• You must be logged in to see or use the Shoutbox. Besides, if you haven't registered, you really should. It's quick and it will make your life a little better. Trust me. So just register and make yourself at home with like-minded individuals who share either your morbid curiousity or sense of gallows humor.
I understood how a tonsillectomy would help sleep apnea which she then could maybe sleep better and that would help with the concentration, attention span, and weight gain since she would feel more like doing stuff if she slept better. But I don't get the excessive urination part, but like you said that is a quote from Jahi's uncle, so who knows.
I would suspect that the urination was in the bed... as in wetting the bed. Or maybe they thought she was waking up to pee too often and that was because of not sleeping properly?

I have to say I don't think she's really magically alive, but I also don't really think hospitals should argue with incensed, depressed, illogical moms who've just lost their babies... it's just a losing battle to try to bring any kind of understanding right now. I don't necessarily think they should fight it. I say if another place is willing to take the girl, the family should have to sign off the right to sue and they should let them take her body wherever they want for whatever other tests/procedures they want. It's not as if she can feel it and they are torturing her. If she's brain dead.. all of that crap will be for the family, not her.
 
If she's brain dead.. all of that crap will be for the family, not her.
That's true but with skilled nursing home beds in shortage in most areas, is it really fair to have a dead body taking up space that a living person needs?
 
That's true but with skilled nursing home beds in shortage in most areas, is it really fair to have a dead body taking up space that a living person needs?
yeah, but who are we to judge that part. I say if the facility is willing, let them take this over. I would hope that in time the mom would come around. Like I said, for the family, not the kid. I just know that if the hospital forces this then the mom is going to sue, and there's really probably no point in them taking any resposibility for this. Like they've said, this is extremely rare, and I have to say, if it were my hospital, I'd rather move this drama on down the line and out of my hair. They say a bunch of facilities are offering to take her... let one. If they're private pay or Christian type places that have an agenda, that's the families problem. Not this hospitals issue if they just move it on down. I'm not saying everyone should try to pass a medical flub up off on someone else.. I just think this hospital would be smarter to let the family have their way rather than fight with clearly irrational people who may be unable, and definitely unwilling, to accept that life ends.
 
If they're private pay or Christian type places that have an agenda, that's the families problem
But they aren't and the family won't be paying for her care out of their own pocket. Their health insurance will pay for it, which essentially means that everyone who pays healthcare premiums with that provider are the ones really paying for it. It might be cheaper to move her to a home, but it's still a hefty price to pay, one that should be spent on the living in my opinion. They want to move her, fine but pay for it themselves.
 
But they aren't and the family won't be paying for her care out of their own pocket. Their health insurance will pay for it, which essentially means that everyone who pays healthcare premiums with that provider are the ones really paying for it. It might be cheaper to move her to a home, but it's still a hefty price to pay, one that should be spent on the living in my opinion. They want to move her, fine but pay for it themselves.
I'd agree they should pay or it should be charity from the facility accepting her... but I still think the hospital that has her should give up this fight. It would be far better for them if she signed something giving up her right to sue, for the ability to move the corpse. Again, don't think she's going to be rational any time soon. Not worth arguing with her. As for health insurance paying, if she pays her premiums, do we really have any say over what they decide to cover... there are a lot of things we are paying for that we'd rather not know about.
 
I still think the hospital that has her should give up this fight.
The hospital is not fighting the move to a different facility. All they are fighting is for the proper care in their own facility. The family disagrees with what the "proper care" is.
 
The hospital is not fighting the move to a different facility. All they are fighting is for the proper care in their own facility. The family disagrees with what the "proper care" is.
yeah.. still don't think it's worth it. I don't really think average citizens are going to hold it against their facility if they let this go.
 
But they aren't and the family won't be paying for her care out of their own pocket. Their health insurance will pay for it, which essentially means that everyone who pays healthcare premiums with that provider are the ones really paying for it. It might be cheaper to move her to a home, but it's still a hefty price to pay, one that should be spent on the living in my opinion. They want to move her, fine but pay for it themselves.
I doubt the insurance will pay for very long. They have guidelines to follow and $$ to make.
 
