Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: MillCreek on December 23, 2013, 06:07:33 PM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/23/health/jahi-mcmath-girl-brain-dead/
I have not read the medical records, but everything I have read in the media tells me that the child experienced brain death, as opposed to a coma. People can in some instances recover from a coma, not so much from brain death. It is not unusual to see the family clinging to hope in these cases, but I hope they can come to terms with the prognosis and make the best decision for the child.
-
The family of that woman in Florida claimed for years that she wasn't brain dead and that she would recover "any day now."
Hope springs eternal ... etc.
This is sad, but even sadder is clinging to a hopeless expectation that she'll recover.
-
"tonsil surgery"
=|
I feel bad for the mother, but the kid is dead. I can understand people and the family wanting answers for why the kid is dead, but to dispute the brain death and keep the body on life support... Well, some people can't accept grief, especially under such tragic circumstances.
Sad story.
-
Unfortunately even the most routine surgery always has the ultimate risk...
-
Unfortunately even the most routine surgery always has the ultimate risk...
Of course, so does driving to the grocery store.
-
Unfortunately even the most routine surgery always has the ultimate risk...
Yeppers.
My paternal grandfather went into a hospital for what was supposed to be some very routine procedure ... and he never came home.
The one thing certain about life is that nobody gets out alive.
-
Preventable medical error 400K/year. Guns 30-40K a year. Ban assault doctors!
In that case it seems that post-op there was a really bad response from the hospital, seems some more immediate intervention might have helped.
-
I feel bad for the mother, but the kid is dead. I can understand people and the family wanting answers for why the kid is dead, but to dispute the brain death and keep the body on life support... Well, some people can't accept grief, especially under such tragic circumstances.
I'm one for 'the person is dead when the brain is dead; even if the meat is still functional', but I'm still in favor of thorough investigation to ensure that a person is really 'brain dead' and not just in some wierd coma.
I hope, I very much hope that the court appointed second opinion does his job competenty to the fullest of his ability and accurately advises the mother, who will then take his advice and do the appropriate thing.
-
I'm with the family on this as far as getting a second opinion.
Hospitals seem a bit too quick to pull plugs to me. Maybe folks are sometimes worth more dead than alive.
-
I'm one for 'the person is dead when the brain is dead; even if the meat is still functional', but I'm still in favor of thorough investigation to ensure that a person is really 'brain dead' and not just in some wierd coma.
I hope, I very much hope that the court appointed second opinion does his job competenty to the fullest of his ability and accurately advises the mother, who will then take his advice and do the appropriate thing.
Modern medical scanning equipment can determine how much brain tissue is dead and where in the brain it is. In the Schiavo case it was absolutly determined that the only parts of her brain that remained functioning was the parts responsible for autonomic functions; she had no higher brain function. Her intellect, her personality...all that, was with God. Yet it became a much ballyhooed case in the public arena with talking heads like Sean Hannity trying to make a big case in favor of "life," when in fact, the lady in question, herself, was as dead as can be.
I agree that we need to have a true, honest and open assessment of the condition of people in these quasi-terminal conditions .... but it really is not hard to do this. But unfortunatly a lot of philosophical fluff gets in the way .... ...
-
The family of that woman in Florida claimed for years that she wasn't brain dead and that she would recover "any day now."
No one claimed she was brain dead. The controversy was about whether or not she was in a "persistent vegetative state," and whether she could benefit from certain therapies that her husband allegedly refuse to consider.
-
Yeah, I don't recall anyone claiming she was brain dead or had no higher brain function. At least I don't remember that terminolgy used.
My Great Grandmother was essentially brain dead after a stroke. She lasted about a month before finally passing.
-
I'm with the family on this as far as getting a second opinion.
Hospitals seem a bit too quick to pull plugs to me. Maybe folks are sometimes worth more dead than alive.
Close, alive and comatose is a very very expensive proposition - the price for keeping the body alive for the natural lifespan? Enormous.
A lawyer gal I dated always told me if I accidentally ran someone over or severely injured someone to go back and make sure they're dead.
Really a lot cheaper then paying medical bills for 30 or 40 or 60 years.
-
Close, alive and comatose is a very very expensive proposition - the price for keeping the body alive for the natural lifespan? Enormous.
A lawyer gal I dated always told me if I accidentally ran someone over or severely injured someone to go back and make sure they're dead.
Really a lot cheaper then paying medical bills for 30 or 40 or 60 years.
We say that in malpractice too: it is cheaper if the patient is dead. Not that there are any recordings of me saying such things on the record, of course. :angel:
-
No one claimed she was brain dead. The controversy was about whether or not she was in a "persistent vegetative state," and whether she could benefit from certain therapies that her husband allegedly refuse to consider.
As far as I'm concerned, there is no difference between "brain dead" and "persistent vegetative state." My living will uses whatever language is mandated by the state, and IIRC it uses the "persistent vegetative state" lingo, but as far as I'm concerned, if the lights are on but nobody's home, the medicos aren't doing me or my family any favors by continuing to treat an empty shell when my consciousness (and likely my soul) have long since unassed the area of operations.
