If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SFGate)   Dead girl's condition improving, says lawyer   (sfgate.com) divider line 313
    More: Asinine, Jahi McMath, Arden McMath, feeding tube  
•       •       •

11773 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jan 2014 at 2:09 PM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



313 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-10 07:29:01 AM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: There have been cases where people who were thought to be brain dead were successfully resuscitated and recalled things said around them that a brain dead person should not have been able to hear.


Yes, but they were misdiagnosed. They were in a deep coma, not brain dead. This child has been examined by six experts, as well as having every test and scan that it is possible to have. There has been zero blood flow to her brain for a month. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Not a trickle. Her brain tissue, all of it, including every bit of her brain stem, is dead. Done. Decomposing. If you read the blog I linked upthread, you'll see that at this point it has liquefied and this brain soup is leaking out of her skull and down her spinal column.

There is nothing left to see or hear or feel or think. Nothing. No brain. Nothing will ever come back. It's gone. She's gone.

Nowhere. Never. Ever. Has a person recovered from brain death. Such a thing has never happened. Misdiagnosis happens, yes. I would get a second opinion, maybe a third, were it my child. She's had six and every test there is to have. This is not that. She is dead. Gone. Never coming back. There is no doubt. There is no hope. Nothing.
 
2014-01-10 07:33:44 AM  

namegoeshere: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: There have been cases where people who were thought to be brain dead were successfully resuscitated and recalled things said around them that a brain dead person should not have been able to hear.

Yes, but they were misdiagnosed. They were in a deep coma, not brain dead. This child has been examined by six experts, as well as having every test and scan that it is possible to have. There has been zero blood flow to her brain for a month. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Not a trickle. Her brain tissue, all of it, including every bit of her brain stem, is dead. Done. Decomposing. If you read the blog I linked upthread, you'll see that at this point it has liquefied and this brain soup is leaking out of her skull and down her spinal column.

There is nothing left to see or hear or feel or think. Nothing. No brain. Nothing will ever come back. It's gone. She's gone.

Nowhere. Never. Ever. Has a person recovered from brain death. Such a thing has never happened. Misdiagnosis happens, yes. I would get a second opinion, maybe a third, were it my child. She's had six and every test there is to have. This is not that. She is dead. Gone. Never coming back. There is no doubt. There is no hope. Nothing.


You did better than I would have.. I seriously think some people won't be convinced until there is a Liveleak video of maggots eating out her eye sockets.
 
2014-01-10 12:03:15 PM  
 
2014-01-10 12:12:30 PM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: There have been cases where people who were thought to be brain dead were successfully resuscitated and recalled things said around them that a brain dead person should not have been able to hear.


What would you care to wager on the outcome of this?
 
2014-01-10 01:12:12 PM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: There have been cases where people who were thought to be brain dead were successfully resuscitated and recalled things said around them that a brain dead person should not have been able to hear.


I think you are confusing total brain stem death with coma.
 
2014-01-10 01:18:53 PM  

BizarreMan: Compare and contrast Jahi McMath with Marlise Munoz


1) Marlise is not being kept alive. Her corpse is being kept warm in an attempt to keep the fetus alive to viability. No one is under any misconceptions that she herself will be alive at the end of it.

2) The family is completely realistic about the outcome. They understand that the mother has died. They do not believe the baby to be viable even if the mother's blood circulates for another ten weeks without too many body parts falling off. They want corpse support removed.

3) The state is being ignorant about the baby's chance of survival. But hey, Texas. Not known for rational thought where science is concerned.

So basically, apples and oranges except that they are both warm corpses.
 
2014-01-10 01:25:09 PM  
Also, this f*cking idiotic, WRONG headline:

Marlise Munoz, Brain-Dead Texan Woman, Kept Alive To Incubate Unborn Baby

is a HUGE part of the problem. She is not being kept alive. She is dead. Brain dead is dead. Her organs are being kept functioning artificially. She's dead.

Ignorant, irresponsible media. Spreading ignorance.
 
2014-01-10 01:47:07 PM  

namegoeshere: 2) The family is completely realistic about the outcome. They understand that the mother has died. They do not believe the baby to be viable even if the mother's blood circulates for another ten weeks without too many body parts falling off. They want corpse support removed.


They (who is they anyway?) believe is where I had to stop. The babys heart didn't stop and there are very simple and non-invasive methods nowadays to tell them what's going on in there. Belief is not required. The article was also very slim on some critical details like is her body actually deteriorating the same way Jahi's is? One had serious neck trauma with significant blood loss, the other had an embolism that caused the heart to stop. These things can have some pretty different physical effects on the body.

Right now it sounds to me like a bit of both corpse support and life support (by proxy) combined.

Lastly the mother apparently wanted the baby to live while she was still alive (14 weeks is usually beyond the point where an unwanted pregnancy is terminated and I'm willing to bet that she had been to see her OBGYN at least once since the pregnancy started to see that the baby was ok). Only the father is the one saying that she wanted the baby to die if she ended up in the condition that she is in and he has no proof of that. The father has a self-interest in ending the pregnancy and, like it or not, in every state in the union a father cannot legally terminate a pregnancy on his own to serve his own self interests, even if it is known for a fact that the baby is going to be born with some sort of defect and thus he doesn't want to support it he still has no say in the matter. This law is just an extension of that set of laws in that the state has taken over power of attorney for the mother when this type of situation comes up (which lets face it, is rare as it is).

