Anne Heche - 53 - dies after fiery car crash in Los Angeles August 5 2022

[Kudzuu]

Because I don't know the answer. Sometimes it's okay when a person learns something during a discussion here.

I'm guessing here so my opinion is when she was declared legally dead. That will be the time of death.

It matters in case an estate is left to another person. Wife leaves everything to husband. Husband leaves everything to wife. They have children from a previous marriage. Whoever predeceases the other determines who inherits. Say wife and husband die in the same disaster and wife died 2 minutes earlier than husband. Husband's heirs inherit. It does happen.

Because I don't know the answer. Sometimes it's okay when a person learns something during a discussion here.

 

[GatorFL]

Which is why i continue to find the tabloid reports of death then patting themselves on the back by claiming brain dead meets the definition of dead, offensive.

They could have respected the deceased and her family and waited until the body was released instead of forcing her son to make a statement just so they could profit further on someone else’s tragedy.

Pretty interesting reading at this link: https://www.lifesharing.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/castatelaw.pdf

All the reporting she is dead is consistent with California law.

 

[Charlot123]

If she had sepsis her organs would not be suitable for donation. So that's not it.

You are right; I missed that. There are so many reasons for organs to not be suitable for donations; I don’t want to discuss it all here. Suffice it to say, I had to Google some modern rules for donation, and was surprised; but perhaps, progress in modern medicine, on one hand, and scarcity of organs, on the other, have amended the rules.
On a different topic, remembering what Anne wrote and said about herself, she was brutally honest. Never pretended to be better than she was. Great quality, and very rare.

 

[Mamastill]

It’s a shame you have that attitude, but it’s yours to have. Not saying what she did was in any way good, and she could have killed other people. What’s resulted is someone dying in a horrible way, and two boys losing their mother. For me personally that’s more than worthy of sympathy.

Agree. May she rest peacefully.

 

[Charlot123]

So basically, her death certificate has been issued? I've never seen so much coverage announcing a person is brain dead. It's unfamiliar to me.

It seems to me that by definition, as long as organs can be harvested, is still “clinical death”, not “biological death”. While I understand the irrelevance of it, Issuing the certificate before biological death is a huge, new issue. It certainly needs to be discussed. I can see the reason for it, here, but it is a very shaky ground.

 

[ktm44]

Pretty interesting reading at this link: https://www.lifesharing.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/castatelaw.pdf

All the reporting she is dead is consistent with California law.

Yes, I’ve read various articles indicating that she meets the legal requirements.

I’m not a fan of tabloids and still feel they didn’t need to push the ‘inside source’ angle and force her son into making a statement.

I will be just as annoyed when the start speculating on organ recipients.

I’m just one of those people that believe hospitals should maintain confidentiality and discretion.

 

[GatorFL]

Yes, I’ve read various articles indicating that she meets the legal requirements.

I’m not a fan of tabloids and still feel they didn’t need to push the ‘inside source’ angle and force her son into making a statement.

I will be just as annoyed when the start speculating on organ recipients.

I’m just one of those people that believe hospitals should maintain confidentiality and discretion.

The death statement came from her friend IIRC, not the hospital.

 

[ktm44]

The death statement came from her friend IIRC, not the hospital.

I have seen articles quoting an unnamed friend, an unnamed rep and others quoting unnamed sources at the hospital.

Under these circumstances, I find if someone is qualified to speak, they should be qualified enough to give their name.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

In that helicopter shot where she sat up on the gurney between being extracted and put in the ambulance - It appeared that a good portion of her clothing was still intact and unburned. I could see she had her shoes on, was wearing jeans (at least below the knees) and her tank top was still in one piece. Also - Her hair appeared to have avoided scorching. IMO - Multiple organ failure would've been due to damage inflicted by the steering column more than from extensive burns.
I have seen the term "anoxic brain injury" in various reports. This is something I've never heard of before. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong - but this is very rare in fatal smoke inhalation cases. Also dug around and found that it may result from breathing steam during a fire - basically drowning on dry land. Is it possible this may have the case here? From inhaling steam sloughing off from the hot engine then fire directly after the crash? Water, coolant, windshield wiper fluid... a number of things could've vaporized and created a situation where she was oxygen starved.