-
As far as I'm concerned, there is no difference between "brain dead" and "persistent vegetative state." My living will uses whatever language is mandated by the state, and IIRC it uses the "persistent vegetative state" lingo, but as far as I'm concerned, if the lights are on but nobody's home, the medicos aren't doing me or my family any favors by continuing to treat an empty shell when my consciousness (and likely my soul) have long since unassed the area of operations.
A whole lot of physicians and nurses feel the same way, and feel it is unethical and harmful to the patient to keep treating them once they are brain dead, as opposed to stopping life support and letting nature take its course. If the family is insistent that treatment continue, we will ask them to find another hospital or skilled nursing facility to take the patient and continue futile treatment.
-
A whole lot of physicians and nurses feel the same way, and feel it is unethical and harmful to the patient to keep treating them once they are brain dead, as opposed to stopping life support and letting nature take its course. If the family is insistent that treatment continue, we will ask them to find another hospital or skilled nursing facility to take the patient and continue futile treatment.
I am aware of this, and I concur.
I am also aware that there are many other cases where hospitals (or judges working in concert with court-appointed land sharks lawyers) have refused to allow a dignified death, even when the family has requested it. In those (latter kind of) cases, IMHO all costs should then be borne by the judge and hospital, not by the family. If my next-of-kin or designated health care permission-giver (whatever the legal term is) says "Pull the plug, he's gone," and some doctor or administrator gets a judge to order that I be kept hooked up indefinitely ... I don't think my family should be forced to pay for salving someone else's notion of what's "right."
-
I am aware of this, and I concur.
I am also aware that there are many other cases where hospitals (or judges working in concert with court-appointed land sharks lawyers) have refused to allow a dignified death, even when the family has requested it. In those (latter kind of) cases, IMHO all costs should then be borne by the judge and hospital, not by the family. If my next-of-kin or designated health care permission-giver (whatever the legal term is) says "Pull the plug, he's gone," and some doctor or administrator gets a judge to order that I be kept hooked up indefinitely ... I don't think my family should be forced to pay for salving someone else's notion of what's "right."
Folks can afford to be high and mighty when its other people's lives and money.
-
Teh nooz says the hospital has been given permission to pull the plugs. If they do that before the mother can get her lawyer in front of another judge to get an injunction or a stay thhis may be settled soon.
BTW, that was what kept the Terry Shaivo case going so long - every time one side got what they asked for the other side was immediately in front of a judge asking for a countermanding order. At times they did not clear the courthouse steps before being served with an injunction against what they were walking out the door with. Judges playing out their personal "convictions" as opposed to actually condidering what the law said.
stay safe.
-
They have until 1700 on 30 December to file an appeal. The exam by the court-ordered specialist confirmed that the child is brain-dead. Now what the hospital has to contemplate is what to do if the family physically bars the door or otherwise blocks access to the child to prevent hospital staff from turning off the ventilator and other machines. It would be a very messy business to have to use hospital security or the police to physically remove the family in order to pull the plug, and you cannot pay for that sort of publicity.
-
In the Terry Schaivo case, to me anyway, the biggest issue was who had the legal right to decide what therapies, treatment, etc. to provide or withhold. In the absence of a clear written prior direction, it seems to me that her husband had that right. Credible alleations of abuse or other criminal activity by him against her, particularly if said abuse was likely to have caused her to be in that condition would be about the only reason I could see to strip him of that authority. That her family was able to stop his plan to cease all treatment via the courts is somewhat troubling. I say somewhat as there are aspects of the case that are not totally clear, and it's possible, if unlikely, that there was good cause for such legal interference.
-
They have until 1700 on 30 December to file an appeal. The exam by the court-ordered specialist confirmed that the child is brain-dead. Now what the hospital has to contemplate is what to do if the family physically bars the door or otherwise blocks access to the child to prevent hospital staff from turning off the ventilator and other machines. It would be a very messy business to have to use hospital security or the police to physically remove the family in order to pull the plug, and you cannot pay for that sort of publicity.
Wouldn't the simple solution be to simply turn the power off to the room? Or heck, simply don't provide any medical supplies/assistance. Without IV's the body isn't going to last long. Dehydration will take it's toll.
-
The family says they have found a skilled nursing facility but they want the hospital to first place a permanent feeding tube and a breathing tube. The hospital is refusing, saying it is unethical to perform surgical procedures on a deceased person, and the judge has made no such order.
-
Wouldn't the simple solution be to simply turn the power off to the room? Or heck, simply don't provide any medical supplies/assistance. Without IV's the body isn't going to last long. Dehydration will take it's toll.
I have been in these sort of situations, and it is really difficult to find a path that respects the dignity of the patient, supports the family and supports the staff. There are no ready black and white answers, and each situation has to be handled on its own merits. In these sort of matters, hospital leadership, legal, risk management and ethics are probably meeting every day to talk about the game plan and what to do next. I am sure they are also reaching out to the family, but I suspect the family wants as little to do with the hospital as possible. Just a terrible tragedy for all involved.
