Jahi’s family wants her declared 'alive again’

[MyBelle]

Your links apply to living patients.

From your link:

yes and at the time the request was made, Jahi had not been declared legally dead.

 

[TJL]

At the time the video was taken, Jahi had already been declared brain dead. She was already legally dead. The legal wrangling that ensued after that first brain death determination was not over whether Jahi was legally dead or not. The wrangling was over whether CHO had to keep organ support going on the body, and then ultimately a compromise to allow the mother to take the body from the coroner's custody via directly from the hospital.

 

[MyBelle]

At the time her mother made the request for Jahi's medical records, she had not been declared legally dead by the Judge. The hospital continued to refuse to provide the records using the very illegal excuse she was still a patient. Later, probably realizing the hospital was breaking state and federal law, the hospital issued another statement saying the records were available.


JMO

http://www.childrenshospitaloakland.org/main/Response-to-Media-Coverage-Decemb2013.aspx
MEDIA STATEMENT
Children's Hospital & Research Center Oakland: Response to Consumer Watchdog press release of 12/18/13
As a matter of policy, we do not release the entire medical record while the patient is in the hospital, since it is a document in continuous use.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/20/health/california-girl-brain-dead/
Attorney Dolan said McMath's family has repeatedly asked doctors for the release of Jahi's medical records so he can hire an independent physician to determine whether she is legally dead. "Their response has been, 'It's not our policy while providing care,'" said Dolan.

In a statement, Children's Hospital denied the family's assertion.

"Jahi's family has the same access to our medical records as the family of any patient at Children's. All families have the right to review the record while the patient is in the hospital, and have access to the entire record after the hospitalization has ended."

 

[TJL]

The determination of brain death had already been made at the time of that video interview. This is evidenced by her opening statement of, "I just want them to run the test one more time." "The test" being, the tests conducted which concluded she was brain dead. She was legally dead prior to that video being made. I don't know why anyone would want to argue the semantics of this, because nothing changed between the time the original determination of brain death was made, and the additional people who came to the same conclusion. The legal time of death reflects the initial determination, which was on December 12th, 2013, per her death certificate. NW and her family were informed at the time of first determination of brain death, that Jahi McMath was brain dead. Just because NW didn't believe it or didn't want to believe it, doesn't change the fact that the legal determination of brain death had already been made. Also, Attorneys have a legal contractual obligation to support and defend the position of their clients, so his statements which support NW's disbelief of the brain death diagnosis are irrelevant and not a testament to fact.

When someone requests a second opinion for anything, and that second opinion comes to the same conclusion, the diagnosis reflects the initial date that determination was made. Jahi McMath had been declared brain dead on December 12th, 2013. When a doctor made that determination on that date, it was a legal determination of death. The opposite of this would be an illegal determination of brain death. Or, a contradictory determination saying she was actually alive. Since we know the latter two never happened, the legal time of brain death was December 12th, 2013. December 12th, 2013 is when Jahi McMath was declared legally brain dead.

Judges don't have the legal or medical authority to declare someone dead based on medical examinations. I think this has already been discussed in this thread.

 

[Donjeta]

Pretty sure that it's not normal procedure to wait for a judge to proclaim someone is dead before hospitals consider their deceased patients deceased. Usually the patient is considered dead and treated accordingly straight after the doctors are done declaring death, without waiting for a judge's final word on the matter.

 

[TJL]

Pretty sure that it's not normal procedure to wait for a judge to proclaim someone is dead before hospitals consider their deceased patients deceased. Usually the patient is considered dead and treated accordingly straight after the doctors are done declaring death, without waiting for a judge's final word on the matter.

Yup...totally agree. It's (death determination by a doctor) done every single minute of every single day. Legal death is determined at the time of death (or upon discovery of death), by the doctors examining the patient/body/corpse. In Jahi's case, the only thing the court did in this matter was issue a TRO to CHO, preventing the removal of the ventilator, to give Dolan and the family - at first - time to "grieve" over the Christmas holiday. It then turned into extending the TRO to allow an independent doctor (Dr. Fischer) to come in and make his own examination, at the insistence of the family. That of course still didn't satisfy the family, so the TRO got extended again to allow the family time to find a facility that would accept a brain dead body for further organ support.

A brief summary is: the legal fighting last year was just TRO's to prevent the removal of the ventilator, for various reasons.