Anoxic brain injury just means lack of oxygen to the brain. It can happen for any number of reasons, not necessarily from a burn. What it says to me is that she coded at some point (aka went into cardiac arrest). Meaning, she died and was resuscitated. This happens.

To explain in a bit more detail, the heart pumps our blood and it circulates throughout our body, insuring every organ gets blood flow and with it, oxygen. If someone's heart stops, for any reason, you lose that circulation (and a pulse since that's all a pulse is). When organs don't get blood/oxygen after several minutes, they become damaged and eventually, they die.

Unfortunately, if it takes too long to re-gain a pulse, your brain is deprived of blood flow/oxygen and it dies. This is what's called an anoxic brain injury.

Usually, we hear the term in a victim who drowned. We may also hear it from stroke victims. Their heart may not have stopped, but blood didn't get to an area (or areas) of the brain due to a clot.

We don't really know what caused anoxic brain injury in Anne. We just know it happened.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

After her heart stops beating.

Her heart is beating artifically. Time of death will be the time they confirmed she is brain dead. A brain dead person is dead.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

It seems to me that by definition, as long as organs can be harvested, is still “clinical death”, not “biological death”. While I understand the irrelevance of it, Issuing the certificate before biological death is a huge, new issue. It certainly needs to be discussed. I can see the reason for it, here, but it is a very shaky ground.

She is biologically dead and clinically dead. Once the brain has died, the person will never be able to breathe on their own. If they can't breathe, the heart can't beat. What happens is the ventilator makes it so the heart can beat, but the beating heart is 100% dependent on the vent. So time of death is generally the time the brain dies. This is consistent with state laws and we know it's consistent with CA law, so her death certificate will almost certainly be the time they confirmed brain death.

 

[GatorFL]

She is biologically dead and clinically dead. Once the brain has died, the person will never be able to breathe on their own. If they can't breathe, the heart can't beat. What happens is the ventilator makes it so the heart can beat, but the beating heart is 100% dependent on the vent. So time of death is generally the time the brain dies. This is consistent with state laws and we know it's consistent with CA law, so her death certificate will almost certainly be the time they confirmed brain death.

Question, can they harvest organs before someone is declared dead? Obviously with something like a kidney donor they can since the donor signs paperwork. But in a case like this does the declaration of death start the process?

 

[Charlot123]

She is biologically dead and clinically dead. Once the brain has died, the person will never be able to breathe on their own. If they can't breathe, the heart can't beat. What happens is the ventilator makes it so the heart can beat, but the beating heart is 100% dependent on the vent. So time of death is generally the time the brain dies. This is consistent with state laws and we know it's consistent with CA law, so her death certificate will almost certainly be the time they confirmed brain death

Here is an article re establishment of death in different states. Not commenting; just informational.

Determination of Death and the Dead Donor Rule: A Survey of the Current Law on Brain Death

Despite seeming uniformity in the law, end-of-life controversies have highlighted variations among state brain death laws and their interpretation by courts. This article provides a survey of the current legal landscape regarding brain death in the United ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Charlot123]

Question, can they harvest organs before someone is declared dead? Obviously with something like a kidney donor they can since the donor signs paperwork. But in a case like this does the declaration of death start the process?

The declaration of death and Dead Donor Rule differs between states.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Question, can they harvest organs before someone is declared dead? Obviously with something like a kidney donor they can since the donor signs paperwork. But in a case like this does the declaration of death start the process?

I'm not sure any state allows that because it wouldn't really make sense. They keep the heart beating artificially to prevent damage to the organs.

 

[GatorFL]

Here is an article re establishment of death in different states. Not commenting; just informational.

Determination of Death and the Dead Donor Rule: A Survey of the Current Law on Brain Death

Despite seeming uniformity in the law, end-of-life controversies have highlighted variations among state brain death laws and their interpretation by courts. This article provides a survey of the current legal landscape regarding brain death in the United ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Great post, lots of info in that link. Actually answered the question above I posed to @BeginnerSleuther.

One thing I have learned from WS is the variance in state laws in our country. Some minor, some major but all with broad implications.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Here is an article re establishment of death in different states. Not commenting; just informational.

