Family wants to keep life support for girl brain dead after tonsil surgery #8

[K_Z]

I think it was more of an issue that Jahi was hemorrhaging blood from her mouth and her family, not nurses, were expected to suction.

That is solely the family's report. It is not corroborated by anyone else-- not even other families in the ICU. Certainly not by any medical professionals.

We don't know that to be true. I personally cannot accept the family report independently as "true". I don't view this family at all as an accurate source of medical information.

If there are civil charges brought by the family, I look forward to the hospital and the professionals being able to finally tell the other side of the story.

 

[MyBelle]

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?id=9380895

Does this article represent the most recent developments?

If so, it sounds like the hospital reached a settlement with the family, which the judge approved. It doesn't sound like the court ever agreed she is legally alive - although she is not officially dead, due to the whole autopsy/cause of death issue. They released her to the coroner and he issued a death certificate although he could not perform an autopsy and determine the cause. Am I missing something? Jahi's mother argued based on religion, but the case settled before that issue was reached.

Not sure what kind of settlement you think the hospital reached with the family. The Judge ruled the child could be moved but refused to order the hospital to put in feeding tubes or trach because she was legally dead. The Judge was respecting the parent's right of religion by not ordering the child be disconnected immediately.

 

[K_Z]

Why was family allowed to suction at all?
JMO

Snipped and BBM.

We don't know that the family was "allowed to suction". There is no evidence or corroboration for that. They may have done so on their own, without any permission. And if they did, we do not have any evidence that they did this in an appropriate fashion.

Again, this family is not a reliable source of medical information, IMO.

 

[lawstudent]

What you describe is more about bedside manner. Some physicians are terrible about it.

Yes, that is what I was referring to. I was never implying the doctors did anything legally wrong because of how they explained the issue - I thought I made it clear that I thought they tried their best and were top doctors. I know medical professionals have a tough job and deal with tough families. My family was always polite and was not the type to push for unrealistic treatments - my issue was that they seemed to encourage unrealistic beliefs from day one. They didn't tell us she was going to die until days before, when it was unquestionably terminal. My family accepted it and never tried to move her or do anything drastic - we had a good relationship with the staff and had a friend on the staff who helped us a lot. But literally every day it was like "she can go home in a few days" when it was clear that wasn't happening. I don't envy the fact that they have to give such bad news, but it is part of the job. And most were not rude in terms of how we usually describe poor bedside manner - many were excellent with that. They were just really, really vague and I don't think it was the best way to handle it.

 

[K_Z]

The Judge was respecting the parent's right of religion by not ordering the child be disconnected immediately.

Snipped by me.

We have NO evidence that this is why the judge ruled the way he did. He made no comments about the religious beliefs of the parents in his ruling. As others have commented, there may be OTHER legal bases for why he ruled the way he did.

It's my opinion the judge was using the latitude of compassion in his ruling, not religion. And I also believe he ultimately ruled incorrectly. His heart ruled his head. But no one will appeal his ruling on behalf of the person that was Jahi McMath, so it's a moot point. IMO.

Sadly, Jahi McMath has no "right" to just be dead, and rest in peace, without publicity and scrutiny. No one will fight for those rights for the person she was.

 

[jjenny]

We should probably move this discussion, but victims of munchausen-by-proxy often end up displaying symptoms because they've been told they have them so many times and been forced to act as if they do - I can't see many being totally unaffected by the psychological impacts of that. And I thought the allegation was that she was on a lot of addictive medication, which can cause the manifestation of physical symptoms brought on by psychological responses.

If she was on all sorts of addictive medications and has needed this much in-patient treatment, I don't expect this to get better quickly. It would explain why they lost custody so quickly - if she was displaying extremely disturbing behavior, it would make more sense. That sort of mental health problem does not resolve quickly, and it wasn't like she just had some behavioral or emotional issues necessitating a foster or temporary rehabilitation placement. It sounds pretty serious if she's been getting intensive treatment this long. And she could be getting better, but not be ready for release yet.

She isn't getting better. She is in a wheelchair, her hairline is receding, and she has red lines all over her stomach. Furthermore, several days ago her treatment was transferred back to Dr. Korson in Tufts. Dr. Korson is the one who diagnosed her with mitochondrial disorder.

 

[lawstudent]

Not sure what kind of settlement you think the hospital reached with the family. The Judge ruled the child could be moved but refused to order the hospital to put in feeding tubes or trach because she was legally dead. The Judge was respecting the parent's right of religion by not ordering the child be disconnected immediately.

The article I linked to says it (although not very clearly, because the media never understands these things).

The facts as I understand them are:

1) Jahi's mother sued over the hospital's attempt to remove the ventilator, and alleged some sort of error on their part. The judge ordered an independent expert be appointed to verify the death, since the family was alleging the hospital was doing things incorrectly. There was a stay on the removal until it was verified she was dead. The expert found she was dead.