Is that kind of messed up? Yes it is, but so is the entire situation.
 
2014-01-10 01:53:57 PM  

styckx: Brain fart.. Was thinking NAACP and ACLU came out..


Same questions continue to apply.
 
2014-01-10 01:55:14 PM  

Bunny Deville: Just... what the hell were they thinking giving the child a hamburger?


The kid was already obese. Clearly saying "no" wasn't a strength of the parents.
 
2014-01-10 02:23:19 PM  

Radioactive Ass: They (who is they anyway?) believe is where I had to stop. The babys heart didn't stop and there are very simple and non-invasive methods nowadays to tell them what's going on in there.


They is the family. Viable means not only alive at this minute, but survivable to live birth and beyond. The baby's heart is beating, yes. But so is the mother's, and she is dead. What is in question is the damage that was done to the baby during the mother's death. The fetus could have been deprived of oxygen for as long as an hour. The mother was not discovered immediately. The damage that was done in whatever time it was without oxygen is not yet known.

Radioactive Ass: The article was also very slim on some critical details


Here are some more. If you google, you'll find lots and lots more.

Link
Link
Link

Lastly the mother apparently wanted the baby to live while she was still alive (14 weeks is usually beyond the point where an unwanted pregnancy is terminated and I'm willing to bet that she had been to see her OBGYN at least once since the pregnancy started to see that the baby was ok). Only the father is the one saying that she wanted the baby to die if she ended up in the condition that she is in and he has no proof of that. The father has a self-interest in ending the pregnancy and, like it or not, in every state in the union a father cannot legally terminate a pregnancy on his own to serve his own self interests, even if it is known for a fact that the baby is going to be born with some sort of defect and thus he doesn't want to support it he still has no say in the matter. This law is just an extension of that set of laws in that the state has taken over power of attorney for the mother when this type of situation comes up (which lets face it, is rare as it is).

We do not only have the father's word. She was very clear about her end of life wishes not just with him but with her parents as well. The extended family is in agreement that support should end. Whether a father can legally terminate a pregnancy is irrelevant. The father would not be terminating a pregnancy. Doctors would not be terminating the pregnancy. No one would be terminating the pregnancy. The pregnancy would terminate naturally.

Texas law states that a pregnant woman may not be removed from life sustaining treatment. This is not applicable in this case because there is not a pregnant woman on life sustaining treatment. Life sustaining treatment allows a live person to continue being alive by the use of external devices. This woman is dead. The law says nothing about supporting a dead body in an attempt to incubate a baby. From my last link:

 But critics say the hospital may not be following the letter of the law, which states that "life-sustaining treatment" must be given to a pregnant patient; if she is brain-dead (versus in a coma or vegetative state), she is technically not alive.
As a medical ethics expert tells the Times: "The Texas Legislature can't require doctors to do the impossible and try to treat someone who's dead."
 
2014-01-10 05:56:36 PM  

Gyrfalcon: RoyFokker'sGhost: Also, IANAL, but from what i've heard, the $250K cap is only for 'potential earning' damages; emotional damages and punitive fees are still wide open.

You are correct. Punitive damages can go through the roof. And there's a potential for loss of consortium here, or whatever the equivalent is for children.


I didn't think California allowed loss-of-consortium claims made by parents for children.  Am I wrong?
 
2014-01-10 07:47:35 PM  

sovietski: Lachwen: I had a friend back in high school who was hit by a car.  After a day and a half they determined that there was blood actively flowing to less than a third of his brain.  His parents - god, his poor parents - had a long talk with the doctors about not only what his chances of survival were, but what, exactly, constituted "survival" in his case.  And at the end of that talk, they said their goodbyes, ordered the cessation of life support, and signed the papers to donate his organs.

Years later, I heard them explain their reasoning: that even though there was a chance that he would ultimately remain physically (and legally) alive, the damage to his brain was so extensive that the bright, ephemeral thing that made Charles  Charles was already gone.  Their son was not defined by his body, but by his sense of humor, his kindness, his curiosity, his dedication and honesty.  The body could have lived on, but the essence of their son was dead.

He was their only child.

/talking about Charles always kicks up the dust

An invisible ninja is chopping onions in my vicinity. So very sorry about your friend, but your second paragraph was very well-said and touching.

Couldn't imagine losing either (or both) of my children. You would have a hard time convincing me that life was worth living.

/has a big sad


I don't know how his parents made it through that.  I really don't.  When I saw them at the funeral...I couldn't tell if I was crying harder for Charles or for them.  They had all of hell in their eyes.

And that's why I refuse to scream at the family, even on a random board on the internet that they're unlikely to read.  They may be deluded and in denial so deep they'll probably never come out, but they're also going through a kind of emotional torture that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.  I won't add any extra vitriol to that.
 
Displayed 13 of 313 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report