Family wants to keep life support for girl brain dead after tonsil surgery #8

[BetteDavisEyes]

Maybe the miracle would be for everyone else's benefit...her mother already has faith.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Faith is believing in something when common sense tells you not to."

- Mrs. Walker in Miracle On 34th Street

 

[meme4]

"Faith is believing in something when common sense tells you not to."

- Mrs. Walker in Miracle On 34th Street

This is a difference in having faith and bordering on delusional, she is making staements about her child doing things that arent possible, with no proof.....I know she doesnt have to prove anything, but if she going to keep it in the media,and ask for
donations then she sorta does.Terry Schavio's family still believe she was following them with her eyes, and was aware,but autopsy showed she was blind and her brain was like mush.....Thats not having faith, thats refusing to believe and refute obvious proof.....

 

[Minette]

Plus, the state overrides questions of faith every day, and that is why Sharia law is not practiced here and polygamy is not allowed. If we assert that religious faith should trump secular law, then on what grounds do we justify picking and choosing which faiths/beliefs those are?

 

[K_Z]

Thank you for your well-thought out comments, lawstudent (and others!). I enjoy the depth of the conversation, and I appreciate the time you and others take to explain your opinions. I agree with much of what you have written. And I agree with gitana1 that you have a bright future in your chosen career!

One thing I want to point out is that the harassment of hospital officials by this family went far beyond simply badmouthing them in the media interviews. There was an active campaign by the family to recruit the public to clog various phone lines at the hospital, as well as publishing an administrator's personal number and office number, and urging people to tie up these lines. That wasn't a particularly good or productive way to go about conflict resolution, IMO.

Another thing that was very frustrating to me in the media coverage early on was the very one-sided coverage of the family "activities". Not one media source ever even pointed out the incredible restraint exercised by the CHO authorities toward this family and their "supporters". This family organized an illegal demonstration/ rally on private property, interfered with access to the facility (security guards had to erect barriers pushing the crowd back from entrances), took over waiting rooms and sidewalks, and generally created chaos on the hospital grounds. That wasn't a particularly good, safe, or productive way to go about conflict resolution, IMO. The hospital was INCREDIBLY tolerant of that, when they probably should not have been, for the safety of their staff, patients, and other families, IMO.

A hospital and grounds is not public property, and there is no obligation to tolerate these kinds of demonstrations. The hospital could have chosen to involve police to manage the crowd, but chose not to. IMO, this is because they understood that involving police could have provoked a serious deterioration in the crowd behavior, potentially extending into the adjacent community.

Not ONE single pastor, or community leader, urged the crowds to move to another location. Not one pastor or religious figure welcomed and urged the demonstrators to come to their church properties off the hospital grounds to hold their rallies. The selfish tunnel vision of this entire group of demonstrators and community supporters was disturbing, and frustrating. No one seemed to have the bigger picture of how these activities were impacting OTHER families from their own community, as well as staff caring for sick children. That was a complete failure by these "community leaders", IMO, who should have been attempting to guide and advise the family on a more productive course of conflict resolution. It's hard for me to generate any respect for the pastors who urged this family their disruptive efforts-- I view that as irresponsible to their whole community.

Let's also not forget NW complained publicly in media interviews that the "unusual" people who showed up at the hospital, at her request, were bothering her, touching her, harassing her, burning incense, trying to get thru various security features inside the hospital, etc. And still no one from the family asked the public to stay home and leave the hospital. Nor did any community leaders.

Yes, the public relations/ damage control atty retained by the hospital was a rather disagreeable man-- which was entirely on purpose, IMO.

The hospital should have taken the high ground, and just continued to express sorrow at the tragedy, but the emerging chaos specifically and intentionally created by the family was becoming too much to ignore, IMO. Can you imagine the experiences of the families of other patients, and the staff coming to work? Other families in the ICU? The security issues the hospital had to deal with?

CHO admin had to "push back" and gain some measure of control of the deteriorating situation, preferably without involving police to make arrests, riot control, etc. And being bound by confidentiality, they had no choice but to keep silent about the case, despite the badmouthing of the staff and hospital. Hiring the disagreeable mouthpiece atty deflected attention onto him, and off the staff, which was the intent all along, IMO. The atty intentionally held press conferences OFF the grounds of the hospital to get the crowd to move, and the media to move with them. I'd have to go look up his name, but he was not the "regular" hospital atty. He was hired specifically to manage this situation for the hospital. This was a terribly antagonistic situation-- a emotionally stricken family with a dead child, acting out, creating community chaos, and badmouthing a world class facility that has served that community at a very high level for decades. They had to do something drastic so they could get back to the business of taking care of sick children, and this vile atty was the entirely willing scapegoat, IMO. (The family atty has said some pretty vile things, also, IMO.)

