A: Can brain death be reversed? - latimes.com](<a href=“Jahi McMath Q&A: Can brain death be reversed?”>Jahi McMath Q&A: Can brain death be reversed?)</p>
<p>This was an informative article.</p>
<p>"Do families have rights to determine when a hospital unplugs the ventilator in cases of brain death?
No, only to a brief period of accommodation. California Health and Safety Code Section 1254.4 states: A general acute care hospital shall adopt a policy for providing family or next of kin with a reasonably brief period of accommodation
from the time that a patient is declared dead by reason of irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, in accordance with Section 7180, through discontinuation of cardiopulmonary support for the patient. During this reasonably brief period of accommodation, a hospital is required to continue only previously ordered cardiopulmonary support. No other medical intervention is required.
The statute defines a reasonably brief period as an amount of time afforded to gather family or next of kin at the patient’s bedside.</p>
<p>The next question asks if Jahi’s case is likely to change this law and the answer is “no”. I disagree. How could the outcome of this case NOT effect future similar cases?! Her family should have been treated as any other and the law applied.</p>
<p>“Dolan claims he’s not giving them false hope. Really???”</p>
<p>Perhaps, Dolan is simply saying what they want said. It’s possible.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Precedent comes from courts of appeal, not trial courts. So what this judge did or didn’t do has no impact on the outcome of future cases.</p>
<p>What it will do, of course, is encourage future litigation by other families facing the same issue, and that’s unfortunate.</p>
<p>This problem was addressed in the discussion [url=<a href=“Welcome ccm-l.org - Justhost.com”>Welcome ccm-l.org - Justhost.com]here[/url</a>]. Parents on Long Island who were accused of “shaken baby syndrome” went to court to prevent the brain dead child from being removed from the vent (so they couldn’t be charged with manslaughter). They were unsuccessful, but they did succeed in getting the baby moved to another facility where physicians agreed to delay removal from the vent. Other families were now relying on this case to argue with physicians that they had a “legal right” to prevent their child’s removal from ventilation. It didn’t mean they had that right . . . but it made things much more difficult for physicians trying to assist families to face the fact of a brain dead child or other relative.</p>
<p>Technically, the decision of the trial court does constitute precedent, just not binding precedent in the same sense as appellate decisions.</p>
<p>Based on the quoted statute, what we appear to have here is a judge who refused to do his duty and follow the statute when he extended the order for another week. The fact that he probably acted out of sympathy for the family is no excuse. He is partially responsible for extending this mess, and as dodgersmom points out, the order will encourage future litigation with the attendant waste of resources. Unless there is something else here other than the federal litigation, the judge should be ashamed of himself.</p>
<p>For whatever reason, there seems to have been something about this situation and/or family that has intimidated the hospital and judges since the beginning-giving accommodations well beyond the standard ones including keeping her on the vent for many days and allowing an excessive amount of visitors both before and after death , the judge extending the order despite California laws about this , etc. If this has just been about sympathy, I do feel the sympathy has clouded judgment about what should have happened here (and does happen and has happened in almost all other cases).And Dolan and his part in all of this mess is another story.</p>
<p>You notice, there have been no tweets from the Uncle or the attorney in two days. Why so silent all of a sudden?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t agree. I don’t see how Grillo’s opinion constitutes precedent. Clearly it is not binding and I don’t believe it can even be considered persuasive. Trial court opinions typically have no impact on anything except that particular case. The judge simply signs an order drafted by one of the parties. No opinion is published.</p>
<p>*The fruitcake Dr. Byrne is a Catholic. But his stated beliefs about brain death go against mainstream Catholic thought. </p>
<p>Catholic hospitals accept brain death as death.*</p>
<p>Of course they do. Catholic beliefs do not involve this nonsense. The girl is dead. Very sad, but true.</p>
<p>One thing I did note in the article that is linked above: the coroner’s spokesperson said she is out of state at a Catholic facility. Given the recently released statement about Jahi by the Catholic group that she is indeed dead, I am surprised by this. Also, as a Catholic, this goes against my understanding of Catholic beliefs about the end of life and what is required in situations like this. I am beyond belief actually.</p>
<p>We don’t know if this is an “officially Catholic” facility. And we don’t know if the facility is just going to evaluate her and give the same response: she’s dead. </p>
<p>A genuine Catholic healthcare institution (good standing with the area’s bishop) isn’t going to say that she’s alive, if what we know about her condition is true. </p>
<p>since there are so many Catholic hospitals across the country, if it was a “Catholic thing to do” to keep dead people hooked up, then there wouldn’t be any beds left.</p>
<p>Actually, we don’t know there is any facility at all as the attorney was notably vague. He stated that he could not confirm news about a facility.</p>
<p>It astounds me how much the living children (siblings, relatives and schoolmates) are being exploited here. And how the adults don’t see anything wrong with it.</p>
<p>I can understand why the parents of the classmates aren’t objecting . . . clearly, they’re also trying to spare their children the grief of having to acknowledge their friend’s death. </p>
<p>But for the school to perpetuate this myth is appalling. I assume it’s to protect the younger siblings, who’ve likely been told unequivocally by mom that their sister is still “alive.” Goodness, I wish someone would stand up to this family!</p>
<p>Does the trial court decision bind another court? No. Might it be cited as persuasive authority? Yes, unless it is specifically designated as nonprecedential. But once again, this is just inside baseball. The important thing is that unless someone can show me something that says he didn’t have to follow the statute, he got it wrong and thereby exacerbated the situation and gave the Dolans of the world something to lean on when talking to other potential clients in this situation.</p>
<p>“I can understand why the parents of the classmates aren’t objecting.” </p>
<p>Not sure. I actually can’t understand why at least some of the parents of classmates aren’t objecting to this. The parents of the classmates should be the ones to primarily decide about how they want to present this to their children, not Jahi’s family or the school.</p>
<p>I had agreed to take home the friend of my younger son after school on 9/11 ( to help the friend’s mom who had started work-no way to know 9/11 would happen that day). I said as little as I could to him (other than acknowledging the stress of the day)as I thought it was up to his mother to decide about detail.</p>
<p>My sons’ first grandparent (my father) died rather unexpectedly when they were 13 and 10. I was taken aback when the funeral director suggested they might be pallbearers for their grandfather. But it was one of the most moving things I have ever seen, with the bagpipes playing In the background . They carried their grandmother years later. Every family needs to decide how they want to present end of life issues but total denial seldom if ever works.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think this explains a lot. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Get a load of the nonsense in this amicus brief. Words fail me. <a href=“http://www.thaddeuspope.com/images/Amicus_brief.pdf[/url]”>http://www.thaddeuspope.com/images/Amicus_brief.pdf</a> This person, with no credendials (just a pending massage therapy certification) says Jahi chose to shut down the “non essential systems of her body” , including her brain and brain stem, to conserve her energy and consciousness, and is communicating with her mother via “genetic affinity”. What kind of nonsense is this?? Almost makes Dolan sound rational in comparison.</p>
<p>Regarding the amicus briefing–thanks for the laugh this morning! </p>
<p>I love the referencing of wikipedia and that he is going to volunteer to help the state of CA investigate the case. </p>
<p>Like so many things in this case, I am dumbfounded by this.</p>