2) Jahi's mother appealed, this time on religious grounds. They entered settlement agreements with the hospital, and the judge stayed the removal until a certain date to see if the settlement would go through. The settlement provided that the hospital would not be responsible for what happened to Jahi during or after the transfer, and would not have to perform procedures on her body. The judge approved the settlement. The media reported this as ruling in favor of the family's claims that she was alive, when this did not happen. The judge merely ruled that the settlement agreement was okay, and so the body could be removed if that was agreed to, allowing the family to proceed. The family had to find a facility that could do this before the stay expired, or support would be withdrawn.

3) The family finds a facility, the settlement goes through, the hospital releases the body to the coroner as with all deaths.

4) The coroner issues a death certificate based on what he knows of the situation. He cannot provide a cause of death because he can't do an autopsy. He then releases the body to the mother, like with any body - someone takes custody of a body.

5) The body was removed to the facility the family found. She is considered legally dead.

 

[forthelost]

There's really no comparison between Justina and Jahi. One is alive and the other is dead. CPS doesn't handle abuse of a corpse. (I am using the legal term for mistreatment of a dead body here.)

 

[CHERIE.T]

Death certificate? For Jahi? An incomplete DC.

 

[lawstudent]

Not sure what kind of settlement you think the hospital reached with the family. The Judge ruled the child could be moved but refused to order the hospital to put in feeding tubes or trach because she was legally dead. The Judge was respecting the parent's right of religion by not ordering the child be disconnected immediately.

The mother initiated the lawsuit, trying to prevent the disconnection. The judge could approve or deny this request, but he couldn't order her removed. He could just deny the request to prevent the removal. He stayed the removal until he ruled on the request, and then denied it.

Another judge approved the settlement and rejected the family's request to have more surgical intervention, when they appealed. The hospital wasn't the plaintiff, so no one was ever demanding removal, and the judges couldn't have ordered it.

 

[lawstudent]

Death certificate? For Jahi?

Yes. Was surprised to see this initially, because of my earlier arguments about the autopsy thing. But then I realized that it makes sense because a coroner is not required to do an autopsy or determine cause of death. A coroner can also determine cause of death from circumstances and not perform an autopsy. So he was able to declare her dead and determine when it occurred based on medical evidence, but could not definitively determine the cause because he couldn't do an autopsy against the family's wishes, so the certificate is incomplete.

 

[MyBelle]

The mother initiated the lawsuit, trying to prevent the disconnection. The judge could approve or deny this request, but he couldn't order her removed. He could just deny the request to prevent the removal. He stayed the removal until he ruled on the request, and then denied it.

Another judge approved the settlement and rejected the family's request to have more surgical intervention, when they appealed. The hospital wasn't the plaintiff, so no one was ever demanding removal, and the judges couldn't have ordered it.

The Hospital was going to disconnect life support against the wishes of the mother and the mother obtained an temporary restraining order to prevent the disconnection. No different than the case I posted upthread about the boy from New York whose parents did not accept the determination of brain death for religious reasons.

 

[MyBelle]

I've been one of the more sympathetic people here, so not sure what this is about.

They did lose. They were trying to force legal intervention into the hospital's decisions. I don't understand what's wrong with saying that. It is what happened - you acknowledge that they tried and lost. That doesn't mean I don't believe they were devastated or that they were acting with bad intentions.

The family DID receive legal intervention in the form of a temporary restraining order against the hospital. It was only temporary. The Judge refused to extend it because his hands were tied: Jahi met the legal definition of dead. He also respected the fact that the family had a right to their faith-based beliefs. He displayed tremendous compassion to the family and gave them time to arrange transport.

There is a faith-based belief of when death occurs and a legal definition of death. Jahi's family is no longer having to fight for their right to practice their faith anywhere but in the court of public opinion, it seems.

 

[lawstudent]

The Hospital was going to disconnect life support against the wishes of the mother and the mother obtained an temporary restraining order to prevent the disconnection. No different than the case I posted upthread about the boy from New York whose parents did not accept the determination of brain death for religious reasons.

Right. There is nothing unusual about what they are doing. It's very common - a temporary restraining order is forcing intervention into a decision. That's the legal procedure available for those who believe the decision is wrong. We don't disagree. I'm not sure what the issue is. Injunction = temporary restraining order. This came out of an earlier mention of how as contrasted to the Pelletier case, this family was trying to force interference instead of remove it - I was just making the legal distinction because it implicates different issues. In that case, the hospital was the one who went to court before the family did. I wasn't making a moral judgment that one is okay and one is not.

 

[lawstudent]

The family DID receive legal intervention in the form of a temporary restraining order against the hospital. It was only temporary. The Judge refused to extend it because his hands were tied: Jahi met the legal definition of dead. He also respected the fact that the family had a right to their faith-based beliefs. He displayed tremendous compassion to the family and gave them time to arrange transport.

There is a faith-based belief of when death occurs and a legal definition of death. Jahi's family is no longer having to fight for their right to practice their faith anywhere but in the court of public opinion, it seems.

Again, no disagreement.

A different judge gave them time to arrange transport, unrelated to religious beliefs - it did not really get that far. He basically said that if the parties had worked it out, he had no problem with it. There was no ruling that anyone had a right to believe she was alive - just the approval of the right to move her body. I agree there is a faith-based belief, but the case never proceeded to that determination. That was the mother's argument, and they settled ahead of time.

