Jahi McMath back in the news - Part 2

[AmazonGrace]

I don't believe a pregnancy needs that much hormonal input from the mother's brain after it's well underway. The placenta produces hormones that keep up the pregnancy, and there have been healthy babies born out of brain dead mothers. 

I think in that case the fetus probably got damaged  by the lack of oxygen when the mother got the cardiac arrest that eventually lead to her brain death.

[herpderp]

Yes, but as far as I know those mothers didn't become brain dead until the fetuses were pretty much fully-formed. They only had to sustain the mothers' bodies for a few extra weeks to improve the babies' viability. In this case, the fetus was only four months old, and they were planning to keep the mother on the ventilator for the remaining five months, until she delivered "naturally." There's no way in hell that would have worked. Such a huge amount of finely-tuned development occurs in that time, that it could never happen in a dead body. Not to mention the fetus was already dead from lack of oxygen, anyway. 

[AmazonGrace]

No it wasn't, it had a heartbeat.

[Mercer]

At risk of sounding cynical, the only evidence I've seen them offer that Jahi is even still breathing on a ventilator is their word, some old scans, some pictures that could have been taken at any time and where she is wearing heavy makeup and/or strategically covered, and some pictures of body parts like hands and feet that could be anyone.  

I can't help but wonder if Jahi was quietly buried awhile ago, and they're just going to milk claiming she's still "alive" for as long as they can continue to grift money from their supporters.

[Mitz_]

Just when we thought this couldn't get any more absurd...Jahi Mcmath's family Files a civil rights lawsuit in Federal court. 

"Two years ago Jahi McMath was pronounced dead. Despite overwhelming evidence that Jahi McMath does not meet the criteria established under California law for brain death, the State of California and County of Alameda have refused to acknowledge Jahi's humanity and continue to deprive her of the civil rights provided to all living persons under the U.S. Constitution and Federal law. "

Full article by lawyer Chris Dolan:

http://www.cbdlaw.com/blog/2015/12/federal-lawsuit-filed-to-deem-jahi-mcmath-alive.shtml

 

[Mercer]

This may be a stupid question, but after reading the article I still don't understand: even if she is alive, which she is not, exactly what "civil rights" is Jahi being deprived of?  What rights would she actually be able to exercise in her condition?

[Whoosh]

21 minutes ago, Mercer said:

This may be a stupid question, but after reading the article I still don't understand: even if she is alive, which she is not, exactly what "civil rights" is Jahi being deprived of?  What rights would she actually be able to exercise in her condition?

I don't have the technical language to use here (and it may well not exist), but I think the reasoning is that even people who are not capable of making decisions or acting on their own behalf have basic fundamental rights.  When a person is not capable of acting on their own behalf, that power is passed to next of kin (one major reason why a civil union is not and will never be interchangeable with a marriage unless lots of laws change).  I don't know if there has ever been a big court case on the issue, but I am pretty sure that just about all legal professionals would agree that the government pronouncing a living person dead against their will (or against the will of the person legally responsible for that type of decision) is some type of major violation of a fundamental right.  In fact, this may be one of the few things I would actually think most legal professionals would agree on.

Of course, if she is not a living person, that argument has no merit.  

[Chowder Head]

Everytime this topic come to the top of the page I click and hope she has finally been put to rest.

[Mitz_]

2 hours ago, Whoosh said:

I don't have the technical language to use here (and it may well not exist), but I think the reasoning is that even people who are not capable of making decisions or acting on their own behalf have basic fundamental rights.  When a person is not capable of acting on their own behalf, that power is passed to next of kin (one major reason why a civil union is not and will never be interchangeable with a marriage unless lots of laws change).  I don't know if there has ever been a big court case on the issue, but I am pretty sure that just about all legal professionals would agree that the government pronouncing a living person dead against their will (or against the will of the person legally responsible for that type of decision) is some type of major violation of a fundamental right.  In fact, this may be one of the few things I would actually think most legal professionals would agree on.

Of course, if she is not a living person, that argument has no merit. 

It may help you to know what they want. Two things.,..They want to make the death certificate go away so that they can sue for more money than the $250.000 cap that they could sue for in a wrongful death suit and they want to move Jahi back to California. The family is from Oakland Ca but they are living in New Jersey because in NJ Medicaid will pay for Jahi to be kept on a respirator. California does not give medicAid to dead people.   So,  in this civil rights suit  they are saying that Jahi can't get the government benefits  she deserves  because of the whole thing  about being declared dead. The government didn't declare Jahi  dead,  doctors in a hospital did that. People don't get to decide  if their loved one  is dead  or not ...except in New Jersey where you can declare religious  or moral objection.  

The the suits are all about money. The civil rights suit is just a new angle. 

