Posted on 02/27/2010 6:07:23 PM PST by BykrBayb
MIAMI (WSVN) -- A young mother died when, a lawsuit claims, she was taken off life support without her family's permission.
It was supposed to be a day of joy for the Francois family. Twenty-six-year-old Caroline was giving birth to her third child at a local hospital.
The baby was born fine, but the next day things went terribly wrong for the young mother. "Her blood pressure remained high and continued to remain high," said the family's attorney, Loreen Kreizinger. "As a result of her uncontrolled hypertension, she had a bleed to the brain, which happened the next day after the baby was born."
Caroline was put on life support. "It's terrible," said Kreizinger. "It's probably one of the worst things I've personally ever experienced as an attorney, and I am also a nurse."
According to the lawsuit, after Caroline was put on life support, the local hospital called the University of Miami organ donor program. An employee of the donor program went to the hospital and tried to meet with the family. "Mr. Francois never spoke with them and never gave consent," said the family's attorney.
But despite that, the lawsuit against the University of Miami claims that same employee, who is not a medical doctor wrote physician's orders in Caroline's chart which read: "Patient pronounced brain dead at 16:16 hours," and, "Please discontinue all treatments including the ventilator."
"We have evidence that he physically entered the room and actually turned off the ventilator," said the lawyer.
Court testimony supports that shocking allegation. Caroline's respiratory therapist was asked in a deposition, "Who physically took Caroline off the ventilator?" The therapist replied, "That's a gentleman from organ procurement."
In Caroline's chart, her nurse wrote the employee from UM "turned off vent," referring to the ventilator.
No one is saying why this employee might have pulled the plug, but Caroline's doctor is very clear. In testimony, her doctor was asked, "Did you yourself at anytime make an assessment that Caroline was brain dead?" The answer: "No."
"We have evidence that Caroline began to breathe on her own, both by a computerized respiratory printout and by handwritten notes of the respiratory therapist," said Kreizinger.
Asked if she was implying that Caroline was breathing on her own and still taken off life support, the family's attorney replied, "That's right. That's what we're saying here."
The University of Miami denies the allegations in the lawsuit, saying, "This defendant specifically denies that it, or anyone for whom it could be held legally responsible, caused or contributed to Caroline Francois's death."
"It certainly is the University of Miami's position that there were four determinations of brain death prior to disconnection from ventilator," said University of Miami attorney Helenemarie Blake. "There is an issue of fact as to who disconnected the ventilator, if at all."
In court Thursday, University of Miami attorneys tried to get the judge to strike Caroline's nurse from the witness list. That nurse allegedly witnessed who turned off the ventilator. The attorneys say they have not been able to locate that nurse to depose him. The judge has denied that request.
If that happened to one of my loved ones, the only organs available for transplant would be the ones I ripped out of the murderer.
You can always use the room phone to call the hospital administrator down to his room. Tell the administrator exactly what happened, and what you will do if anything goes wrong. ANYTHING.
There was a time when I would have thought it was ridiculous to stay 24/7 in the hospital room. Now I know, you did the right thing. I’m glad you knew to do that.
Yes, it could happen to any of us. And it seems to be happening more and more.
Florida again.
BTW once you are dead it’s too late to donate your organs. You have to be alive when they take them. Dirty little secret.
Thanks for pinging this out. I wonder if the deathbots will show up.
Well, I always start first with the charge nurse, then the doctor in charge of the unit.
My ace in the hole was his cardiologist - the rare Dr. who fights just as hard for old people as he does for the younger.
When I had arguments with a Dr. that did not get resolved, I would tell him. He would look at me and say no one knows him better than you, I will take care of it.
I’m hoping there’ll be a followup on this, explaining what the organ procurement worker expected to gain by doing this.
They usually have a tough time rationalizing murder if they can’t find a way to say that the victim or the victim’s family wanted it.
Once involuntary euthanasia is legalized they will show everyone how absolutely evil they are.
Under mac daddies death care a group of people, not doctors, will decide who lives and who dies thus saving money not lives.
Yes, I learned that very early in life when my daughter was 6 years old - back then we were forbidden to stay all night.
What happened was not a tragedy, but it did give her an unrational fear of Drs and hospitals for at least 15 years.
From then on I always made sure that we took turns, or else I stayed 24/7 with my kids, parents, and sister.
I expect their argument will be that this never happened.
Interesting how the people who so readily deprive others of life, suddenly find value in life when it’s their own life on the line.
So someone from organ donor took it on himself to disconnect her.
Words fail me....
At least words that I can print on FR.
Obama Regulation Czar Advocated Removing People’s Organs Without Explicit Consent
Friday, September 04, 2009
Cass Sunstein, President Barack Obama’s nominee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), has advocated a policy under which the government would “presume” someone has consented to having his or her organs removed for transplantation into someone else when they die unless that person has explicitly indicated that his or her organs should not be taken.
Under such a policy, hospitals would harvest organs from people who never gave permission for this to be done.
Outlined in the 2008 book “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness,” Sunstein and co-author Richard H. Thaler argued that the main reason that more people do not donate their organs is because they are required to choose donation.
Sunstein and Thaler pointed out that doctors often must ask the deceased’s family members whether or not their dead relative would have wanted to donate his organs. These family members usually err on the side of caution and refuse to donate their loved one’s organs.
“The major obstacle to increasing [organ] donations is the need to get the consent of surviving family members,” said Sunstein and Thaler.
This problem could be remedied if governments changed the laws for organ donation, they said. Currently, unless a patient has explicitly chosen to be an organ donor, either on his driver’s license or with a donor card, the doctors assume that the person did not want to donate and therefore do not harvest his organs. Thaler and Sunstein called this “explicit consent.”
They argued that this could be remedied if government turned the law around and assumed that, unless people explicitly choose not to, then they want to donate their organs – a doctrine they call “presumed consent.”
“Presumed consent preserves freedom of choice, but it is different from explicit consent because it shifts the default rule. Under this policy, all citizens would be presumed to be consenting donors, but they would have the opportunity to register their unwillingness to donate,” they explained.
The difference between explicit and presumed consent is that under presumed consent, many more people “choose” to be organ donors. Sunstein and Thaler noted that in a 2003 study only 42 percent of people actively chose to be organ donors, while only 18 percent actively opted out when their consent was presumed.
In cases where the deceased’s wishes are unclear, Sunstein and Thaler argued that a “presumed consent” system would make it easier for doctors to convince families to donate their loved one’s organs.
Citing a 2006 study, Thaler and Sunstein wrote: “The next of kin can be approached quite differently when the decedent’s silence is presumed to indicate a decision to donate rather than when it is presumed to indicate a decision not to donate. This shift may make it easier for the family to accept organ donation.”
The problem of the deceased’s family is only one issue, Sunstein and Thaler said, admitting that turning the idea of choice on its head will invariably run into major political problems, but these are problems they say the government can solve through a system of “mandated choice.”
More: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/53534
And wait till the rest of them get ahold of healthcare:
I spent 2 1/2 days this week at St. Josephs hospital in Tacoma with my mom. The only time I left the room was to go down to the cafeteria for a quick bite. I got to doing so many things for my mom I told the nurses I was going to send the hospital a bill! However, I was VERY impressed with all the staff at St. Joes. Would definitely choose this hospital if I ever needed major surgery.
See #35, Sunstein’s way ahead of you.
Evil is good, down is up and dogs should have lawyers... nothing for humans though.
Now there you go dragging up other threads. LOL
The body parts industry is all about the money. I'll bet the family even got billed for the womans murder, butcher, and packaging.
ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.