-
I am sure they are also reaching out to the family, but I suspect the family wants as little to do with the hospital as possible. Just a terrible tragedy for all involved.
"As little to do" isn't "They want feeding tubes installed".
*sigh*, let the kid go people.
-
I have to wonder how much is the family trying to not associate the loss of their child with Christmas? Maybe not even on a conscious level.
-
I have to wonder how much is the family trying to not associate the loss of their child with Christmas? Maybe not even on a conscious level.
too true.
memories sometimes disturb my own happy holidays.
the terry schiavo case, it seemed to me the "husband" who was shacking up wanted her dead for some reason, if her mom/dad were willing to provide care-whats the point of starving her to death?
the folks that disagreed with me at the time kept coming back to "she shouldn't have to live like that" if she was brain dead then she was unaware of living like that, if she had some consciousnesses, freaking starving her to death seems kind of mean.
this case is different, the hospital/doctors screwed up a standard tonsillectomy and severely injured a child.
imo if mom/dad want a miracle the hospital/doctors need to cough up the dough. they are the ones that screwed up.
sure, its cheaper to let the kid die, but if the kid really is brain dead imo the hospital/doctors screwed up and they should pay for whatever the parents want and I bet after a few yrs the parents will decide to let her go.
-
It would be cheaper, both in terms of money and resources, for the doctors and hospital to pay the parents via a civil settlement than by tying up precious resources for however long it takes, while also emotionally traumatizing not only the parents but those that have to "care" for the alleged meatstick.
I don't know how many of you have ever spent even 5 minutes in a room where someone who has lost all contact with the world as we know it lies on a bed with tubes and wires sticking into them, let alone having to care for them. I've spent the time but thankfully have never had to do the actual hands-on caring. For me the worst was learning that no matter how much care and attention was given there is almost no way to prevent the breakdown of an essentially inert body. Documenting the coping mechanisms of staff in a "quintrapalegic" unit of a head trauma hospital made for a great thesis but really bummed me out. (Their term for quadrapalegics who also had no apparent communication with the outside world - sort of like Johnny Got His Gun but not able to know if any of the brain activity was meaningful for whatever was inside.)
No, paying off the parents will not bring the kid back and the parents may even feel worse thinking about having "sold" their kid, let alone about spending any of the money. But it does keep a whole lot of other folks from becoming emotionally wrapped up in the situation.
stay safe.
-
I am sure the hospital would rather pay a settlement....in my case it would be like the holy grail, me complaining I'm not dead yet & my family ogling the cash.
The parents do not want a settlement, the kid is dead or brain dead ( whatever ) but the body still functions if hooked up to machines.
The hospital did that to the kid, if the parents want their kid hooked up to machines for a few years - imo - they ( the hospital ) should pay.
The doctors/hospital messed up - they need to pay for it.
yup. its a waste of resources, but tooooo bad. the hospital ( imo ) needs to suck it up and pay and pay and pay until mommy decides different.
-
gunsmith -
I have one word for you: bedsore.
stay safe.
-
gunsmith -
I have one word for you: bedsore.
stay safe.
Well, if she is "dead" then bedsores are the least of her problems.
if she is dead then she's dead, she cant feel pain.
Mom is the one feeling the pain, the hospital should burden the pain of paying for care of the alive/dead body until mom is ready to let go.
They're the ones that turned a routine operation into a dead girl.
-
And all operations come with risks, routine and common or not.
It sucks. It's tragic. It's sadder than hell. But complications can happen and result in someone dieing anytime surgery is performed. It's not the hospitals fault she's the one in however many million that is going to have a serious complication after such a procedure, and until some evidence comes to light saying otherwise it doesn't mean they screwed up. So just how long should they keep her body "alive" and how many unethical procedures should they have to perform on an essentially dead body because the mother wont accept the reality that her child is gone? We're not talking a coma here, or even serious brain damage. The girls dead, the machines she's hooked up are just artificially extending that fact for some parts of her body.
-
So just how long should they keep her body "alive" and how many unethical procedures should they have to perform on an essentially dead body because the mother wont accept the reality that her child is gone?
What exactly makes a surgical procedure performed on a corpse at the behest of the family unethical (besides the hospital calling it that)?
-
What exactly makes a surgical procedure performed on a corpse at the behest of the family unethical (besides the hospital calling it that)?
AMA code of ethics, among others: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/opinion820.page?
The following general guidelines are offered to serve physicians when they are called upon to decide among treatments:
(1) Treatments which have no medical indication and offer no possible benefit to the patient should not be used (Opinion 2.035, "Futile Care").
(2) Treatments which have been determined scientifically to be invalid should not be used (Opinion 3.01, "Nonscientific Practitioners").
-
AMA code of ethics, among others: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/opinion820.page?