I don't think Dolan ever actually tried to formally contest in a legal petition the diagnosis of brain death, until just recently with the writ of error coram nobis. And that petition basically said that the family believes they have evidence NOW, that didn't exist THEN, that the brain death diagnosis was wrong. What he said publicly to the media (about disagreeing with the diagnosis) last December, doesn't mean this is what he/the family actually contested in court. If that were an actual point of contention, then they would have fought that out in court at the time, rather than just running away from CA with the body and taking it to NJ.

Making public statements that you disagree with the diagnosis is not the same as formally contesting it. Nor do those public statements of disagreement amount to suddenly removing the legality of the brain death determination. The legal brain death determination was made on December 12th, 2013.

Edit: Correcting myself, as it appears I made a mistake in my timeline. Looking at the case history of this on the Alameda County Court Records, the first filings in this case (and the first TRO) weren't even made until December 20th, 2013. Which was a full 2 days after that long video was made with NW and Omari Sealey. So, even at the time that video was made, the courts weren't involved yet, so all we - and the family - had was the legal determination of brain death at the hospital, with no court involvement yet. Making the mention of any contention or dispute within the courts completely irrelevant at that point in the process. (I think we can also conclude that Omari's mention of, "I have other things in the works" and comments to that effect, basically meant he was talking to an attorney and they were likely preparing to contest something in court.)




Images of the first court decision, dated 20 December, 2013, issued by Grillo after the first filing that same day requesting a TRO to maintain status quo (ventilator), and granting that TRO.

 

[al66pine]

Consumer Watchdog? Jamie Court?

You have to make the request in writing. Which is apparently what Jahi's mother did if the transcribed statements up thread are accurate. She said she was only denied after the workers discovered she was requesting Jahi's records. Then, they refused citing some protocol that is in violation of both state and federal laws.
That's why consumer watchdog groups have been all over this case from the beginning.
JMO .... http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_25338082/jahi-mcmath-family-calls-state-report-b-s

sbm red-ed bm

Consumer watchdog groups, plural? Which group, other than Jamie Court's 'Consumer Watchdog' group, has bn "all over this"?
From above link:
"Consumer Watchdog filed a complaint with the state Attorney General's Office on behalf of Jahi shortly after her case went public. The organization has highlighted Jahi's case as a reason to remove the cap on medical malpractice cases."

Re Jamie Court, President of "Consumer Watchdog' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Court
"Court is the author of ..... His newest book, The Progressive's Guide to Raising Hell: How To Win Grassroots Campaigns and Get the Change You Voted For was released September 15, 2010.[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP]". [/SUP][SUP]bbm [/SUP]I'll grant you - Jamie Court is a PR whiz re ballot issues and sells books.

What other 'consumer watchdog groups' have been 'all over this case from the beginning'?
Thx in adv.

 

[TJL]

Consumer watchdog groups, plural? Which group, other than Jamie Court's 'Consumer Watchdog' group, has bn "all over this"?
What other 'consumer watchdog groups' have been 'all over this case from the beginning'?
Thx in adv.

Good question! I was curious about this, too. I hadn't heard any mention of specific "Consumer Watchdog" groups being involved here until that claim was just made a few hours ago.

 

[Donjeta]

I had never considered Thaddeus Mason Pope a consumer watchdog group. It's true he has been following Jahi's case closely in his blog and we have all relied upon the court docs he has posted but it seems to me that he comes into this more from a medical-legal ethics standpoint than a consumer agenda. In any case, he's not a group, he's a person.

Thaddeus Mason Pope is Director of the Health Law Institute and Associate Professor of Law at Hamline University. He is an Adjunct Professor with the Australian Centre for Health Law Research at Queensland University of Technology. He is Adjunct Associate Professor for the Alden March Bioethics Institute at Albany Medical College. In 2014, Professor Pope is chair-elect of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) Section on Law, Medicine, and Health Care, and a member of the American Society of Bioethics & Humanities (ASBH) Program Committee.

http://www.thaddeuspope.com/

His medical futility blog, the latest posting says Calixto Machado will be publishing an article in,

The December 2014 issue of the Journal of Critical Care includes a special section titled "Death by Neurologic Criteria 1968 - 2014: Changing Interpretations."

 

[K_Z]

Thaddeus Pope is a law professor at Hamline University with a specific interest in health law. He writes about various aspects of end of life issues. I'd hardly consider that a "consumer watchdog group." He is very clearly an academic scholar, not a politician, or activist. He is involved with policy making, and has served as an expert witness. "Consumer watchdog" efforts would be in conflict with his position at the University, IMO. (Among other areas he participates in.) So, I disagree that Professor Pope is a consumer watchdog. He has covered this case from the beginning, because of the high profile and legal nature of the family's efforts, which are at odds with long established law.