I don't really think average citizens are going to hold it against their facility if they let this go.
I agree with you there but at the same time, hospitals are not where we treat dead people. It's a very expensive proposition for everyone involved. Not just money wise. Such a situation takes a toll on the healthcare workers and other staff involved. The hospital doesn't care if they move her, they do care that they give their best to the people they can help.
 
The 13-year-old girl underwent what the hospital called a "complicated" surgery Dec. 9 removing her tonsils and other throat and nose tissue, according to the hospital, to treat her severe sleep apnea. She started bleeding shortly after surgery, eventually going into cardiac arrest and losing brain function, according to the results of six doctor examinations.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_24799117/jahi-mcmath-2-years-ago-girl-wound-up

This isn't going to end quickly by moving her to a home. Apparently they are trying to compare another mishap with this case, if you read the link you can clearly see the differences and that there is nothing similar other then both have brain damage, one completely and one partially. And the fact these parents are stupid enough to do elective surgery on small children. The one set of parents sued for 4.4 million and now their lawyer is jumping bandwagons trying to rile stuff up in this case.

I really suggest taking time to read the link. I'm not going to bother posting it because it's mostly about someone else and in my opinion not relevant to this, it's pretty much a lawyer ambulance chasing and a family wanting to media whore their own situation after the fact. I will post this tid-bit (just so I can bitch about it).

"She was a delightful, wonderful, smart, beautiful little girl," Schoenberger said. "She was her parents' pride and joy, and now she's a shell of a human being."

This girl still laughs,smiles and cries and yet they act like she's dead. The should be appreciative of the fact they still have her and she should still be their pride and joy. She should still be beautiful and all the other things. A parent just doesn't throw all that away when a child isn't perfect and normal.
 
I agree with you there but at the same time, hospitals are not where we treat dead people. It's a very expensive proposition for everyone involved. Not just money wise. Such a situation takes a toll on the healthcare workers and other staff involved. The hospital doesn't care if they move her, they do care that they give their best to the people they can help.
Yes, the people they can help. They can't help this kid. No one can. So any business willing to take on that expense for only the point that they want to appease the family, should just do it. This isn't really about help or harm anyway.. and certainly doesn't really have anything to do with anything except pride/pain/loss/fear which are all feelings, which no one can fix. arguing that they want whats best for the kid is pointless. She is feeling nothing. Only the living mother and family is feeling anything about this. Let her do as she wishes. She will come to understand at some point, that her kid is gone. And if she doesn't, eventually medical insurance will be convinced and they will probably stop covering. She will have to face reality at some point, I just think it's beyond stupid for anyone to think that's going to be right now. And they are only making it worse for themselves to argue with her.
 
I have a really hard time believing insurance will cover any costs associated with long term care on a dead person. I'm sure they appealed to the insurance company, but my question is, how did the insurance company approve this so quick? A customer service representative, supervisor, or even a nurse reviewer can't approve something like this. This is something that has to go before the review board. There are people who are denied medications and treatments because the insurance wants them to try something else first or they think the medication and/or treatment is not medically necessary and patients have to jump through hoops. How did this family get approval to cover costs on a dead person that will not benefit from ANY type of "treatment." It just doesn't add up.

Isn't any of this considered abuse of a corpse or something similar?

I don't think the family should be able to sue. I think any lawsuits should be dismissed. The longer this girl is on the vent the harder it is going to be to find a COD. When an autopsy is finally performed it may be inconclusive and the family will be bitching a fit because they can't blame the COD on the hospital. They will be exhuming this girl every time they find a new Pathologist willing to perform another autopsy.

I also find it ironic the family is requesting the hospital to perform the trach and feeding tube on the girl so she can be moved from the hospital and into a long term care facility. This is the same hospital the family is accusing of murdering their daughter. They refused to believe the two hospital staff doctors diagnosis of brain death and were provided three independent doctors AND a court appointed doctor who ALL confirmed the girl is brain dead; yet they want this hospital to perform two more procedures on the girl. Irony.