Opinion 2.035 seems to state that a physician is not obligated to provide care that won't help, not that futile care is in and of itself unethical.
In a case like this, if the parents are willing to pay for an unnecessary surgery on a body after being advised of its futility I see no reason why the hospital shouldn't perform it. It's not as though they're protecting the dead girl by refusing to provide the service.
-
Opinion 2.035 seems to state that a physician is not obligated to provide care that won't help, not that futile care is in and of itself unethical.
In a case like this, if the parents are willing to pay for an unnecessary surgery on a body after being advised of its futility I see no reason why the hospital shouldn't perform it. It's not as though they're protecting the dead girl by refusing to provide the service.
I disagree. Opinion 2.035 states:
Opinion 2.035 - Futile Care
Physicians are not ethically obligated to deliver care that, in their best professional judgment, will not have a reasonable chance of benefiting their patients. Patients should not be given treatments simply because they demand them. Denial of treatment should be justified by reliance on openly stated ethical principles and acceptable standards of care, as defined in Opinion 2.03, "Allocation of Limited Medical Resources," and Opinion 2.095, "The Provision of Adequate Health Care," not on the concept of "futility," which cannot be meaningfully defined. (I, IV)
If [viable] patients should not be given treatments simply because they demand them, it's not much of a stretch to opine that dead "patients" should not be given treatments simply because the next-of-kin demands them.
Then we need to examine opinions 2.03 and 2.095
Opinion 2.03 is long, so I'll only quote one paragraph. The rest is here: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/opinion203.page
Decisions regarding the allocation of limited medical resources among patients should consider only ethically appropriate criteria relating to medical need. These criteria include likelihood of benefit, urgency of need, change in quality of life, duration of benefit, and, in some cases, the amount of resources required for successful treatment. In general, only very substantial differences among patients are ethically relevant; the greater the disparities, the more justified the use of these criteria becomes. In making quality of life judgments, patients should first be prioritized so that death or extremely poor outcomes are avoided; then, patients should be prioritized according to change in quality of life, but only when there are very substantial differences among patients. Non-medical criteria, such as ability to pay, age, social worth, perceived obstacles to treatment, patient contribution to illness, or past use of resources should not be considered.
Opinion 2.095 is also somewhat long so I'll only quote part. The rest is here: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/opinion2095.page
Opinion 2.095 - The Provision of Adequate Health Care
Because society has an obligation to make access to an adequate level of health care available to all of its members regardless of ability to pay, physicians should contribute their expertise at a policy-making level to help achieve this goal. In determining whether particular procedures or treatments should be included in the adequate level of health care, the following ethical principles should be considered:
(1) degree of benefit (the difference in outcome between treatment and no treatment),
(2) likelihood of benefit,
(3) duration of benefit,
(4) cost, and
(5) number of people who will benefit (referring to the fact that a treatment may benefit the patient and others who come into contact with the patient, as with a vaccination or antimicrobial drug).
-
Well, if she is "dead" then bedsores are the least of her problems.
if she is dead then she's dead, she cant feel pain.
Mom is the one feeling the pain, the hospital should burden the pain of paying for care of the alive/dead body until mom is ready to let go.
They're the ones that turned a routine operation into a dead girl.
My concern is not for the body, but for those that will be tasked with tending the body. When bedsores appear they will be liable, regardless of how well they have tried to do their duty in caring for the body. There may also be an emotional toll from failing in spite of all possible precautions. (Many folks in the nursing profession are like that, for some reason.)
But I clearly hear your desire to make the hospital pay. A question about that, if you will permit? How about the hospital pay for services/care/treatment to assist the mom in accepting the death of her child? Even lower primates who carry the corpse of their dead newborns eventually give up and let go of the body. How long are you willing to let this mom carry the corpse? And to what end?
stay safe.
-
I think it comes down to the purpose of professional ethical standards. In this case it sounds as though ethics are being used by the hospital as a club to beat the family with instead of as a guide to help protect patients.
If [viable] patients should not be given treatments simply because they demand them, it's not much of a stretch to opine that dead "patients" should not be given treatments simply because the next-of-kin demands them.
I agree that it can make sense to limit requested treatments in certain cases. If the requested treatment is more likely to cause harm than good or if the wasted treatment would cause harm by exhausting a resource necessary to treat someone who is more likely to benefit - fine, those are valid reasons to deny futile care - and that seems to be the goal of the ethical standards you quoted. In this case, I doubt putting in a feeding tube and giving the parents the girl's body to take to a long term care facility is going to either hurt the patient any more or cause harm to someone who isn't getting necessary care in a timely manner. That being the case, going all letter of the "law" on the family seems petty and vindictive.
-
My concern is not for the body, but for those that will be tasked with tending the body. When bedsores appear they will be liable, regardless of how well they have tried to do their duty in caring for the body. There may also be an emotional toll from failing in spite of all possible precautions. (Many folks in the nursing profession are like that, for some reason.)