AFAIK, he has not inserted himself into the process beyond noticing what's going on and adding this case to everything else he writes about.

http://www.thaddeuspope.com

Frankly, the only advocacy group that has participated extensively and publicly is the Terri Schaivo network.

 

[TJL]

I had never considered Thaddeus Mason Pope a consumer watchdog group. ...

His medical futility blog, the latest posting says Calixto Machado will be publishing an article in

"The December 2014 issue of the Journal of Critical Care includes a special section titled "Death by Neurologic Criteria 1968 - 2014: Changing Interpretations."

Judging by the title of that article, I can only guess that it'll have something to do with furthering IBRF's campaign to "prove" they can reverse brain death. I'm sure it'll be at least a brow-raising read.

edit: looked into it myself, too:

Machado's contribution to it, according to Pope's writing, is: "Death as a biological notion
Calixto Machado"

I guess instead of proving a reversal of brain death, perhaps it will cover his extensive writings about the concept of "whole body death", as opposed to just "brain death"? Now I'm really looking forward to reading it. We already know he's been riding that train for some time now (if the rest of the body is alive, we can't call the person truly dead.)

 

[wendiesan]

yes and at the time the request was made, Jahi had not been declared legally dead.

Just a thought here. If NW had asked for "all" the records pertaining to Jahi rather than a patient abstract, it would take more than the normal time to process, prepare, and deliver the documentation. Perhaps NW also needed her own records, since she was taken to CHO's emergency centre for treatment during Jahi's crisis in the ICU.

FWIW At CHO, a patient abstract includes:
1. A discharge summary for inpatients only
2. Emergency Record
3. History and Physical
4. Operative Report
5. Consultant Report
6. Test Results
7. Clinic Notes
8. Immunizations
(See http://www.childrenshospitaloakland.org/main/Medical-Records.aspx for more details.)

As well, the records would be made available to physicians or healthcare providers as needed for consultation or continuing care at no charge, and would ONLY be sent DIRECTLY to the physician or healthcare provider.

 

[MyBelle]

I had never considered Thaddeus Mason Pope a consumer watchdog group. It's true he has been following Jahi's case closely in his blog and we have all relied upon the court docs he has posted but it seems to me that he comes into this more from a medical-legal ethics standpoint than a consumer agenda. In any case, he's not a group, he's a person.

http://www.thaddeuspope.com/

His medical futility blog, the latest posting says Calixto Machado will be publishing an article in,

I consider all medical journals, associations, bioethics professors of law, medicine, etc. who are watching and sharing information to be consumer watchdogs. Knowledge does impact the delivery of medicine to consumers.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Just a thought here. If NW had asked for "all" the records pertaining to Jahi rather than a patient abstract, it would take more than the normal time to process, prepare, and deliver the documentation. Perhaps NW also needed her own records, since she was taken to CHO's emergency centre for treatment during Jahi's crisis in the ICU.

FWIW At CHO, a patient abstract includes:
1. A discharge summary for inpatients only
2. Emergency Record
3. History and Physical
4. Operative Report
5. Consultant Report
6. Test Results
7. Clinic Notes
8. Immunizations
(See http://www.childrenshospitaloakland.org/main/Medical-Records.aspx for more details.)

As well, the records would be made available to physicians or healthcare providers as needed for consultation or continuing care at no charge, and would ONLY be sent DIRECTLY to the physician or healthcare provider.

There are members of the public who will continue to believe they treated Jahi's mother differently because they were hiding negligence.

JMO

 

[wendiesan]

At the time her mother made the request for Jahi's medical records, she had not been declared legally dead by the Judge. The hospital continued to refuse to provide the records using the very illegal excuse she was still a patient. Later, probably realizing the hospital was breaking state and federal law, the hospital issued another statement saying the records were available.


JMO

http://www.childrenshospitaloakland.org/main/Response-to-Media-Coverage-Decemb2013.aspx
MEDIA STATEMENT
Children's Hospital & Research Center Oakland: Response to Consumer Watchdog press release of 12/18/13
As a matter of policy, we do not release the entire medical record while the patient is in the hospital, since it is a document in continuous use.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/20/health/california-girl-brain-dead/
Attorney Dolan said McMath's family has repeatedly asked doctors for the release of Jahi's medical records so he can hire an independent physician to determine whether she is legally dead. "Their response has been, 'It's not our policy while providing care,'" said Dolan.