Determination of Death and the Dead Donor Rule: A Survey of the Current Law on Brain Death

Despite seeming uniformity in the law, end-of-life controversies have highlighted variations among state brain death laws and their interpretation by courts. This article provides a survey of the current legal landscape regarding brain death in the United ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

That was a very long article so I just skimmed. Let me know if I'm posting something wrong.

Here's what I got from it for those who don't have time to read.

It looks like a total of 47 states agree that brain dead is dead.

Virginia is the only state that doesn't allow brain death to be the only criteria to determine death. This is something that boggles my mind as a physician, because it goes on to say "Virginia is the only state that does not allow brain death in and of itself to be the determinative factor in pronouncing death. The law focuses on the spontaneous nature of cardiorespiratory functions, and whether those functions will ever again be able to occur spontaneously. A recent amendment requires the opinion of one specialist instead of two physicians. Death is defined to occur at the time when cardio-respiratory functions cease, or in the case of brain death, when brain function and spontaneous cardio-respiratory functions have all ceased."

But brain death = cardio-respiratory functions cease. Physiologically speaking, VA's law doesn't make any sense.

"In North Carolina, brain death as the basis for determination of death is merely permissive, not conclusive (NC Gen. Stat. § 90–323, [2012]). Recognition of brain death does not supersede other medically recognized criteria for death determination."

I don't know what that means to tell you the truth. But regardless, we know this isn't the case under CA law.

 

[Charlot123]

That was a very long article so I just skimmed. Let me know if I'm posting something wrong.

Here's what I got from it for those who don't have time to read.

It looks like a total of 47 states agree that brain dead is dead.

Virginia is the only state that doesn't allow brain death to be the only criteria to determine death. This is something that boggles my mind as a physician, because it goes on to say "Virginia is the only state that does not allow brain death in and of itself to be the determinative factor in pronouncing death. The law focuses on the spontaneous nature of cardiorespiratory functions, and whether those functions will ever again be able to occur spontaneously. A recent amendment requires the opinion of one specialist instead of two physicians. Death is defined to occur at the time when cardio-respiratory functions cease, or in the case of brain death, when brain function and spontaneous cardio-respiratory functions have all ceased."

But brain death = cardio-respiratory functions cease. Physiologically speaking, VA's law doesn't make any sense.

"In North Carolina, brain death as the basis for determination of death is merely permissive, not conclusive (NC Gen. Stat. § 90–323, [2012]). Recognition of brain death does not supersede other medically recognized criteria for death determination."

I don't know what that means to tell you the truth. But regardless, we know this isn't the case under CA law.

Yes. ...

Uniform Determination of Death Act​

An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.

(It so happened that my mom was kept on artificial ventilation 3 more days after the inevitable happened. I remember looking at her dilated, unresponsive to light, pupils, and thinking that that life was not there. But the fact that she was warm seemingly made a difference for my dad; he was sitting there, saying a long good-bye to her. So to me, in my mind, mom died 3 days before her official death. I can understand why it makes no difference in Anne's case. But I can see how people might be confused about it.)

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Yes. ...

Uniform Determination of Death Act​

(It so happened that my mom was kept on artificial ventilation 3 more days after the inevitable happened. I remember looking at her dilated, unresponsive to light, pupils, and thinking that that life was not there. But the fact that she was warm seemingly made a difference for my dad; he was sitting there, saying a long good-bye to her. So to me, in my mind, mom died 3 days before her official death. I can understand why it makes no difference in Anne's case. But I can see how people might be confused about it.)

Sorry, I don't understand. You said "yes." Was something in my post wrong? Or did I not explain it well? I think we're saying the same thing. Can you clarify please?

 

[Gemmie]

I doubt that unless Anne had an umbrella policy. House is definitely going to be policy limits on the auto policy. Nothing left for the tenant.

I would think she would have an umbrella policy being a celebrity and having lots of money. You never know when someone might get sue happy (not talking about the current circumstances). I'm not a celeb, and I certainly don't have her kind of money, but I have an umbrella policy.

Umbrella policy explained including hypothetical example:

Do you need umbrella insurance? | Fidelity

Learn how to protect your loved ones and your assets with an umbrella insurance policy, an often overlooked form of personal liability coverage.

www.fidelity.com