But I clearly hear your desire to make the hospital pay. A question about that, if you will permit? How about the hospital pay for services/care/treatment to assist the mom in accepting the death of her child? Even lower primates who carry the corpse of their dead newborns eventually give up and let go of the body. How long are you willing to let this mom carry the corpse? And to what end?
stay safe.
the hospital is playing gotcha games with mom, refusing to provide nutrition ( no "food" for body since Dec 8th ) and also refusing to provide tracheotomy so body can be transported.
its clear the hospital is worried that the comatose dead kid could actually "live" quite a long time with life support and is trying its level best to kill the body.
in essence they are not letting mom carry the dead child, they are fighting her every step of the way because they do not want to pay for a few yrs of
life support or they are actually worried that the child could partially recover.
its the hospital currently refusing to let go, mom has a facility lined up - mom will let go in her own time, but the hospital wont let her.
why should she trust them? they killed her kid.
-
its clear the hospital is worried that the comatose dead kid could actually "live" quite a long time with life support and is trying its level best to kill the body.
I can understand them not wanting a Schiavo equivalent on their hands.
or they are actually worried that the child could partially recover.
Given the court appointed second opinion agreed that she's brain dead, lottery levels unlikely.
On the private facility - how are the parents going to pay for it?
-
I can understand them not wanting a Schiavo equivalent on their hands.
Given the court appointed second opinion agreed that she's brain dead, lottery levels unlikely.
On the private facility - how are the parents going to pay for it?
It's California. The taxpayers will, via Medi-cal
-
Beggars can't be choosers*. If they are not paying the freight and the taxpayers of California are, pull the plug.
* Which is why the gov't seeks to beggar us. See Obamacare for one example.
-
the hospital is playing gotcha games with mom, refusing to provide nutrition ( no "food" for body since Dec 8th ) and also refusing to provide tracheotomy so body can be transported.
its clear the hospital is worried that the comatose dead kid could actually "live" quite a long time with life support and is trying its level best to kill the body.
in essence they are not letting mom carry the dead child, they are fighting her every step of the way because they do not want to pay for a few yrs of
life support or they are actually worried that the child could partially recover.
its the hospital currently refusing to let go, mom has a facility lined up - mom will let go in her own time, but the hospital wont let her.
why should she trust them? they killed her kid.
So hospitals should do whatever a dead patients parents want to the body?
-
why should she trust them? they killed her kid.
Who is "they" and how -- exactly -- did "they" kill her kid?
Granted, the facts are there -- a live kid underwent surgery, a live kid came out of surgery and requested a Popsicle because her throat hurt (not uncommon after a tonsillectomy, if I recall grammar school mates' stories way back when), and then she began bleeding and went into cardiac arrest.
You don't seem to have your argument very well organized. You refer to a "comatose" (i.e. alive but in a coma) "dead kid" (i.e. NOT alive). In other posts you seem to be suggesting that the parents are correct and that the kid might wake up again, given enough time. Then you write that "they killed her" -- again implying that the kid is, indeed, dead.
If we accept that she is dead, then the question is what (not who) killed her. Certainly, nobody set out to kill her. The operation was more than a routine tonsillectomy, and I think we can assume that the parents were advised of that. But "the hospital" didn't perform the surgery. A surgeon performed the surgery. I don't recall seeing his (or her) name mentioned at any time, and I certainly don't recall seeing anything to suggest that the doctor was an employee of the hospital. Could have been, but also very well may not have been.
So ... did the surgeon botch something? Did the kid have some undetected problem that was triggered by the operation, or by the anesthesia? We don't know. Maybe the doctor goofed, maybe the doctor did everything right and the kid died anyway. It happens.
Unless and until we know who did what, and WHY the kid died, it is irresponsible in the extreme to make statements like "They killed her kid."
-
Hawkmoon..
Whatever the exact chain of events the hospital gave all associated docs privileges even if they were not hospital employees. And the hospital was likely the direct employer of all support staff.
Hospital is a reasonable target and proxy for "they."
-
Except that, thus far, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the statement that "they killed her." Or that anyone killed her. Or that anyone in any way did something that resulted in her death. So who the "they" is is a moot point. Because there's no evidence that there is a they.
Thus far you've got a kid that had one of the known risks of the procedure (bleeding), that for whatever couldn't be brought under control, and as a result she's died in all respects but that certain functions are still going only because of machines. It sucks that she's the one in however many people that will die from a complication from a fairly routine tonsillectomy, but it happens, and she's hardly the first.
-
Except that, thus far, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the statement that "they killed her." Or that anyone killed her. Or that anyone in any way did something that resulted in her death. So who the "they" is is a moot point. Because there's no evidence that there is a they.
Thus far you've got a kid that had one of the known risks of the procedure (bleeding), that for whatever couldn't be brought under control, and as a result she's died in all respects but that certain functions are still going only because of machines. It sucks that she's the one in however many people that will die from a complication from a fairly routine tonsillectomy, but it happens, and she's hardly the first.