I would not want to touch that girl. What if her heart finally stops during one of the procedures? The family will go on and on about how the hospital purposely killed the girl because they wanted to pull the plug anyway.

These people will probably expect CPR to be performed when the girl's heart stops. The legalities, moral, and ethical ramifications are astronomical.

There is nothing about this case where the hospital should show more compassion because it involves a mother who lost her child. It was their first mistake in retrospect. The girl was declared brain dead on Thursday, December 9th and the hospital DID show compassion by allowing the family more time with the girl and time to accept the death and start the grieving process. In showing that compassion, the family went to the court to get the injunction to prevent the hospital from discontinuing the ventilator.

At this point, I find it hard to show any sensitivity toward the family. They are compounding grief upon grief upon irrational demands.

This child is NOT the first child to die unexpectedly. ONLY 1% of the population become brain dead. The other 99% of the population die from cardiac death. They are not afforded the opportunity to place their loved one on a ventilator and take care of their dead loved one like a live person. They are not afforded the opportunity to leave their dead loved one in a bed while they come to grips with the reality of losing that loved one.

This child is not special. WE ALL DIE.
 
I'm not saying you are wrong.. I'm saying that these are just people.. and if they've found another option, they should be welcome to take it. Their grief is theirs alone. It's none of our fucking business, except that if she hadn't gone public she wouldn't have gotten the tons of offers to take the dead kid. Abuse of a corpse.. I think is pushing it. Again, talking about a grieving mother. As for saying others don't get that chance, do you think if they did they would refuse it? It's not ours to decide whether or not someone else is allowed to act like a whack-a-doo when their kid dies. Everyone else should just butt out and let her be crazy. She will eventually get the picture and there is no point in other Americans getting involved in her personal life. We can all have an opinion, but it is absolutely absurd to think of using any tax dollars on fighting with a grieving mother. Hopefully you're right and the financial burden will fall to her.. but you never know.. some billionaire could bankroll this insanity, and guess what... you and I won't have any say in that either. The fact is, she has an option that others don't have. Let her have it and get over it. We all die, she just hasn't gotten there yet. And I assure you, her child is special to her.
I have a really hard time believing insurance will cover any costs associated with long term care on a dead person. I'm sure they appealed to the insurance company, but my question is, how did the insurance company approve this so quick? A customer service representative, supervisor, or even a nurse reviewer can't approve something like this. This is something that has to go before the review board. There are people who are denied medications and treatments because the insurance wants them to try something else first or they think the medication and/or treatment is not medically necessary and patients have to jump through hoops. How did this family get approval to cover costs on a dead person that will not benefit from ANY type of "treatment." It just doesn't add up.

Isn't any of this considered abuse of a corpse or something similar?

I don't think the family should be able to sue. I think any lawsuits should be dismissed. The longer this girl is on the vent the harder it is going to be to find a COD. When an autopsy is finally performed it may be inconclusive and the family will be bitching a fit because they can't blame the COD on the hospital. They will be exhuming this girl every time they find a new Pathologist willing to perform another autopsy.

I also find it ironic the family is requesting the hospital to perform the trach and feeding tube on the girl so she can be moved from the hospital and into a long term care facility. This is the same hospital the family is accusing of murdering their daughter. They refused to believe the two hospital staff doctors diagnosis of brain death and were provided three independent doctors AND a court appointed doctor who ALL confirmed the girl is brain dead; yet they want this hospital to perform two more procedures on the girl. Irony.

I would not want to touch that girl. What if her heart finally stops during one of the procedures? The family will go on and on about how the hospital purposely killed the girl because they wanted to pull the plug anyway.

These people will probably expect CPR to be performed when the girl's heart stops. The legalities, moral, and ethical ramifications are astronomical.

There is nothing about this case where the hospital should show more compassion because it involves a mother who lost her child. It was their first mistake in retrospect. The girl was declared brain dead on Thursday, December 9th and the hospital DID show compassion by allowing the family more time with the girl and time to accept the death and start the grieving process. In showing that compassion, the family went to the court to get the injunction to prevent the hospital from discontinuing the ventilator.

At this point, I find it hard to show any sensitivity toward the family. They are compounding grief upon grief upon irrational demands.