 

[lawstudent]

Death certificate? For Jahi? An incomplete DC.

Incomplete, but I don't think that changes anything. I think it establishes she's dead just like a complete one does, but can't list a cause of death. That's not terribly uncommon - sometimes the cause can't be determined for other reasons. But, if a family doesn't want an autopsy or one isn't requested, the coroner just investigates and comes up with a cause - i.e. natural causes. It seems in this case he could have put down natural causes or hemorrhage, given he got the date from that information. The fact that he left it incomplete could be a statement, or I wonder if the standards governing coroners don't consider legal death to be official death.

 

[MyBelle]

Right. There is nothing unusual about what they are doing. It's very common - a temporary restraining order is forcing intervention into a decision. That's the legal procedure available for those who believe the decision is wrong. We don't disagree. I'm not sure what the issue is. Injunction = temporary restraining order. This came out of an earlier mention of how as contrasted to the Pelletier case, this family was trying to force interference instead of remove it - I was just making the legal distinction because it implicates different issues. In that case, the hospital was the one who went to court before the family did. I wasn't making a moral judgment that one is okay and one is not.

We agree!! It wasn't unusual at all and that's why all the venom directed at Jahi's mother is a tad ridiculous. A mother and husband went to court in Texas recently because the hospital refused to disconnect life support for their brain-dead loved one. The public venom directed at that family was ridiculous, imo. Public opinion isn't going to change someone's religious belief whether it be about abortion, gay marriage or brain death.

 

[Donjeta]

One practical reason for the temporary restraining order was to allow for time to get a court-ordered second opinion about whether Jahi was really brain dead. This was a medical examination according to normal clinical and scientific standards, nothing much to do with anybody's religious practices.

IIRC Dolan argued the constitutional religious freedom aspect mainly in the federal court filing and there was a court ordered settlement conference before any of it could be addressed in a federal court decision. Strictly JMO but they probable didn't want to rule on a Pandora's box of issues.

 

[MyBelle]

Again, no disagreement.

A different judge gave them time to arrange transport, unrelated to religious beliefs - it did not really get that far. He basically said that if the parties had worked it out, he had no problem with it. There was no ruling that anyone had a right to believe she was alive - just the approval of the right to move her body. I agree there is a faith-based belief, but the case never proceeded to that determination. That was the mother's argument, and they settled ahead of time.

Same Judge Grillo. I didn't suggest that she had a right to believe she was alive. Judge Grillo granted the restraining order because he was respectful of the mother's religious faith in her belief the child was not dead.

http://www.mercurynews.com/health/ci_24765962/oakland-family-brain-dead-girl-seeks-injunction-keep

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Evelio Grillo, however, sided with the family of the girl, who suffered cardiac arrest after her Dec. 9 tonsil surgery and was declared brain-dead Dec. 12. Grillo granted a temporary restraining order directing the hospital to keep the girl on the ventilator and continue giving her intravenous fluids through Monday, when a court-approved doctor will examine the girl for any signs of brain activity.

"(The ventilator and IV fluids) are to continue until the court makes its decision on the independent physician," Grillo said. "That is not to be removed."


Judge Grillo also agreed to the transfer but only after Jahi's mother accepted full legal responsibility. He also ordered the body be transported with a ventilator. If you want to believe his own religious viewpoint played no part in his decision, sobeit.

Judge Grillo on Friday rejected the family's move to have the hospital insert the tubes, noting the girl could be moved with the ventilator and intravenous fluid lines she has now.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-sty...oved-hospital-article-1.1565863#ixzz2xzP3IqCe

"This has been very, very hard on you," Grillo told the family as he made his ruling. "No one anywhere would wish this to happen to anyone. ... I hope you find some comfort in your religion."

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking...th-neurologist-present-test-results-at-closed

 

[Donjeta]

Same Judge Grillo. I didn't suggest that she had a right to believe she was alive. Judge Grillo granted the restraining order because he was respectful of the mother's religious faith in her belief the child was not dead.

http://www.mercurynews.com/health/ci_24765962/oakland-family-brain-dead-girl-seeks-injunction-keep

respectfully snipped
BBM
That's not really what the link says. Not saying that he wasn't respectful, I'm sure he was, but the primary reason for this restraining order was because the hospital was arguing she was brain dead and the family was arguing she was not, so they ordered an outside expert to examine her to settle the question. When it was settled he gave a date when the hospital could remove the life support.

Grillo granted a temporary restraining order directing the hospital to keep the girl on the ventilator and continue giving her intravenous fluids through Monday, when a court-approved doctor will examine the girl for any signs of brain activity.

"(The ventilator and IV fluids) are to continue until the court makes its decision on the independent physician," Grillo said. "That is not to be removed."

The doctor will be selected from a list of neurologists on staff at UC San Francisco who have been preapproved by both Jahi's family and attorneys for Children's Hospital. The doctor will present findings in court on Tuesday, and Grillo will decide what steps to take next.

The restraining order is readable in the link and there is not a word about religion in it, the whole thing is just about the need for further exams.