The dead kid is a pretty good start. Along with the admission that she had a medical procedure in that hospital. A body on the premises and opportunity are more than enough for cops to give a suspect the hairy eyeball. To think the kid did not die due to actions that took place while she was in the care of the hospital's proxies is what requires wild speculation.
-
The dead kid is a pretty good start. Along with the admission that she had a medical procedure in that hospital. A body on the premises and opportunity are more than enough for cops to give a suspect the hairy eyeball. To think the kid did not die due to actions that took place while she was in the care of the hospital's proxies is what requires wild speculation.
Seriously?
How many millions of folks die in hospitals every year? How many due to complications after a surgery? Most are due to the fault of no one.
When someone comes up with any sort of credible evidence that someone *expletive deleted*ed up and is responsible for her dieing, I'll be right there in calling for that person to be held accountable to it. Until then statements like "they killed her!" and using it as an argument for anything is sensasalistic bull. Till there's evidence someone is in any way responsible she's a victim of no more than having bad enough luck to draw the short straw and being the "1 in X" statistic for folks who die post op. The death of a child is tragic, but it happens.
And even if that does eventually happen, it's still a moot point. It means someone should be held accountable for their screw up just like any other case of malpractice. It's not justification for forcing other physicians and staff to perform unethical medical procedures on a corpse, or for the hospital to faucilitate it. Coma? Major brain damage? Sure. Flat out dead, just having certain functions chugging along by machines? Not so much.
-
Except that, thus far, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the statement that "they killed her." Or that anyone killed her. Or that anyone in any way did something that resulted in her death. So who the "they" is is a moot point. Because there's no evidence that there is a they.
Thus far you've got a kid that had one of the known risks of the procedure (bleeding), that for whatever couldn't be brought under control, and as a result she's died in all respects but that certain functions are still going only because of machines. It sucks that she's the one in however many people that will die from a complication from a fairly routine tonsillectomy, but it happens, and she's hardly the first.
Seriously?
How many millions of folks die in hospitals every year? How many due to complications after a surgery? Most are due to the fault of no one.
When someone comes up with any sort of credible evidence that someone *expletive deleted*ed up and is responsible for her dieing, I'll be right there in calling for that person to be held accountable to it. Until then statements like "they killed her!" and using it as an argument for anything is sensasalistic bull. Till there's evidence someone is in any way responsible she's a victim of no more than having bad enough luck to draw the short straw and being the "1 in X" statistic for folks who die post op. The death of a child is tragic, but it happens.
And even if that does eventually happen, it's still a moot point. It means someone should be held accountable for their screw up just like any other case of malpractice. It's not justification for forcing other physicians and staff to perform unethical medical procedures on a corpse, or for the hospital to faucilitate it. Coma? Major brain damage? Sure. Flat out dead, just having certain functions chugging along by machines? Not so much.
Indeed. Hey, surgery is dangerous. Sometimes, unforeseen complications arise, which cannot always be corrected in time to assure a positive outcome. I've had a few surgeries, all of which have had positive results (other than an anesthesiologist who ignored my repeated warnings that I was "difficult" to intubate, and in which I remember his three) failed attempts at doing so), in which the surgeon had to take over and did it on the first attempt (which I remembered "great surgeon". I registered a formal complaint with the hospital and he is no longer practicing at that hospital. I think "most" surgeons are competent and responsible, but sometimes things happen which are beyond their control.
-
Seriously?
How many millions of folks die in hospitals every year? How many due to complications after a surgery? Most are due to the fault of no one.
When someone comes up with any sort of credible evidence that someone *expletive deleted*ed up and is responsible for her dieing, I'll be right there in calling for that person to be held accountable to it. Until then statements like "they killed her!" and using it as an argument for anything is sensasalistic bull. Till there's evidence someone is in any way responsible she's a victim of no more than having bad enough luck to draw the short straw and being the "1 in X" statistic for folks who die post op. The death of a child is tragic, but it happens.
And even if that does eventually happen, it's still a moot point. It means someone should be held accountable for their screw up just like any other case of malpractice. It's not justification for forcing other physicians and staff to perform unethical medical procedures on a corpse, or for the hospital to faucilitate it. Coma? Major brain damage? Sure. Flat out dead, just having certain functions chugging along by machines? Not so much.
Yes, seriously.
Maybe you ought to have read my first post in this thread before hyperventilating at the keyboard. Reading my subsequent posts would also have informed you that I have not determined if there is any fault to be apportioned, but that if anything fault-worthy occurred, it did occur at the hospital. Referring to the hospital and its employees/proxies as "they" is a reasonable shorthand.
Oh, and your faith in hospitals and hospital staff is touching. Yes, many times shinola is just going to happen or there is no way to foresee/prevent some event. OTOH, I have some first-hand experience with some walking future lawsuits-in-scrubs, the sort that would give Millcreek an ulcer. And my wife has prevented destitute folk from meeting their maker due to the actions of less-competent nurses & techs or marginally competent baby docs where she works. But, like I wrote, beggars can't be choosers(1). (Most folk where she works are not paying their way or insured, so the taxpayer foots the bill.) Somebody has to finish last in the class (doc, nurse, tech) and they usually manage to find a job somewhere.
