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

[lawstudent]

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

Apparently the original judge was also the judge in the appeal, and then there was another court involved in the decision not to order more surgery. Two separate appeals at the same time - maybe one federal, one state? I can't figure out the procedure from the media reports, which are probably incorrect. I believe the judge tried to get them to settle pending appeal, and it never went to one of the state appeals court, which is where she had submitted her religious arguments. I don't understand why he is the judge in all 3 cases - I guess the other two never proceeded but were just iniated? The media reports these things so terribly and incorrectly.

The media is so irresponsible. He did not "side with" the family - he granted an injunction to verify death through an independent expert.

I am pretty sure that he never was able to take into account her religious arguments - that case never went forward. The parties settled before that, and the judge just said okay. He had made the comments about how hard it was before she submitted religious arguments. At that point, the argument was that she was not dead by a medical standard. I believe he was compassionate, and maybe he had some personal feelings about their religious beliefs, but his ruling did not have anything to do with religious beliefs and didn't offer any support to that cause.

 

[Donjeta]

lawstudent, if you want to figure the courts and judges out better, the court documents are all here:
http://www.thaddeuspope.com/futilitycases.html

 

[Marg from Oz]

I can't believe this is still going on. MOOO I think the grandmother who had some medical training took it upon herself to suction. She should have known better. She wa not employed by the hospital so she knew it was not in her scope of practice to undertake any procedure that she was not employed to do. Then when things go bad she collapses. Was that from guilt that she may have caused the heamoraging? JMOOO

 

[MyBelle]

Apparently the original judge was also the judge in the appeal, and then there was another court involved in the decision not to order more surgery. Two separate appeals at the same time - maybe one federal, one state? I can't figure out the procedure from the media reports, which are probably incorrect. I believe the judge tried to get them to settle pending appeal, and it never went to one of the state appeals court, which is where she had submitted her religious arguments. I don't understand why he is the judge in all 3 cases - I guess the other two never proceeded but were just iniated? The media reports these things so terribly and incorrectly.

The media is so irresponsible. He did not "side with" the family - he granted an injunction to verify death through an independent expert.

I am pretty sure that he never was able to take into account her religious arguments - that case never went forward. The parties settled before that, and the judge just said okay. He had made the comments about how hard it was before she submitted religious arguments. At that point, the argument was that she was not dead by a medical standard. I believe he was compassionate, and maybe he had some personal feelings about their religious beliefs, but his ruling did not have anything to do with religious beliefs and didn't offer any support to that cause.

Her religious arguments were made in the original request for the restraining order. Her attorney made them verbally to the court and to the media. The media was simply reporting what was said. The Judge granted a restraining order that not only prohibited disconnection of the vent but also to continue IVs. Dead bodies don't need IVs.

 

[MyBelle]

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.



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.

There was a hearing and her attorney made a verbal argument to the court about religious beliefs. I don't happen to believe any Judge is going to mention their religion to a family without their bringing it up first.

 

[MyBelle]

I can't believe this is still going on. MOOO I think the grandmother who had some medical training took it upon herself to suction. She should have known better. She wa not employed by the hospital so she knew it was not in her scope of practice to undertake any procedure that she was not employed to do. Then when things go bad she collapses. Was that from guilt that she may have caused the heamoraging? JMOOO

I'm missing something. Didn't the hemorrhaging begin BEFORE the suctioning took place? It makes no sense that any suctioning was needed before the bleeding was noticed.

 

[wendiesan]

Public opinion isn't going to change someone's religious belief whether it be about abortion, gay marriage or brain death.

snipped for focus

Just as a sort of side note, I would go one further and suggest that it is very difficult to change a belief period, religious or not. Public opposition to a belief might, in fact, be enough to entrench that belief in the minds of the holders.

Discussions about the nature of beliefs, and belief systems, can be pretty far ranging. Eg:
Harris, S. (2005, 2004). The end of faith: religion, terror, and the future of reason. NYC. W.W.Norton
Glüer-Pagin, K. and Wikforss, A. (2013) The nature of belief. A five-year research project. http://www.philosophy.su.se/english...esearch-project-the-nature-of-belief-1.157558

By "beliefs", I'm referring to mindsets which lead someone presume that something is true or that someone is speaking the truth. Beliefs may be so powerful that no logical demonstration to the contrary can persuade the holder of those beliefs that the thing believed to be true is actually false. Beliefs may have nothing to do whatsoever with facts, reality and evidence.

To paraphrase Harris, P. 50 ff: if we believe that something is true about the world we live in or the people with whom we live, then we have acquired a tool with which we can predict future incidents and their likely results. With the power of prediction, we gain a measure of control and having control may mean having a semblance of security in our lives. If we can predict outcomes, we can make better decisions about how we behave and the actions we take.

Beliefs are often supported by a web of other beliefs, so a belief that is not based on truth or logic cannot simply be erased by showing a true believer the error/s involved. As well, the beliefs held by people connected to their religion, are often given more latitude by society in general than those beliefs not perceived to be connected to religion. The same belief that in a secular context might be called loony, in a religious context might be seen as sincere.

