Hi everyone. I'm new to MS but have been reading through most of both threads on this. I'm not sure how much can be added to the discussion at this point, but I felt a strong need to weigh in! FYI, I'm a lawyer (in CA), but admittedly not well-versed in these issues.
I think the biggest problem here is the precedent that's being set. Jahi McMath is legally, clinically dead. The law is being extended beyond its breaking point because of a family's grief and inability to let go. It really isn't in issue now if she's dead - she is, by the legally accepted definition and in accordance with procedure. More than enough experts have concurred. At this point, the only argument that could be made is overturning the law related to death, and there simply is no reason to do so. No one has recovered from brain death. While people like Dr. Byrne (and anyone else for that matter) are entitled to believe differently, IE that there is no such thing as brain death, that's not what the medical and legal communities as a whole have found. I fear the future ramifications of these decisions. We're bending everything because of this tragedy, and I personally think this is just making it worse for the family.
One thing that I haven't seen raised here (and forgive me if I'm wrong about that) is the idea that one of the reasons to even have legal definitions of death are to avoid these kinds of situations. I'm not a parent yet, so I can't begin to imagine the pain the family is going through, but if this was my kid or my loved one, I can't begin to fathom how I would get to the point of being ready to turn off the ventilator. When we have this kind of medical technology that simulates life, essentially, by keeping the heart beating, it would be so hard to find acceptance and willingness to stop the ventilator. That's why we need objective, bright line rules. So that we can say, ok, the time has come now, and as much as you don't like this/aren't ready for it, this is what has to happen. Then the family can finally begin to grieve. By allowing this to continue because they aren't ready to let go, the family has just been deluded further into believing there is hope. In my opinion, this never should have gone to court. Where is the legal issue? And even when it did, once the Stanford expert came in and concurred in the brain death declaration, this should have stopped. I've seen it argued that the family should be given time to accept it, but just imagining it for myself...I'm not sure that I would ever get there. How do you accept the death of your child? At some point I'm not sure it's fair to give the parents this kind of authority, because they aren't in a place to be making these decisions. There is too much grief. I just feel it's all gotten incredibly unethical, and as a lawyer, I can't agree with their attorney's willingness to go forward with this case.