In a statement, Children's Hospital denied the family's assertion. "Jahi's family has the same access to our medical records as the family of any patient at Children's. All families have the right to review the record while the patient is in the hospital, and have access to the entire record after the hospitalization has ended."

Please note that requests to view records also take up to 5 days to process. Viewing records is only done by appointment, probably because of the sheer numbers of patients treated at the facility and the need to stringently follow HIPPA guidelines. If records are retrieved in a rush, there is the possibility that patient privacy could be compromised.

Parent, guardians, or patients that are 18 or older may set up an appointment with the HIM department to come in and review their medical record at Children's.
Appointments are made during business hours.
Appointments will be scheduled within 5 business days of the request.
There is no charge to review your medical record at the HIM department.

http://www.childrenshospitaloakland.org/main/Medical-Records.aspx#HowtoView

 

[Donjeta]

I consider all medical journals, associations, bioethics professors of law, medicine, etc. who are watching and sharing information to be consumer watchdogs. Knowledge does impact the delivery of medicine to consumers.

JMO

Oh ok.

I find the conversation may get a little confusing when words are used in such broad definitions that other people aren't using so thanks for the explanation.

 

[TJL]

It's been my experience that when I want someone to "bend" the rules or make exceptions to policies I have already been diligently informed of, that the best way to do this is to "kill 'em with kindness." I've found that the people less willing to bend over backwards for anyone and make exceptions for their plight, are the ones who are yelled at, were rudely addressed, threatened with legal action, and publicly defamed. Also, encouraging other people to harass the individual is a sure-fire way to not get any exceptional help from them.

When someone starts throwing legal threats in there, that's actually a warning flag to make sure all the "i"'s are dotted and "t"s crossed, making sure every step of the process is followed per the stated procedures, policies, and laws.

CHO bent over backwards to make numerous exceptional accommodations for NW and family, and all that effort just burned them in the end.

 

[Lippy]

Well that's the impression given at hospitals because Under normal circumstances, when a brain dead patient is on life support they disconnect the vent, wait for the heart to stop beating, then call the time of death and only then does the morgue come for the patient. I'm not opposed to doing things that way and I suppose it is just a courtesy to the family but it gives people the impression that death doesn't occur until the body is dead.
I think that when a person is declared brain dead and all the tests have been done to validate the death, the time of death should be called and noted. Instead they discuss with the family about when to disconnect the ventilator and that is just asking for trouble. They could be typing up a death certificate while the family is thinking about it.
Does that sound too harsh?

 

[Lippy]

Sorry, I meant to quote this post and I don't know how to fix it.

"I guess instead of proving a reversal of brain death, perhaps it will cover his extensive writings about the concept of "whole body death", as opposed to just "brain death"? Now I'm really looking forward to reading it. We already know he's been riding that train for some time now (if the rest of the body is alive, we can't call the person truly dead.)"

Well that's the impression given at hospitals because Under normal circumstances, when a brain dead patient is on life support they disconnect the vent, wait for the heart to stop beating, then call the time of death and only then does the morgue come for the patient. I'm not opposed to doing things that way and I suppose it is just a courtesy to the family but it gives people the impression that death doesn't occur until the body is dead.
I think that when a person is declared brain dead and all the tests have been done to validate the death, the time of death should be called and noted. Instead they discuss with the family about when to disconnect the ventilator and that is just asking for trouble. They could be typing up a death certificate while the family is thinking about it.
Does that sound too harsh?

 

[K_Z]

Judging by the title of that article, I can only guess that it'll have something to do with furthering IBRF's campaign to "prove" they can reverse brain death. I'm sure it'll be at least a brow-raising read.

edit: looked into it myself, too:

Machado's contribution to it, according to Pope's writing, is: "Death as a biological notion
Calixto Machado"

I guess instead of proving a reversal of brain death, perhaps it will cover his extensive writings about the concept of "whole body death", as opposed to just "brain death"? Now I'm really looking forward to reading it. We already know he's been riding that train for some time now (if the rest of the body is alive, we can't call the person truly dead.)

It appears that Calixto Machado wrote a letter to the editor in response to the Shemie/ Baker article. It's not a peer reviewed article; it's an opinion statement/ response/commentary on Shemie and Baker's article.

Here's the journal link, and a link to Calixto Machado's letter.

http://www.jccjournal.org/current

http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0883-9441/PIIS0883944114003189.pdf

(And he quotes some of his own work again in the section on Integration!)