(This is my interpretation of what I've read. Any errors in this are my own.)

I'm not sure yet if or in what way any of this will apply to the discussions surrounding Jahi's life and death. Possibly a need for information from authors like Harris will arise when considering the legitimacy of the family's beliefs about what constitutes their rights, about what the medical staff at CHO did or did not perform during the time Jahi was in their care, about what the duties of medical practitioners entail, and about what their own responsibilities are.

 

[wendiesan]

I'm missing something. Didn't the hemorrhaging begin BEFORE the suctioning took place? It makes no sense that any suctioning was needed before the bleeding was noticed.

I think so, but I can't look back for that information for a few nights. IIRC, the grandmother, mother and stepfather all were involved in the suctioning of Jahi. From what I remember, the sequence of events was somewhat disjointed in NW's memory because she had fainted and had to be hospitalized at CHO herself. For some reason, I recall that the grandmother was highly critical of the ICU nurses and doctors because they moved too slowly, and didn't know what they were supposed to be doing, in her opinion. I'll try to find her quotes regarding the need she felt to take over and do the suctioning. I think that containers were given to NW, not the grandmother, to capture the blood and blood clot(s) for further analysis.

 

[Tulessa]

Has the family commented lately, on how Jahi is doing?

 

[Charlie09]

I can't believe this is still going on. MOOO I think the grandmother who had some medical training took it upon herself to suction. She should have known better. She wa not employed by the hospital so she knew it was not in her scope of practice to undertake any procedure that she was not employed to do. Then when things go bad she collapses. Was that from guilt that she may have caused the heamoraging? JMOOO

When my brother was in a coma (I realize it's a different scenario) he was 23, I was 24, my other brother was 31...the hospital staff showed all of us (including my parents) how to suction my brother, he had pneumonia and they wanted us to know how to do it if it became necessary. I don't think it's at all unusual that someone with training would just about automatically do it without thought.

 

[Donjeta]

There was a hearing and her attorney made a verbal argument to the court about religious beliefs. I don't happen to believe any Judge is going to mention their religion to a family without their bringing it up first.

Well, then it's all good because that is not at all what I said. I did not claim that the family never mentioned religion in their pleadings

My point is that you wrote, regarding the December restraining order, Judge

Grillo granted the restraining order because he was respectful of the mother's religious faith in her belief the child was not dead.

and you did not support with a link. The article you linked to and the restraining order that that is in the link clearly spell out that the reason for the December restraining order was that the judge wanted an outside opinion to settle the question whether Jahi was really brain dead or not. There is nothing about the judge's respect for their religion or lack thereof in the legal reasoning the judge made explicit in the RO document.

He says he granted the restraining order because more time on the ventilator is needed because they need to get an outside expert to verify that Jahi is brain dead before removing her from life suppor, not because of anything religious that came up.

 

[MyBelle]

Well, then it's all good because that is not at all what I said. I did not claim that the family never mentioned religion in their pleadings

My point is that you wrote, regarding the December restraining order, Judge

and you did not support with a link. The article you linked to and the restraining order that that is in the link clearly spell out that the reason for the December restraining order was that the judge wanted an outside opinion to settle the question whether Jahi was really brain dead or not. There is nothing about the judge's respect for their religion or lack thereof in the legal reasoning the judge made explicit in the RO document.

He says he granted the restraining order because more time on the ventilator is needed because they need to get an outside expert to verify that Jahi is brain dead before removing her from life suppor, not because of anything religious that came up.

Actually I did support with a link. It's a waste of time to try to re-argue the case. The court heard it and issued a ruling. Your interpretation is fine but that is all it is, an interpretation.

 

[MyBelle]

When my brother was in a coma (I realize it's a different scenario) he was 23, I was 24, my other brother was 31...the hospital staff showed all of us (including my parents) how to suction my brother, he had pneumonia and they wanted us to know how to do it if it became necessary. I don't think it's at all unusual that someone with training would just about automatically do it without thought.

Jahi didn't have pneumonia and there was no need for suctioning prior to her massive hemorrhaging. According to reports, she was enjoying a Popsicle prior to the hemorrhaging.

 

[MyBelle]

snipped for focus

Just as a sort of side note, I would go one further and suggest that it is very difficult to change a belief period, religious or not. Public opposition to a belief might, in fact, be enough to entrench that belief in the minds of the holders.

Discussions about the nature of beliefs, and belief systems, can be pretty far ranging. Eg:
Harris, S. (2005, 2004). The end of faith: religion, terror, and the future of reason. NYC. W.W.Norton
Glüer-Pagin, K. and Wikforss, A. (2013) The nature of belief. A five-year research project. http://www.philosophy.su.se/english...esearch-project-the-nature-of-belief-1.157558

By "beliefs", I'm referring to mindsets which lead someone presume that something is true or that someone is speaking the truth. Beliefs may be so powerful that no logical demonstration to the contrary can persuade the holder of those beliefs that the thing believed to be true is actually false. Beliefs may have nothing to do whatsoever with facts, reality and evidence.

