Posted on 01/03/2014 4:17:39 PM PST by Drew68
Edited on 01/03/2014 4:20:22 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
The agreement, described in the Oakland courtroom of Alameda County Superior Court Judge Evelio Grillo, is the latest development in an unusual battle between the hospital and the girl's family, who has rejected declarations that Jahi is dead as a result of brain death.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfchronicle.com ...
I see. Noted. Thanks.
I think I'll ping the other individual, a long-time Freeper (and actual MD) just as a courtesy.
>I see. Noted. Thanks.<
I think I'll ping the other individual, a long-time Freeper (and actual MD) just as a courtesy.
gas_dr, I did not mean to imply whatsoever that you were a troll!!! Clearly, the troll on this thread is ifinnegan (who I won't ping as a courtesy because this individual is obviously a troll).
Well, the fact that ‘the body’ hasn’t has any nutrition for more than three weeks might just be helping that process along.
Karen Ann Quinlan was not dead. She was severely brain damaged, much like Terry Schindler. Her brain was fully alive.
A brain dead person has *no* functional brain because the brain is actually dead—no oxygenation, no blood, no energy use, no metabolism of any kind. When removed from a respirator, a brain dead person does not breathe and the heart ceases to beat shortly thereafter.
This little girl, Jahi, has been examined and determined to be brain dead. Although some of the physiological functions of life have been artificially prolonged using the ventilator and many of the tissues remain alive, she is dead. Her soul is in Heaven.
Dead people don't need to eat.
“No one ever comes back from being dead (with one historical exception).”
Well, here are three more that I found with a ten second search:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/dead-woman-wakes-up-doctors-2041057
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/24/a-british-car-accident-vi_n_1450113.html
http://www.today.com/id/23775873/
And here’s an article talking about a lawsuit that claims that as many as 1 in 5 people declared ‘brain dead’ are still alive and are being killed by the hospitals.
I’m sorry, but the drs said that I was in a PVS at birth and tried to put me in an institution. I was nonreactive for three solid months. (No reflexes, no crying, nothing) Then I came around.
My cousin was in an accident and we were told that he would have permanent brain damage. It took him a year to begin to recover, but he now has a BS, is married, and has a beautiful daughter.
I’ve had doctors tell me that nothing was wrong, then two hours later, my son’s in intensive care when I brought him back in.
This are people, not gods.
At the very least, taking away the parents’ rights and their sense of control, referring to their child as ‘the body’, is stupid and insensitive.
Just ten years ago, it was OUR choice. That’s why people were encouraged to have a DNR because they couldn’t take you off life support without it.
Now, families have NO options. No control over the situation so they can get a handle on things and manage their grief. They are being told what to do, not given options.
This is California and, as far as I’m concerned, it’s a culture of death. I will side with life, thank you.
As for the whole ‘brain death’ means that the brain is rotting BS that’s being blown about on this thread, that’s not the definition of brain death. People need to read up on it. Brain death means damage to the higher (reasoning) brain or the brain stem.
One of the drs said that he disagreed with the diagnosis of brain death.
Any mother that doesn’t fight for her child is sick and wrong. Your diagnosis of MBP is totally out of line.
I feel like I’m in the Twilight Zone on FR lately.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/one-in-five-brain-dead-patients-still-alive-claims-lawsuit
I heard a hospital in NY is willing to take her.
No, in the old days, we called it being brain dead, just as we’re calling it now. We didn’t equate being braindead to being in a coma.
See Post 38
Decomposition does not necessarily have to occur through bacterial action. As a medical researcher, I have studied cell death in a sterile environment. Dead cells break down in various ways, depending on the type of cell death that occurred. With the type of death I suspect has occurred, I would think that the cell membranes would disintegrate and organelles would lose their structural integrity, releasing enzymes that digest cellular biomolecules. I will refrain from describing any further, out of respect for people's sensibilities. I am very curious to know what is actually happening, if breakdown products from a dead organ can penetrate into the circulatory system and so forth. I am also curious as to how long a semblance of life can be maintained in a dead body. Yes, I know this is morbid (but I'm a scientist).
I have read about young children who have had half of their brains removed because of a seizure disorder. They seem to do fine with half a brain... although I wonder if some sort of prosthetic is stuffed into their skull to keep the remaining half in place. The plasticity of a young brain is truly amazing.
Sorry, but lifesitenews.com has a political axe to grind and engages in seriously misleading journalism. All these cases are easily explained.
You assume too much. The hospital did not treat the family poorly. On the contrary, they’ve made inarguably generous accomodations including that Jahi be allowed to have up o 8 visitors at a time, an area for the family to congregate, counselors for her siblings, many other accomodations.
At the time there was no diagnosis for brain death for Karen Ann Quinlan. Her autopsy supports what you are saying in that much of the brain was not severely damaged or “ dead” but some areas were.
Until there is an autopsy on Jahi McMath your statements Comparing the extent of brain damage between the two the are a matter of speculation. And zero details of the examination have been released, so you are overstepping in making any detailed comments. You are inferring things based on the conclusion that she is brain dead and that is fair and reasonable.
I personally believe she is brain dead because I trust the professionalism of the medical staff and their sincerity and know that the advances in understanding and diagnosing brain damage and brain have become quite sophisticated, in no small part due to the Quinlan case.
As far as your Quinlan comments, her brain was irreversibly damaged and was not “fully alive” and had regions that were dead, hence her state.
This article helps to explain some of the differences, as well as the criteria used to establish brain death.
I would bet that none of those articles you linked were bona fide brain death cases where the patient was examined by two physicians separately as is legally required before the patient can be pronounced dead. Given that they were published in the mainstream news, they probably contain a pretty thick helping of sensationalism. One article even says that the teen was put into a drug-induced coma--meaning that no one ever believed he was dead (even though they did not think he would survive). The woman in another article was never examined for brain death. The boy in the Today article supposedly had a PET scan that showed no activity--but that is not the type of examination that would establish brain death.
As far as I am aware, only one person has come back from the dead, and that happened about 2,000 years ago. It was also clearly a case of Divine Intervention.
I’d she is “dead” they cannot be legally responsible for her dying or the continued maintenance of “the body.”
Don’t mean to sound sarcastic, but that’s your answer.
Normally, in these cases, the hospital’s insurance will settle. Quickly. And without a huge fight.
Any detailed comments I have made are based on the definition of brain death. They do not have to be specific to this case.
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.