The family was not attempting to force the hospital to keep her on the machines forever. The family wanted to move her to someplace which would take her. So, it is a big win for the family. I think the hospital released her to the coroner who released the body to the family - getting the tubes put in was the point of contention.
I have not seen any mention of who pays for what, but I suspect since this is now a religious issue they can find people to pay for it.
I am not getting why this is even news or an issue. There is no right to keep a corpse plugged into machines. The parents should be allowed to be there as things are unplugged if they desire and they can sa what they want done with the body. Their grief should be respected and treated sensitively.
You and I, by way of the state paying for it, or of insurance paying for it, of the hospital being stiffed and the costs buried in other fees passed on to you and me, should not be paying for the family wanting to keep their child’s corpse warm. It would even be unethical for the hospital to bill for the ICU care of a corpse.
From what’s already been reported, the hospital already agreed to this from the beginning. In fact, it’s in the OP!
It appears they really did want the court to force the hospital to keep her body on machines and, failing that, they declared victory anyway.
I have no idea of what they said in private. In public, however, the hospital is pretty much saying “the kid is dead, get her to the coroner.”
BTW, this might explain some of the mother’s attitude:
I’m strongly for opt-out (instead of opt-in) organ donation. In the threads we’ve had about it, at least some people were worried that doctors would encourage patients with useful organs to die. I don’t think they would - but cases like this are not going to help.
It would be so much easier if the hospital had quickly enabled the transfer, so when the parents finally admitted that the girl was dead it would be somewhere else.
The issue wasn’t allowing her to be moved. It was doing the procedure to keep her breathing and her heart beating when she was moved. That the hospital did not want to do. Plus, it was an issue of keeping her on the machines while the parents found a place to move her to. The way it played out the hospital officially transferred her to the coroner.
You may be right - in fact I think you are. But put yourself in the heads of the parents. Doesn’t it sound like the hospital wants to make their daughter’s heart stop beating because she is too expensive to keep “alive?” Don’t you think this plays into every stereotype of the heartless doctor who wants to bury his mistakes?
Which they won’t find, as no licensed care facility is going to offer medical services to a corpse. It would be unethical to do so. And no insurance company or government program is going to pay for such “treatment,” either.
Cadavers don’t need or benefit from medical care. No matter how the family twists and turns in their denial-driven rationalizations, that is the bottom line.
As said the parents’ grief … and even anger and paranoia … should be treated with respect and as much sensitivity as possible. Keeping the child’s corpse warm, doing procedures on the corpse to possibly allow it to stay warm a little bit longer, is neither respect nor sensitivity. It’s a hospital, not the Bates Motel.
These cases are always very sad and they’re not much fun to argue about. But no matter how much sympathy you have for families in cases like this, it becomes a lot harder to sympathize when they demand other people do things that are unreasonable or impossible or attack people who tell them the truth. The Schiavo situation played out exactly the same way.
I haven’t followed this case, but if she’s been brain dead for almost a month, is that even an option at this point? I thought organ donation had to be done quickly following brain death.
That sounds an awful lot like disregarding their ethics and knowledge in an attempt to humor the family.
This is the thing about people who buy into stereotypes or behave irrationally: they will always find something to justify their views. As soon as the hospital displeased a group of hardliners, the hardliners were going to blame the hospital for whatever happened. It always works that way.
Not at all. Ignoring the damn politicians, that was a case where those without medical power fighting against her husband who had it, with the hospital caught in the middle. If this girl’s grandparents wanted to keep her alive and her parents wanted to pull the plug, I’d definitely go with the parents. At least California politicians have butted out.
I’m not talking about her - she is way too far gone. I’m talking about people arguing against opt out organ donation, who might use this case as an example of the hospital acting like vultures. The hospital isn’t doing that, but I was surprised at the level of opposition to opt out donation which is, pardon the expression, a no brainer.
Assuming that no person in better shape is being denied care because of this, I don’t see the ethical quandry. No one is asking the hospital to say that the girl is anything but what she is. A procedure on a dead person might be inefficient, but it is hardly unethical - assuming that those with the rights to give permission agree, of course. Grave robbing is unethical, operating on cadavers is not.
These people did not go into this situation hating doctors. They handed their daughter over to them, remember. If they come out of it hating doctors, the doctors must bear some of the blame.
I’ve seen data indicating that the number of malpractice suits against a doctor is inversely correlated with the doctor’s connection to patients. A doctor seeming cold and aloof will get sued more often than a less competent but friendlier doctor. The hospital is clearly medically correct, and logically correct, and scientifically correct, but that doesn’t help here.
Remember Tylenol? J&J was innocent. Totally innocent. Where do you think they’d be today if they stood on principles?
Moot point since they found someone. Insurance and government should not pay, I agree, but there is enough religious money sloshing around out there that I doubt that will be a problem either. And it seems that it won’t be long until even they admit she is gone.
Actually it’s not at all clear that they have. The family is claiming a facility in New York State is willing to take their child’s body - but said facility seems to be in the planning stages, and the organizer is a former hairdresser. It’s not even clear if the place will ever open. God knows where the body is now.
Why? You seem to assume that all families respond well to a compassionate approach even when the medical professionals are telling them something they absolutely do not want to hear. That is simply not the case.
Do you actually have any experience working with patients and their families?
Call me an idiot, but I didn’t know the difference between a PVS like Terri Schiavo’s and Jahi’s current state until now. Lots of great ignorance warriors in this thread, thanks for being nice about it.
You’re welcome. The popular press throws the term “brain dead” around pretty casually, often using it when discussing patients who are not in fact brain dead but instead profoundly brain injured, so it’s no wonder so many people are confused in this case.
Here’s a very informative court deposition regarding how Jahi’s body is slowly deteriorating as a result of her brain’s death. Warning: it’s rather graphic.
So what you are saying is that zombies won’t work, at least beyond the first few minutes. Is it true what I have read, that early anatomists could not study the structure of the brain because it starts breaking down so soon after death?
Thank you.
Or to put it bluntly, she’s basically a rotting corpse on life support. Jesus Christ, what a nightmare for everyone involved. Surely there has to be some obvious physical sign her parents can see.
Geez. Spoiled for icky detail from the statement. The lining of the intestines is beginning to slough out, and the doctor cited that as one reason that it’s not a good idea to insert a feeding tube and give liquid nutrition. 
I don’t think the parents will believe that what’s happening is normal. They’re already blaming the hospital for not putting in the tubes they wanted, for not doing more, etc. I can’t imagine the guilt they’re feeling for pushing her into getting this surgery done, but taking it out on the hospital and staff won’t do any good.
The brain does autolyse fairly quickly after death, yes. The process can be slowed significantly by refrigeration, but of course early anatomists didn’t have that, and they were generally dissecting people who had been dead for several days. Even a fresh brain is soft; after several days post-mortem, it turns into mush as soon as you start to handle it.
I’m not trying to generalize. I’m sure most patients would have admitted the obvious. However, no matter what the best approach is in general, it sure as hell didn’t work here, did it?
I have no evidence that the doctors were not compassionate at the beginning. But the hospital appeared to try to be arguing some very highly religious people out of their position using logic. That never works.
I don’t know how complex putting a feeding tube in is, but it doesn’t seem to be state of the art. If the parents were demanding a very expensive resource intensive procedure, I’d be all for the hospital refusing. What I’m hearing is “we tell you she’s dead, we don’t do procedures on dead people.” Is there anything more to this that I’m not seeing?