This child is NOT the first child to die unexpectedly. ONLY 1% of the population become brain dead. The other 99% of the population die from cardiac death. They are not afforded the opportunity to place their loved one on a ventilator and take care of their dead loved one like a live person. They are not afforded the opportunity to leave their dead loved one in a bed while they come to grips with the reality of losing that loved one.

This child is not special. WE ALL DIE.
 
I'm not saying you are wrong.. I'm saying that these are just people.. and if they've found another option, they should be welcome to take it. Their grief is theirs alone. It's none of our fucking business, except that if she hadn't gone public she wouldn't have gotten the tons of offers to take the dead kid. Abuse of a corpse.. I think is pushing it. Again, talking about a grieving mother. As for saying others don't get that chance, do you think if they did they would refuse it? It's not ours to decide whether or not someone else is allowed to act like a whack-a-doo when their kid dies. Everyone else should just butt out and let her be crazy. She will eventually get the picture and there is no point in other Americans getting involved in her personal life. We can all have an opinion, but it is absolutely absurd to think of using any tax dollars on fighting with a grieving mother. Hopefully you're right and the financial burden will fall to her.. but you never know.. some billionaire could bankroll this insanity, and guess what... you and I won't have any say in that either. The fact is, she has an option that others don't have. Let her have it and get over it. We all die, she just hasn't gotten there yet. And I assure you, her child is special to her.


Of course they are people grieving their loss, no one is saying otherwise. The issue is THIS KID IS DEAD. There wouldn't be an issue if the girl was in a vegetative state or a coma. And I think it is everyone's business. This case is opening up a can of worms for people to keep zombies on life sustaining equipment, using up resources meant for people who are alive, paying for labor which is taking away from people who are alive when their is a nursing crisis, not to mention the healthcare crisis as a whole.

If the girl's heart was stopped and the family got an injunction from the courts to allow a cold, stiff, rotting corpse in a medical facility, it would be causing a much bigger uproar. There is no difference between between the two because both scenarios is the person is still dead. It IS abuse of a corpse or something similar. Why is it not? The girl is dead. It's absurd to think anyone can keep their dead loved one on a vent, for an indefinite amount of time, so they can keep shrine over them. That's why we have cemeteries.

I do believe most people would prefer to bury/cremate/dispose of/whatever their loved ones so they can start the grieving process. Is it hard to say goodbye? Fuck yeah, but people have been doing it for centuries and life has continued. We go on with our lives, but we don't forget about the ones we've lost.

I don't really understand your American comment. Are you saying Americans should not have an opinion on the matter, but citizens of other countries around the globe should be the only ones with an opinion regarding a topic occurring in the United States?

I do agree with you that the child is special to her mother. The child is as special as you or I in the whole scheme of things.

Usher should be financially responsible.
 
But, you know, there are some people who have a knack of not seeing reality until someone forces that reality on them. This mother is not only hurting herself but she is hurting the whole family with this farce of caring. She knows the girl is dead, she's refusing to end it because then she won't be on the news anymore.

I know, I'm a cynical bitch.
 
Of course they are people grieving their loss, no one is saying otherwise. The issue is THIS KID IS DEAD. There wouldn't be an issue if the girl was in a vegetative state or a coma. And I think it is everyone's business. This case is opening up a can of worms for people to keep zombies on life sustaining equipment, using up resources meant for people who are alive, paying for labor which is taking away from people who are alive when their is a nursing crisis, not to mention the healthcare crisis as a whole.

If the girl's heart was stopped and the family got an injunction from the courts to allow a cold, stiff, rotting corpse in a medical facility, it would be causing a much bigger uproar. There is no difference between between the two because both scenarios is the person is still dead. It IS abuse of a corpse or something similar. Why is it not? The girl is dead. It's absurd to think anyone can keep their dead loved one on a vent, for an indefinite amount of time, so they can keep shrine over them. That's why we have cemeteries.

I do believe most people would prefer to bury/cremate/dispose of/whatever their loved ones so they can start the grieving process. Is it hard to say goodbye? Fuck yeah, but people have been doing it for centuries and life has continued. We go on with our lives, but we don't forget about the ones we've lost.