(1) And the cost of affirmative action is not just to passed-over job applicants.
-
the hospital would be on the hook for payment, that's why they are trying desperately to finish the kid off.
really why else hold on to the kid? why deny the "dead" kid nutrition?
tough cookies for the hospital, parents handed them a kid for a routine operation and they just get away with "oop's she's dead, stop pestering us with your silly demands peasant"
Beggars can't be choosers*. If they are not paying the freight and the taxpayers of California are, pull the plug.
* Which is why the gov't seeks to beggar us. See Obamacare for one example.
nope, hospital has insurance - employee's screwed up, if they would simply honor the grieving mom's wishes I bet she would "let go" in a few months .... but NOOOooooo - they gotta play hardball. Instead they choose awful publicity and adding insult to injury and death.
They screwed up they need to do their level best to make mom less sad, she will never be happy but they should cut her some dang slack.
last week they said they couldn't release the body without a suitable place, now that a place has been found they place new obstacles.
If it were me they were dealing with, I would be making their lives miserable.
One time a lady knocked over my motorcycle on my first day of work, it was either get it fixed or lose my job.
Her insurance company was playing hardball with me and I called her up and told her I will be moving in with her or because its her fault I do not have a job ...the insurance company coughed up the $$ to rent a bike in less then one hour.
I would be pounding on peoples doors at night, and worse, if they were doing to me what they're doing to this poor mom - staying with in legal limits you can still really really make trouble if you're determined.
the hospital could make an offer like "let us pay for a yr and go from there" I bet mom would grab it in a heartbeat- they are monsters for their shabby treatment of a grief stricken mom.
They are strictly concerned with the bottom line when they should be concerned about long term impact. as well as simple kindness to a grieving mom.
How many of you would bring your kids in that place for routine tonsillectomies?
-
Why are we assuming a screw up, versus "operations are risky"
There's no such thing as routine surgery
-
Tonsillectomies bleed, they bleed a lot. Not only immediately post-op, but possibly 10-12 days later when the scab falls off of the surgery site. I have had more than one kid try to make the celestial transfer after having their tonsils removed. Hell, way back when, I was nearly one of them.
That being said, pointing the finger and trying to lay blame for this tragic occurrence is really kind of asinine. We have a young girl who is dead, a distraught family, a hospital who will not perform surgery on the body of the dead girl and all people want to do is lay blame.
I really don't know how long the body will hold out, as long as the heart is beating and O2 is being forcefully delivered, it could take a while. Cut off the artificial respiration and it won't take long, either she breaths or not. Doing a spontaneous respiration trial is not unheard of, but in this case would not be very prudent. If she were breathing on her own, she would also override the vent.
But, the bottom line is pretty simple. People die from routine surgery. In the case of a post op tonsil bleed, it is not that difficult for them to go unnoticed for a while, the child is swallowing the blood so it is possible to bleed a lot more than what it looks like. But, back to the surgery, the child needed it to overcome her tiredness, sleep apnea and incontinence ( http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/17/health/california-girl-brain-dead/ ) so the parents made an informed decision, and signed a consent, and thought everything would be OK. I am sure, somewhere in that consent the issue of bleeding, and even death was covered. It is a tragic situation, but dead is dead, and no amount of time on a vent or in a special facility will change that. I don't think this family will come to that conclusion though, as always in the case of a loved one, you have to hold out hope, no matter how slim.
I hope this case wakes people up, going to a hospital will kill you. There are 99,000 deaths every year from hospital acquired infections. The majority of those are from improper hand hygiene by the staff, and even visitors. If you have to go into a hospital for anything, get out as soon as you can, if you have to stay, hopefully you have someone who can advocate for you. I almost feel sorry for the staff caring for my wife when she is in the hospital, then I realize who I am protecting and don't feel bad at all.
Well, there is my 2 cents worth.
bob
-
Well, it looks like the Schiavo's have gotten involved (http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/01/health/jahi-mcmath-girl-brain-dead/index.html?hpt=hp_c2).
-
"We have done everything to assist the family of Jahi McMath in their quest to take the deceased body of their daughter to another medical facility," hospital spokesman Sam Singer said.
"To date, they have been unwilling or unable to provide a physician to perform the procedures necessary, transportation, or a facility that would accept a dead person on a ventilator. Our hearts and thoughts go out to them in this tragic situation, but the statements being made by their attorney and some family members are misleading and untrue."
This does not sound to me like a Hospital trying to kill a mistake, but rather a place that knows it's futile and isn't going to itself waste resources. I'm not at all surprised there aren't a lot of MD's willing to operate on a dead girl.
I also note that when trying to figure out what happened and who is doing what, the family can tell the press whatever they want, while the providers are extremely limited in what they can lawfully say.
