Family wants to keep life support for girl brain dead after tonsil surgery #5

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think doctors have followed the standard of brain death since the Supreme Court ruling in the 1970's. Standards of care have IMO only improved as technology has progressed. The fact that X-rays can be digitally sent to the ER for immediate viewing is amazing.

If nothing else comes from this case, I hope that it has opened a conversation on organ donation, patients asking more questions of their physicians, extra care by all medical professionals, researching of symptoms and diagnoses by patients to self educate, assigning medical power of attorneys to someone they trust and more.

I hope that stricter guidelines and definitions of brain death will be forthcoming. The downside may be doctors and hospitals not extending days for families to make heart wrenching decisions to end life support. I don't think another hospital is going to risk what has happened at CHO to ever occur again. JMV

Here's my issue....I want to be fully informed and have a say in the care my child receives. I don't want my parental rights stripped for any reason when admitted to a hospital for any reason.

I've been quite alarmed lately and at the rate it's occurring. Another case I was following here about a girl locked away in a psy ward for a year after a visit to another hospital. That case really threw me for a loop.
 
:) lol guess not

Also remember: it's morning here. Summer holidays. I haven't had my second coffee yet. Any of those in isolation would be enough to make me confused. Combine all 3 and I should probably just go and sit in the sunshine and forget about all of this until later ;)
 
from post 1078 ref'onmg to fruity's wqad link
From your link
“....She lost four pints of blood. She had to have four blood transfusions. She had two liters of blood pumped out of her lungs, not including what was in her stomach,” Sealey said. ....”
SBM

Med folks - help, please?

Does four units of blood necessarily equal four transfusions?

Is it possible to give a patient 4 ____ (liters? pints?) of blood in a single transfusion?
Or 2 __ in 2 transfusions?
Or 2__ in one transfusion and 1 ___ in another transfusion?
Is it likelly there were 4 separate transfusions, as Uncle O said?

Does his stmt re pumping blood from lungs, stomach make sense?

My first point:
Is possible/likely Uncle O accurately describing what happened?

My second point:
AFAIK Uncle O was not even present in PICU room to witness this himself, so at best, it is hearsay.

JM2cts and I may be wrong. :seeya:
 
From your link
“After the surgery, she (Jahi) was fine. She went into the recovery room. She was alert and talking, and she was asking for a Popsicle because she said her throat hurt. As part of the procedure, she was meant to spend the night in ICU,” Sealey said. “When she got moved to ICU, there was a 30-minute wait until any family member could go see her. Upon entry, they saw that there was way too much blood.”
“She lost four pints of blood. She had to have four blood transfusions. She had two liters of blood pumped out of her lungs, not including what was in her stomach,” Sealey said. “There was an enormous amount of blood, and we kept asking, ‘Is this normal?’ Some nurses said I don’t know and some said yes. There was a lot of uncertainty and a lack of urgency.”

Uncle was not there but in Cabo
 
I'm a little confused? The consensus seems to be to dismiss what her family and lawyer says happened.

So what happened in the 30 minutes between fine in recovery and bleeding way too much in the ICU?

IMHO Gma suctioning

as she declared on JVM
 
If someone dies whether it is due to brain or heart failure, the family is not the one that has to consent to ventilator support being removed. It is automatically done by the hospital after giving the family a "small" amount of time to gather.

If someone is in a coma or vegetative state, where there is brain trauma but not brain death then family has to consent before removal of life support.

That's not the question.

How many people know that when they sign consent? Is it in standard forms her mother signed when admitted?

I'm in NJ. That's not the way it is here. I'm seriously asking if the people in California know this going in? Do they sign something agreeing to it?
 
No, we do not need to sign anything about the brain death law upon admittance to the hospital. It is just the law that has been passed by our legislature and that we are all required to follow. Most states chose not to include a religious exemption in their similar laws, so there is no exception even if we personally disagree.

Well now, we're getting somewhere.

I think people need to be fully informed and know their rights or lack of, don't you? It should be part of all hospital admittance signed consent forms. If it were...we wouldn't be here.
 