I don't really understand your American comment. Are you saying Americans should not have an opinion on the matter, but citizens of other countries around the globe should be the only ones with an opinion regarding a topic occurring in the United States?

I do agree with you that the child is special to her mother. The child is as special as you or I in the whole scheme of things.

Usher should be financially responsible.
yeah.. I think I've been pretty clear. There isn't a law being broken, and there are businesses willing to take the husk.. we can judge all we want, but in the end, we don't deserve a say in how someone else doesn't live and doesn't die. That's for her family and whatever businesses want to become involved.

I will address the American part.. we are free.. businesses are free to do as they please if not breaking the law. In the face of having no law to address this, people and courts should butt out till there is one, and really.. this would resolve itself. I don't think there are numerous people who will all of a sudden find the financial windfall to make this the new trending thing to do.

And others in this situation would learn from her mistake and disappointment anyway. But there are people pushing boundries all the time, and who are we to tell them not to push. And I get that this is brain death and it's all impossible etc.. but wouldn't you shit your pants if someone did something and she woke up..? What happens if our reasoning behind that is proven wrong somewhere down the line. 10 years ago people didn't wake up from being frozen.. now they are using lowering a body temperature to preserve people with brain injuries... I'm just saying.. you aren't a god, I don't believe in those anyway, and you don't know all or see all. No one can.. and while I do believe in science, I also believe it is constantly changing. if she wants to push this issue and be the one who has to learn the hard way that science knows what it knows, let it happen... others would learn too.

And as for abuse of corpse, there's already a huge business in that called cryogenics. And we don't tell them not to do it.. even though it's crazy! We mostly say the same thing to them that I'm saying here.. let them that can, do.
 
The chief of pediatrics at a California hospital says the facility won't cooperate with the transfer of Jahi McMath to another facility.
[...]

The girl’s family now wants to transfer her to a nursing home that is willing to continue to care for her, but first, doctors at the hospital would have to surgically insert breathing and feeding tubes necessary to keep her body functioning.

The hospital's chief of pediatrics says doctors won't be doing that because the judge in the case didn't authorize or order any transfer or surgery.
[...]

Lawyer Christopher Dolan told The Associate Press he is prepared to go to federal court to force the hospital to insert the tubes.

He said he is drafting papers alleging that Children's Hospital Oakland's refusal to perform the procedures violates the girl's family's religious and due process rights.

Dolan says he may seek a temporary restraining order to prevent the hospital from disconnecting the girl from the machine that is keeping her body functioning.
http://www.kwtx.com/news/health/hea...n-Transfer-For-Brain-Dead-Girl-237521881.html
“We are aware that the family’s attorney has stated the family hopes to transfer Jahi’s body to another facility. However, he has refused to identify the facility to which they hope to transfer Jahi’s body,” Dr. David Durand, chief of pediatrics at the hospital, said in a Dec. 26 statement. “The family’s attorney has stated that multiple surgical procedures need to be performed on Jahi’s body before this possible transfer can be completed.”

But, he added, “Children’s Hospital Oakland does not believe that performing surgical procedures on the body of a deceased person is an appropriate medical practice. Children’s Hospital Oakland continues to extend its wishes for peace and closure to Jahi McMath’s family.”

The family’s lawyer, Christopher Dolan, said Friday that he is prepared to go to federal court to force the hospital to insert breathing and feeding tubes into the eighth grader.

Dolan told The Associated Press that he is drafting a civil rights lawsuit alleging that Children's Hospital Oakland's refusal to perform the procedures that would allow 13-year-old Jahi McMath to be transferred to a long-term care facility violates her family's religious, due process rights and privacy rights.

"The hospital seems to feel that only it can make decisions and in that sense, you have, I have and everyone has the right to privacy over our health care," Dolan said. "It touches on some very significant issues, namely, who controls the decisions when you are dead or alive."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hospital-wont-help-brain-dead-teen-jahi-mcmath-move-to-nursing-home/
 
But, you know, there are some people who have a knack of not seeing reality until someone forces that reality on them. This mother is not only hurting herself but she is hurting the whole family with this farce of caring. She knows the girl is dead, she's refusing to end it because then she won't be on the news anymore.