To paraphrase Harris, P. 50 ff: if we believe that something is true about the world we live in or the people with whom we live, then we have acquired a tool with which we can predict future incidents and their likely results. With the power of prediction, we gain a measure of control and having control may mean having a semblance of security in our lives. If we can predict outcomes, we can make better decisions about how we behave and the actions we take.

Beliefs are often supported by a web of other beliefs, so a belief that is not based on truth or logic cannot simply be erased by showing a true believer the error/s involved. As well, the beliefs held by people connected to their religion, are often given more latitude by society in general than those beliefs not perceived to be connected to religion. The same belief that in a secular context might be called loony, in a religious context might be seen as sincere.

(This is my interpretation of what I've read. Any errors in this are my own.)

I'm not sure yet if or in what way any of this will apply to the discussions surrounding Jahi's life and death. Possibly a need for information from authors like Harris will arise when considering the legitimacy of the family's beliefs about what constitutes their rights, about what the medical staff at CHO did or did not perform during the time Jahi was in their care, about what the duties of medical practitioners entail, and about what their own responsibilities are.

I do believe others have weighed in with their belief system, including Dr. Byrne. Right or wrong is not up to us outsiders to decide what someone believes as a part of their religious faith.

 

[MyBelle]

When my brother was in a coma (I realize it's a different scenario) he was 23, I was 24, my other brother was 31...the hospital staff showed all of us (including my parents) how to suction my brother, he had pneumonia and they wanted us to know how to do it if it became necessary. I don't think it's at all unusual that someone with training would just about automatically do it without thought.

So you did the suctioning correctly and Jahi's family got it wrong?

The difference is that Jahi was not in a coma nor was she on a ventilator. It was not anticipated that suctioning would become necessary yet it did and now some are blaming her parents for it and are accusing them of doing it wrong. What am I missing in your accusations?

 

[Donjeta]

Actually I did support with a link. It's a waste of time to try to re-argue the case. The court heard it and issued a ruling. Your interpretation is fine but that is all it is, an interpretation.

You know, copypasting a link or three is not actually supporting an argument if none of the links say what you claimed. None of the articles you posted say the judge granted the restraining order because he was respectful of the mother's religious faith to believe that her daughter wasn't dead. He may very well have been respectful but that was not his reasoning why he granted the restraining order. You can read it in the articles you linked if you doubt me.


My interpretation is only an interpretation but it is based on the actual wording of the articles and the restraining order and not something I made up off the top of my head.

 

[Donjeta]

So you did the suctioning correctly and Jahi's family got it wrong?

The difference is that Jahi was not in a coma nor was she on a ventilator. It was not anticipated that suctioning would become necessary yet it did and now some are blaming her parents for it and are accusing them of doing it wrong. What am I missing in your accusations?

I'm not going to go into the suctioning debate other than to note that it is not the same situation to suction people because they have wounds that are bleeding in their throat or because they have infectious secretions in their airways.

 

[Tulessa]

Has the family commented lately, on how Jahi is doing?

^^^ This? Donjeta? Anyone?

 

[Donjeta]

<modsnip>

I believe the judge's ruling. That is why I'm saying his basis on the original RO decision was that the court needed more time to get an independent expert to verify whether Jahi was brain dead.

Everybody who doubts it is free to read the document here
http://www.mercurynews.com/health/ci_24765962/oakland-family-brain-dead-girl-seeks-injunction-keep

Scroll down to the document titled "The temporary restraining order"
and please quote the segment where it says "I grant this restraining order because I'm respectful of the mother's religious right to believe her daughter is not dead" or anything to that effect.
Instead it says, "Failure to grant the Petition will potentially result in irreparable harm to the patient Jahi McMath and this order is necessary until such time that the Petitioner can obtain her daughter's medical records and obtain an independent medical examination and this Court can hold further evidentiary hearing."


In the further evidentiary hearing, Paul Fisher testified that Jahi was brain dead and Judge Grillo said the hospital could turn off the ventilator on Dec 30th.

OAKLAND -- In a crushing blow to the family of a brain-dead 13-year-old girl, a judge ruled Tuesday that officials at Children's Hospital Oakland can take Jahi McMath off a breathing machine as soon as Monday.

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Evelio Grillo handed down the verdict after hearing testimony from two doctors, one an independent expert appointed by the judge on Monday and the other a 30-year veteran of the hospital. Both testified that the teen is brain-dead and that her body is alive only because of a ventilator hooked up to her since Dec. 12.


Grillo ordered that Jahi, who suffered cardiac arrest and other complications after a Dec. 9 tonsil surgery, must be kept on the breathing machine until at least 5 p.m. Dec. 30

.

After he made this decision that was devastating to the family he told them he hoped they would find comfort in their religion.

This was all in the link you posted.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking...th-neurologist-present-test-results-at-closed


I don't know what you mean when you say "the Judge's article". Has he written something about the case other than the court documents?

 

[Donjeta]

^^^ This? Donjeta? Anyone?

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/loca...er-Says-of-Brain-Dead-Daughter-252700851.html

This is the latest that I've seen.