-
Yes, seriously.
Maybe you ought to have read my first post in this thread before hyperventilating at the keyboard. Reading my subsequent posts would also have informed you that I have not determined if there is any fault to be apportioned, but that if anything fault-worthy occurred, it did occur at the hospital. Referring to the hospital and its employees/proxies as "they" is a reasonable shorthand.
Oh, and your faith in hospitals and hospital staff is touching. Yes, many times shinola is just going to happen or there is no way to foresee/prevent some event. OTOH, I have some first-hand experience with some walking future lawsuits-in-scrubs, the sort that would give Millcreek an ulcer. And my wife has prevented destitute folk from meeting their maker due to the actions of less-competent nurses & techs or marginally competent baby docs where she works. But, like I wrote, beggars can't be choosers(1). (Most folk where she works are not paying their way or insured, so the taxpayer foots the bill.) Somebody has to finish last in the class (doc, nurse, tech) and they usually manage to find a job somewhere.
(1) And the cost of affirmative action is not just to passed-over job applicants.
Except that inflamatory statements like "ZOMG THEY KILLED HER!!!" at this point is indeed inflamatory BS. Because at this point theres zero evidence there is any "they" to be found. When someone shows some evidence the hospital, their staff, or anyone medically involved screwed up hold them accountable. Till then it's inflamatory BS.
the hospital would be on the hook for payment, that's why they are trying desperately to finish the kid off.
really why else hold on to the kid? why deny the "dead" kid nutrition?
tough cookies for the hospital, parents handed them a kid for a routine operation and they just get away with "oop's she's dead, stop pestering us with your silly demands peasant"
Perhaps because it's unethical to perform surgery on a dead body? Of course it's more likely the evil dirty bastards running the hospital want the girl dead to cover up a screwup (that would likely easilly be found in an autopsy) than the girl was simply the unfortunate next in line to die in post op from a well understood complication. There is no such thing as a risk free surgery.
-
Except that inflamatory statements like "ZOMG THEY KILLED HER!!!" at this point is indeed inflamatory BS. Because at this point theres zero evidence there is any "they" to be found. When someone shows some evidence the hospital, their staff, or anyone medically involved screwed up hold them accountable. Till then it's inflamatory BS.
So? Where have I accused the hospital of killing her?
And there is a "they." "They" being the hospital and staff as referred to by one or more posters in this thread. Pronouns for the win.
-
So? Where have I accused the hospital of killing her?
And there is a "they." "They" being the hospital and staff as referred to by one or more posters in this thread. Pronouns for the win.
However:
1) "They" did not operate on her, a surgeon operated on her. That surgeon may or may not be an employee of the hospital but, most likely, he is not.
2) It is not been established as yet that anyone "killed" the child. As has been pointed out, all surgeries carry risks. It is possible that everyone did everything correctly, and that the kid died anyway. I can't see any way in which that equates to "they killed the kid." And it still doesn't answer the question of who "they" is. The head of the housekeeping department is a hospital employee. Is he/she part of "they"? The dietician is an employee of the hospital. Is he/she part of "they"? If so, what contribution did those individuals make to "killing" the kid? If not, since "they" then does not include all employees of the hospital, which employees constitute "they"?
-
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/28/mother-girl-at-center-debate-over-brain-death-dies.html
In an ironic twist, Jahi McMath died this week from complications of surgery. Recall it was complications of surgery that put her into brain death in the first place.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/28/mother-girl-at-center-debate-over-brain-death-dies.html
In an ironic twist, Jahi McMath died this week from complications of surgery. Recall it was complications of surgery that put her into brain death in the first place.
She may have had some sort of an idiosyncratic reaction to something involved in surgeries, making them more risky for her. Resulting in her brain death in the first surgery, and the final death with another.
As such, I wouldn't consider it ironic at all.
-
Unfortunately even the most routine surgery always has the ultimate risk...
Too true. But often times that is not really internalized and understood until the worst (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=19017.0) happens.
-
She may have had some sort of an idiosyncratic reaction to something involved in surgeries, making them more risky for her. Resulting in her brain death in the first surgery, and the final death with another.
As such, I wouldn't consider it ironic at all.
The irony is that she couldn't have died this week, because a coroner in California declared her dead several years ago. Her mother was still trying to have that declaration reversed. It would appear that the reversal petition is now mooted, but the mother may choose to continue pursuing it anyway due to ... whatever. Just to prove her point, perhaps.
-
Well, I think a lesson for us is- if you don't have a living will, make one as soon as possible so your relatives don't have to make awful decisions like this.
-
The irony is that she couldn't have died this week, because a coroner in California declared her dead several years ago. Her mother was still trying to have that declaration reversed. It would appear that the reversal petition is now mooted, but the mother may choose to continue pursuing it anyway due to ... whatever. Just to prove her point, perhaps.
There's a reason I specified brain death and final death. Legal death would be what you're talking about. Her legally having died last year is fine with me. I track by brain/personality, not body.