Well now, we're getting somewhere.

I think people need to be fully informed and know their rights or lack of, don't you? It should be part of all hospital admittance signed consent forms. If it were...we wouldn't be here.

Well, because it's law, we're all charged with full knowledge of it. Not knowing isn't an excuse in the eyes of the law. I think this case goes to show more people need to be educated about brain death and be aware of it, but the moral of the story is our lawmakers make laws and we can challenge them via the courts but still must abide by them. A hospital can't prepare a family for every possibility and ask them to agree with what is already the law. Informed consent means that you are acknowledging the risk, understand what may happen, and choose to still undergo the procedure. That's different from agreeing to be held to the laws of the state.
 
Yes. I was really careful in my earlier post to say that wrt to suctioning I don't know who is in the wrong. The nurses shouldn't have let the family suction. On ghe other hand, you can understand the family wanting to do ANYTHING to help but accidentally causing harm.

None of us was there. We don't know what happened for sure. I admit I'm speculating and that this is all IMO.



Now this is where my problem is. I can see someone grabbing the suction while someone else went to get the nurse, or yell for a nurse. All it would take is one time if they did it wrong then it could cause more harm. But they were trying to help a loved one and thought they were doing right. Now we don't know if they caused harm. Heck they probably don't know if they caused harm at this point. Knowing this they are still thrashing this hospital left and right. Ok not even the whole family the uncle and lawyer are trashing this hospital in one sentence the next sentence tossing around settlement amounts. Meanwhile neither were there or know what happened or if the family even worsened the situation. Honestly when I first read about the story I thought wow I feel terrible for the family. Listening to the uncle I feel like this is just an entitled family that no matter what they did wrong it's still gonna be the hospitals fault. That bothers me because I am not a cold hearted person. I want to be compassionate. But I feel they bury this baby, keep quiet and let it all out in a court.
 
Well now, we're getting somewhere.

I think people need to be fully informed and know their rights or lack of, don't you? It should be part of all hospital admittance signed consent forms. If it were...we wouldn't be here.

Much of this boils down to words. What some are viewing as the need for consent, or choices, by law, does not require consent and hasn't for some 30 plus years.

What some view as medical *care* the law and the majority of medical community view as medical and legal death...not care.

Perhaps a statement issued to parents or individuals being admitted for surgery should be included in the check in process...but as the law stands it wouldn't be a consent form as it is not required.
 
Well now, we're getting somewhere.

I think people need to be fully informed and know their rights or lack of, don't you? It should be part of all hospital admittance signed consent forms. If it were...we wouldn't be here.

I agree that it could be time for an overhaul wrt a few things. Even outside the US.

I have confirmed that I'm an organ donor on my driver's licence, but that can be overturned or ignored easily. I also have to be registered on the organ donor registry. IMO it needs to be easier than this. Extra paperwork always turns people off.

And as Marg from oz said the other day, there are different forms needed for DNR wishes in Australia. My husband, parents, children, siblings and the executor of my will all know my wishes but until I get those forms done I have to trust that they'll follow what I've said.
 
Here's my issue....I want to be fully informed and have a say in the care my child receives. I don't want my parental rights stripped for any reason when admitted to a hospital for any reason.

I've been quite alarmed lately and at the rate it's occurring. Another case I was following here about a girl locked away in a psy ward for a year after a visit to another hospital. That case really threw me for a loop.

that is why it's so important to outline & file with the Court what you want medical science to do with your body once declared "dead".

I hope this case helps all of us understand the importance & making it known & writing it down & filing with the Courts as a Living Will
 
This little fact still remains.

A child bled so much her heart FAILED in the ICU of a major children's hospital. IMO that should never happen. Children shouldn't bleed to death under those circumstances.


Of course it shouldn't. But it did. Bad things shouldn't happen to good people, children shouldnt die, no one should go hungry, no pets should be without loving homes, etc. that doesn't mean those things don't happen.

All IMO
 
Well now, we're getting somewhere.

I think people need to be fully informed and know their rights or lack of, don't you? It should be part of all hospital admittance signed consent forms. If it were...we wouldn't be here.