I know, I'm a cynical bitch.
We are all cynical.. it's why we belong here... my mind says that if this is anything false, in any way, that it's because of some darker reason, like nurse grandma secretly gaver her an aspirin and caused the bleeding... but that's my sick twisted, and even if it were true, the evidence, just as if the hospital really did something... is now long gone.metabolized out. I doubt attention as the motive here. I think it's genuine grief, fear, etc. And she may be causing her family pain, but I think they should be the ones to point that out to her.. it's not our job. Again, we can judge all we want.. but this is a family affair.
 
Hospital policy does not allow for the upkeep of a corpse. If the family expects the hospital to upkeep their deceased daughter, I believe the hospital should have a say in that. Why wouldn't they? I do think this case will allow for changes in the law and more hospital policies regarding who long (not counting organ donors) a person will be kept on the vent once death pronouncement has been made.


This is from your post:


we can judge all we want, but in the end, we don't deserve a say in how someone else doesn't live and doesn't die.

No one is having a say on how this girl is going to die. The God you spoke of in your post already did that. She's already dead. That's the whole point of this case. SHE'S DEAD. This is not end of life care. Let me repeat, the girl is dead.



Only people who don't understand or believe brain death think there is a chance someone could wake up. Yes, science continues to change, but I don't think science can change dead. It's pretty simple really. If there is no blood flow to the brain there is no oxygen to the brain. How can someone wake up, from the dead, who has no oxygen or blood flow? Only zombies can do that.



I don't know California law to make a statement bold enough to say they
aren't breaking any laws and just let them keep a dead person on a
ventilator because it's what they want to do.


California Health and Safety Code. I couldn't find anything else. I
pretty much suck at sleuthing. So, technically, it would be abuse of a
corpse to move the body because it would be disposing.




HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE


SECTION 7050.5-7055

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=07001-08000&file=7050.5-7055





7054. (a) (1) Except as authorized pursuant to the sections
referred to in subdivision (b), every person who deposits or disposes
of any human remains in any place, except in a cemetery, is guilty
of a misdemeanor.

(2) Every licensee or registrant pursuant to Chapter 12
(commencing with Section 7600) or Chapter 19 (commencing with Section
9600) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code and the
agents and employees of the licensee or registrant, or any unlicensed
person acting in a capacity in which a license from the Cemetery and
Funeral Bureau is required, who, except as authorized pursuant to
the sections referred to in subdivision (b), deposits or disposes of
any human remains in any place, except in a cemetery, is guilty of a
misdemeanor that shall be punishable by imprisonment in a county jail
not exceeding one year, by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars
($10,000), or both that imprisonment and fine.


7054.4. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, recognizable
anatomical parts, human tissues, anatomical human remains, or
infectious waste following conclusion of scientific use shall be
disposed of by interment, incineration, or any other method
determined by the state department to protect the public health and
safety.

As used in this section, "infectious waste" means any material or
article which has been, or may have been, exposed to contagious or
infectious disease.







Even when searching California law, Ohio law came up in the search.




Ohio Revised Code
Title [29] XXIX CRIMES - PROCEDURE
Chapter 2927: MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES






2927.01



Abuse of a corpse.







(A)
No person, except as authorized by law,
shall treat a human corpse in a way that the person knows would outrage
reasonable family sensibilities.





(B)
No person, except as authorized by law,
shall treat a human corpse in a way that would outrage reasonable community
sensibilities.





(C)
Whoever
violates division (A) of this section is guilty of abuse of a corpse, a
misdemeanor of the second degree. Whoever violates division (B) of this section
is guilty of gross abuse of a corpse, a felony of the fifth degree.






Effective Date: 07-01-1996



http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2927.01
 
yeah.. I think I've been pretty clear. There isn't a law being broken, and there are businesses willing to take the husk.. we can judge all we want, but in the end, we don't deserve a say in how someone else doesn't live and doesn't die. That's for her family and whatever businesses want to become involved.