3 hours ago, Mercer said:

This may be a stupid question, but after reading the article I still don't understand: even if she is alive, which she is not, exactly what "civil rights" is Jahi being deprived of?  What rights would she actually be able to exercise in her condition?

 

[Whoosh]

8 minutes ago, Mitz_ said:

It may help you to know what they want. Two things.,..They want to make the death certificate go away so that they can sue for more money than the $250.000 cap that they could sue for in a wrongful death suit and they want to move Jahi back to California. The family is from Oakland Ca but they are living in New Jersey because in NJ Medicaid will pay for Jahi to be kept on a respirator. California does not give medicAid to dead people.   So,  in this civil rights suit  they are saying that Jahi can't get the government benefits  she deserves  because of the whole thing  about being declared dead. The government didn't declare Jahi  dead,  doctors in a hospital did that. People don't get to decide  if their loved one  is dead  or not ...except in New Jersey where you can declare religious  or moral objection.  

The the suits are all about money. The civil rights suit is just a new angle. 

 

Yeah - I threw the government part in there as I do think this case about benefits, but in this case a doctor would be the one to make the declaration.  In very odd cases, sometimes family members of people who have gone missing want the person declared dead for various reasons and that is a governmental decision I believe.  Obviously, a dead person has very limited (or no) legal rights so it can impact all kinds of things to be declared dead when you are not.

Of course, if you ARE dead...

[Buzzard]

20 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

Yeah - I threw the government part in there as I do think this case about benefits, but in this case a doctor would be the one to make the declaration.  In very odd cases, sometimes family members of people who have gone missing want the person declared dead for various reasons and that is a governmental decision I believe.  Obviously, a dead person has very limited (or no) legal rights so it can impact all kinds of things to be declared dead when you are not.

Of course, if you ARE dead...

Thats just it... the "government" hasnt deprived her of anything.  She was declared dead by lay doctors.  There wasnt an autopsy because THEY PREVENTED IT.  The only government action taken is the issuance of a death certificate.  The last time I checked free ventilator wasnt a civil right so... 

[Whoosh]

15 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

Thats just it... the "government" hasnt deprived her of anything.  She was declared dead by lay doctors.  There wasnt an autopsy because THEY PREVENTED IT.  The only government action taken is the issuance of a death certificate.  The last time I checked free ventilator wasnt a civil right so... 

I totally agree, but what the parents are saying is that the doctor was wrong and therefore the government should not recognize the declaration of death and therefore should not be able to issue a death certificate, stop benefits, etc.  I personally don't agree that the Dr. is wrong in this particular case at all, but that's the case.  The case is really about what "alive" or "independently living" means and who decides - which should prick everyone's ears for potential implications for the abortion issue among other things.

[Buzzard]

They are more than welcome to submit her to the medical examiner and allow them to make a determination of whether she is alive or not.  They wont do that, though, because she's DEAD. 

[Whoosh]

I totally agree that the determination that this poor child is indeed dead is correct.  This family is really toying with a huge can of worms here in terms of what may be brought up in various arguments from both sides should the legal battle continue.  It seems quite possible that the overall outcome will be something far less than ideal.  I can see this almost forcing the courts to take large steps that tie the hands of doctors and states by necessitating some kind of federal and/or stringent rules for when one must and can not declare death.  (I know some of this already exists, not sure how much further this issue should be pushed).  Of course, it seems likely those rules would need to cover a vast range of situations and circumstances and would likely need to be somewhat routinely revised as the field of medicine advances.  Alternately, (and I can't think of a respectful way of phrasing this) maybe it would be some type of rule like "99 out of 100 doctors agree".  Maybe these questions need to be asked and maybe there are cases where I would feel the family would be right to push the issue - for me this is just not that case.  This case is just tragic and horrid.

ETA - state hopping doesn't seem like it should be an option.  

[Jingerbread]

Let's say by some chance Jahi is mentally aware in her head.  Wouldn't it be literally hell to be trapped in your head unable to communicate with anyone, eat, drink, or go do anything?  It would be like being in a sound-proof box so cramped that you can't even dance to pass the time, and where you don't even get food or water because it's going into your body from a tube.

But she's not alive.  This is just desecration of a corse and playing dress-up and forcing siblings to do the same thing.  If Jahi was alive, her mother should be inviting any doctor who wants to examine her into the room to see.