For some reason, I think we would be. :).
 
My opinion has always been that we only have one side of the story and that we need to be mindful of that side of the story if the recounts from different people are conflicting.

Why would the statement that the grandmother said she was scheduled to go to ICU be dismissed? This is a child having a complex surgery with multiple risk factors. Why would the grandmother lie about her needing to go to the ICU? It makes sense that it would be scheduled.


I agree with the truth being somewhere in the middle but I don't understand what all of this has to do with the quote you snipped from the link about the grandmother saying she was scheduled to go to the ICU.

I guess you're not the only confused one here.

I agree as well that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. However, this really could be a case where a bad thing happened with no rhyme or reason. It's possible that unforeseen and unfortunate circumstances lead to the death of a beautiful young girl. Sadly, that happens. If the hospital is guilty of some horrible negligence, that should come out in a court of law rather than the court of public opinion.

In the meantime, what about the mother of a very sick child who needs special medical care and is referred to CHO? Will she be scared away by the claims that the hospital "kills" or "executes" children? Those kinds of sensationalist claims by the lawyers and the family could do serious harm in my opinion. I have a lot of sympathy for their grief, and I understand their anger, but I think they need to reign it in.
 
Also remember: it's morning here. Summer holidays. I haven't had my second coffee yet. Any of those in isolation would be enough to make me confused. Combine all 3 and I should probably just go and sit in the sunshine and forget about all of this until later ;)

No fair! It's 17° where I am! :(
I am hopping on a plane and headed your way! Lol
I would love to feel warm sunshine right now!
Sent from my SGH-T679 using Tapatalk 2
 
" Rare" as in the refusal to come to terms with it for whatever reason. Religious, like in NJ, or denial or otherwise.

Gotcha. :seeya:

But then don't you think this case could set the precedence as to when "enough is enough"? Coming to terms with death and going through the grieving process - aka "accepting"- comes at different times for each and every person suffering the loss of a loved one.

But "we" as a society have entrusted our medical professionals (with all of their background and research) to KNOW when death (as medically defined) has come.

Religion can't play a part in when death is decided as then you're opening up each and every person to decide when their loved one has died and setting the precedence that the family has final rights to do what they will with what has medically been declared a corpse.

That is where (IMO) the dignity piece comes in.

I will be the FIRST to admit that I honest to God could see myself in this mothers shoes. My grandfather was murdered when I was 5 (shot in the head during a robbery) and as a result I have severe reactions to accepting death. I remember conversations in that hospital room of when he was declared dead. I remember my Grandmother literally dropping to her knees screaming in agony when they told her he was brain dead.

At 5 I had no concept of what that meant. In my 5 year old mind, he was FINE. What I saw was him breathing, heart beating, etc. so I remember crying and telling my family to not allow them to "let him die".

With that being said, there WERE family members (his children, my mother included) who HAD to take the reigns and literally force my Grandmother to accept that he would NEVER want to be kept alive artificially if he was not going to possibly live a quality life.

In having conversations about this case with my husband he and my other family members KNOW how I would be. However, they have all assured me that they wouldn't allow this to happen. My husband said to me "I would PHYSICALLY remove you from the hospital if I had to, have you sedated, and sign what I had to to ensure my children die a dignified and peaceful (as much as possible) death". He said "we may end up divorced over it, but I'd rather you believe I was the cause of their death than to allow you to psychotically try to extend the inevitable because you couldn't accept that they were gone".

I was literally crying and felt like throwing up. However, as irrational I know I would be, I am so very thankful there are others who COULD make a rational decision should one HAVE to be made. I simply should NOT be allowed to make that type of decision and I accept that. :(
 
do we (the planet) want to care for all these brain dead bodies?

who's going to care for them?

who's gonna pay for them?

will they ever "wake up" & enjoy life?

Really? Human life is precious
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
141
Guests online
1,801
Total visitors
1,942

Forum statistics

Threads
603,691
Messages
18,160,874
Members
231,821
Latest member
Smfranklin96
Back
Top