I will address the American part.. we are free.. businesses are free to do as they please if not breaking the law. In the face of having no law to address this, people and courts should butt out till there is one, and really.. this would resolve itself. I don't think there are numerous people who will all of a sudden find the financial windfall to make this the new trending thing to do.

And others in this situation would learn from her mistake and disappointment anyway. But there are people pushing boundries all the time, and who are we to tell them not to push. And I get that this is brain death and it's all impossible etc.. but wouldn't you shit your pants if someone did something and she woke up..? What happens if our reasoning behind that is proven wrong somewhere down the line. 10 years ago people didn't wake up from being frozen.. now they are using lowering a body temperature to preserve people with brain injuries... I'm just saying.. you aren't a god, I don't believe in those anyway, and you don't know all or see all. No one can.. and while I do believe in science, I also believe it is constantly changing. if she wants to push this issue and be the one who has to learn the hard way that science knows what it knows, let it happen... others would learn too.

And as for abuse of corpse, there's already a huge business in that called cryogenics. And we don't tell them not to do it.. even though it's crazy! We mostly say the same thing to them that I'm saying here.. let them that can, do.

As for cryonics, the decedent themself has to pay the fee and sign the appropriate paperwork prior to their own death; the family cannot simply decide afterward that their loved one ought to be frozen. Even if the family did decide that, no legitimate cryonics facility would accept the body, since the cryonics team needs to be contacted by the hospital so that anti-decay procedures can be begun within minutes of clinical death.

And sure, businesses can do what they want here in the US of A, within reason, but taking money on an ongoing basis under false pretenses is still illegal. Any medical professional giving this family any hope that their daughter will ever wake up or recover in any way is a fool, and any who promise any sort of improvement in her condition under a treatment they claim to provide is in violation of the law, in addition to gross violation of medical ethics.

I'm sick, and thus not nearly as eloquent in explaining my point as I want to be, but I'm hoping that @TeeJay will be able to decipher my drivel and render it into coherence.
 
I'd also like to add, as both a paramedic and a newly-licensed funeral director, that I've witnessed countless families under the worst imaginable circumstances, and it's incredibly common for a grieving family to have trouble making decisions until gently nudged by medical professionals. I have also noticed, in general, that minority families are more likely to argue with the medical opinions of non-minority physicians. Just my observations; they may or may not have jack shit to do with this case. I'm so fucked up on cough syrup for a hellish chest cold that I have very little cohesive thought right now.

Bottom line: I've seen a lot of grief, but this is a grief mixed with a heaping helping of pathetic stupidity. This goes way beyond the healthy grieving stage of denial.
 
Dolan said that the family's health insurance would cover the cost of her long-term care.

This is ridiculous. Healthcare is for the living, and this girl is legally dead. We're talking about a corpse here.

yeah, but who are we to judge that part.

Live ones.

In a reversal, a California hospital agreed Friday to release a brain-dead 13-year-old girl to another facility if her family meets conditions before a Monday deadline for disconnecting her from life support.

[...]

In a letter Friday to the family's attorney, however, hospital officials wrote they would "allow a lawful transfer of Jahi's body in its current state ... if the family can arrange such a transfer and Children's can legally do so." The hospital said it "will of course continue to do everything legally and ethically permissible" to support the McMaths.

Jahi's family said Friday that a Los Angeles-area facility in North Hollywood had agreed to accept Jahi if the required surgical preparations were made.

The letter, to attorney Christopher Dolan, set forth three conditions for the hospital's cooperation in the transfer, including transportation and "legal approvals."

"At a minimum, the Alameda County Coroner needs to consent to any proposed transfer since we are dealing with the body of a person who has been declared legally dead," said the letter, from the hospital's attorney.

If all of its condition are met, the hospital "looks forward to immediately cooperating in further discussion of the transfer process for Jahi's body."

[...]

READ MORE: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...and-brain-dead-girl-hospital-release/4225823/
 
As for cryonics, the decedent themself has to pay the fee and sign the appropriate paperwork prior to their own death; the family cannot simply decide afterward that their loved one ought to be frozen. Even if the family did decide that, no legitimate cryonics facility would accept the body, since the cryonics team needs to be contacted by the hospital so that anti-decay procedures can be begun within minutes of clinical death.