[Mitz_]

14 hours ago, Whoosh said:

I totally agree that the determination that this poor child is indeed dead is correct.  This family is really toying with a huge can of worms here in terms of what may be brought up in various arguments from both sides should the legal battle continue.  It seems quite possible that the overall outcome will be something far less than ideal.  I can see this almost forcing the courts to take large steps that tie the hands of doctors and states by necessitating some kind of federal and/or stringent rules for when one must and can not declare death.  (I know some of this already exists, not sure how much further this issue should be pushed).  Of course, it seems likely those rules would need to cover a vast range of situations and circumstances and would likely need to be somewhat routinely revised as the field of medicine advances.  Alternately, (and I can't think of a respectful way of phrasing this) maybe it would be some type of rule like "99 out of 100 doctors agree".  Maybe these questions need to be asked and maybe there are cases where I would feel the family would be right to push the issue - for me this is just not that case.  This case is just tragic and horrid.

ETA - state hopping doesn't seem like it should be an option.  

Yes, we already have the UDDA and doctors and the hospitals they work in are protected when the decide to,remove life support after a declaration of brain death but it's starting to look like we might need some new legislature on this issue. For one thing, the term "brain death probably needs to be tossed out. Doctors and hospitals need to educate themselves on how to deal with families of brain dead patients.

Brain death is a man made condition. Before technology made it possible to keep a body functioning after the brain died that term and condition didn't exist , it was just death.  There is a lot of confusion about what brain death is and isn't and trashy news sites on the internet just luuuuv to exploit stories about coma victims and call it brain death, perpetuating the ignorance. Brain death has become a right to life issue and a popular theme for Christian extremists with an agenda to push. And then, obviously, we have the scammers and greed mongrels. This is a very dangerous  issue!  We do not need a bunch of dead people "living" legit on  Social Security Disability  (SSDI) and straining our medical  system.  It's scary  that there are doctors like Allen Shewmom  trying to figure out how to keep people brain dead people going ...and getting damn good at it!

It has always been interesting to me that Nailah Winkfield claims that her daughter is alive but she says that she isn't in pain. How would she know if she is in pain or not if she thinks Jahi is aware? It's just too convenient to say that. I don't believe that family is really fighting for their daughter, their fight is far less honorable. 

[Buzzard]

I cant believe that anyone who is alive and has been unable to move, breathe, open their eyes, or communicate in any form for almost 2 years isnt in pain.  To me, that sounds like torture.

[AmazonGrace]

Well, the nervous connections that transfer pain to the brain go through the brainstem and her brainstem is destroyed.

[Buzzard]

1 minute ago, AmazonGrace said:

Well, the nervous connections that transfer pain to the brain go through the brainstem and her brainstem is destroyed.

right, because shes dead! But if she wasnt dead it would be living hell

[AmazonGrace]

Yeah if she was locked in such immobile and helpless state it would be quite dreadful, if her brain was able to process her own situation, whether she had pain or not. 

[Rachel333]

There is a man who was in that situation once, Martin Pistorius. He wasn't on a ventilator but he had no control over his body and no one realized he was still aware. He writes about being put in front of a tv playing Barney all day and how now he still has a PTSD-like reaction to Barney. He did eventually manage to get people to realize he was still aware and he regained some function. He's now married and has written a book about his experience called Ghost Boy.

[Jingerbread]

18 hours ago, Rachel333 said:

There is a man who was in that situation once, Martin Pistorius. He wasn't on a ventilator but he had no control over his body and no one realized he was still aware. He writes about being put in front of a tv playing Barney all day and how now he still has a PTSD-like reaction to Barney. He did eventually manage to get people to realize he was still aware and he regained some function. He's now married and has written a book about his experience called Ghost Boy.

I remember this being on NPR.  He had brain activity, and one day his mom said she wished he could just die.  How hard must it be to wish your brain-alive child could die because there's no way they could be happy?

[Granwych]

Too bad the family doesn't let Ben Carson examine Jahi.  Then again, considering some of his campaign utterances, maybe not.

[Gossamer1]

I wish they would just let her go already. So sad.

Summary of link - the family filed a suit in federal court to have her death certificate reversed. The family want to move back to CA. If California considers her dead then she doesn't qualify for the services she needs. 

http://www.nj.com/somerset/index.ssf/2016/01/family_of_brain_dead_girl_sue_to_change_death_cert.html#incart_river_mobile_home

[cindyluvs24]

Dr. Eck  - a medical doctor mind you, believes that Obamacare is a terrible gov't intrusion into our lives and that a market approach to healthcare is better.   [For comparison purposes:  Dr. Eck ran for Congress (and lost) for the seat left by Rush Holt, a director of Princeton's Plasma Physics Laboratory who went back his old job. ]  Yet her bills for Jahi's care are being paid thru Medicaid or one of NJ's programs supported by the taxpayers.  So, perhaps Dr. Eck would like to use a market approach to Jahi's care and let Nailah pay her with one of her new purses?

* I live in NJ and take the stupid personally.