And sure, businesses can do what they want here in the US of A, within reason, but taking money on an ongoing basis under false pretenses is still illegal. Any medical professional giving this family any hope that their daughter will ever wake up or recover in any way is a fool, and any who promise any sort of improvement in her condition under a treatment they claim to provide is in violation of the law, in addition to gross violation of medical ethics.

I'm sick, and thus not nearly as eloquent in explaining my point as I want to be, but I'm hoping that @TeeJay will be able to decipher my drivel and render it into coherence.


Poop, I forgot to respond to the cryogencis comment, but you did fine. :)

Hope you feel better!






I am really looking forward to the coroner's decision regarding the transfer. I wonder if the coroner has been to the hospital to inspect the body at all. The coroner had to give us permission to proceed with organ donor cases (only when it was a coroner case) and they usually sent a tech to get pictures (especially on domestic cases and child beatings), fingerprints, and otherwise check out the body before we could proceed to the OR.
 
In a letter Friday to the family's attorney, however, hospital officials wrote they would "allow a lawful transfer of Jahi's body in its current state ... if the family can arrange such a transfer and Children's can legally do so." The hospital said it "will of course continue to do everything legally and ethically permissible" to support the McMaths.
“Children’s Hospital Oakland does not believe that performing surgical procedures on the body of a deceased person is an appropriate medical practice.

I wonder if they worded it like that on purpose, I also wonder if the family's lawyer caught that wording. They don't say they will put in the tubes and such, they say they will consent to her being transferred as is. They already took the stance that they think it's wrong and in the letter to the family they say they will do what's legally and ethically right. Really it still leaves me wondering what they are willing to do. Will they do surgery or not?
 
I wonder if they worded it like that on purpose, I also wonder if the family's lawyer caught that wording. They don't say they will put in the tubes and such, they say they will consent to her being transferred as is. They already took the stance that they think it's wrong and in the letter to the family they say they will do what's legally and ethically right. Really it still leaves me wondering what they are willing to do. Will they do surgery or not?

My guess is no, for reasons @TeeJay listed earlier in the thread. Nothing good can come of continuing this farce.
 
I would be so creeped out if anyone was loving my body like it was ME after I am gone...OMG
 
A San Francisco Bay Area nursing home that had agreed to provide long-term care for a 13-year-old Oakland girl declared brain dead has backed out.

The facility, which has not been named, withdrew after the Children’s Hospital Oakland, where Jahi McMath is now on a ventilator, refused to insert the breathing and feeding tubes necessary for her long-term care.

“We lost the facility that we were originally going to go with,” said Omari Sealey, Jahi’s uncle and the family’s spokesman.

Sealey said they are now in talks with three other nursing homes — two in Los Angeles and one in New York — that may be willing to take her.

A lawyer for Children’s Hospital Oakland said in a letter made public Friday that before the hospital would comply with the family’s request to move Jahi, it would need to speak directly with officials at any nursing home to make sure they understand her condition, “including the fact that Jahi is brain dead” — and to discuss needed preparations, including transportation.

Lawyer Douglas Straus also said the Alameda County coroner needs to sign off on the move “since we are dealing with the body of a person who has been declared legally dead.”
[...]

The Alameda County Coroner’s Bureau said it had no comment.
http://www.app.com/viewart/20131227/NJNEWS18/312270093/Nursing-home-says-won-t-take-brain-dead-girl
 
Lawyer Douglas Straus also said the Alameda County coroner needs to sign off on the move “since we are dealing with the body of a person who has been declared legally dead.”

Wanna bet the coroner says "Hell no!" to the move? See, idiot family, how being a prick will come back to bite you in the arse when you suddenly need help from the very people and institutions that you've been bad-mouthing for nearly three weeks?

If I were the coroner, I could not in good conscience sign off on this body transfer, which I feel would be a serious breach of ethics to allow. I can only hope that Oakland's actual coroner sees it the same way.
 
Back
Top