We all know there will eventually be litigation of some kind filed, wrongful death, negligence, or something-- and IMO, that will become another media and public circus. But this time it will be on public grounds, at a court house. I feel somewhat better about that, at least!

 

[gitana1]

As far as the family's "right" to hold anti-science opinions, that's fine, they can believe in Gandalf and smurfs and anything else they want. But how far--in terms of time, money, and medical resources, as well as spreading fear and misinformation--are we required to help support their belief? Religious belief is not an automatic right to turn every single real-world situation into a "gray" area because of "opinion". I can choose not to believe in gravity--it's my right--but I'll have to pay my own hospital bills. I also think people would be mad if I told some grade school kids that if they prayed really hard I could levitate.

I think this is an issue quite worthy of debate and well-framed by you. If I can extend it a bit, I think it includes questions about how much as a society, including the medical community, can we accommodate religious beliefs when they go against social norms and impact society. For example, if a family is against blood transfusions due to religious beliefs, do they get to decided whether their child has one, if the Doctors have decided without one, the child will die?

Of course when it comes to financial costs, who bears those costs becomes a major part of the argument when examining cases such as this. But, IMO, only in America. In other nations, medical costs are either an expected part of everyone's tax burden and, in exchange, their out of pocket costs are miniscule, so cost in such a case is unimportant to most, or, medical care is scant or inadequate, so medical ethical cases involving life and death rarely have the opportunity to occur, or religious beliefs surrounding life and death are do sacred that cost can never be a factor in decisions about medical care.

I really believe that it is a uniquely American phenomena that cost and type or duration of medical care and/or financial impact as a decider in medical ethics cases like this one, are factors in the debate.

 

[MyBelle]

As far as the family's "right" to hold anti-science opinions, that's fine, they can believe in Gandalf and smurfs and anything else they want. But how far--in terms of time, money, and medical resources, as well as spreading fear and misinformation--are we required to help support their belief? Religious belief is not an automatic right to turn every single real-world situation into a "gray" area because of "opinion". I can choose not to believe in gravity--it's my right--but I'll have to pay my own hospital bills. I also think people would be mad if I told some grade school kids that if they prayed really hard I could levitate.

With all due respect, in America one is not required to support their religious beliefs but we are required to tolerate them just as we tolerate different races and ethnic practices. America was founded on the principle of tolerance.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

I don't mind if the family wants to hold on longer nd pray for a miracle. My concern came from the harsh and denigrating words they had for the hospital staff. I feel there was a bit of character assassination coming from the family camp. And some unfair insinuations about the hospital wanting only the worst for this child. I think that is what rankled me the most.

You might feel differently if you lost someone to the incompetence of personnel in a hospital ICU. My dad's death was due to not receiving the standard of care in the ICU. It happens all to frequently, imo.

JMO

 

[gitana1]

You might feel differently if you lost someone to the incompetence of personnel in a hospital ICU. My dad's death was due to not receiving the standard of care in the ICU. It happens all to frequently, imo.

JMO

I agree. I think a big issue in this case is the intensity of grief. I understand grief well, I think. It can make people do and feel things they may not normally. It can twist logic.

And let me tell you, if I felt some medical professional I had trusted had irrevocable damaged my baby, oh, the world would see some "harsh". Also, it is confusing to me that so many seem incapable of understanding why a family such as Jahi's would not only be livid, but would also be unable to accept anything else those same professionals had to say, after they caused such incredible damage. (Whether the hospital was actually at fault is irrelevant to me when to comes to what the family might believe, whether they are justified in feeling and expressing deep rage against the entity they feel harmed their kid and to whether or not they should trust what that entity subsequently determines regarding the condition of their child).

It's simple to me. Grief can alter reason. For that matter, so can religion.

 

[MyBelle]

I agree. I think a big issue in this case is the intensity of grief. I understand grief well, I think. It can make people do and feel things they may not normally. It can twist logic.

And let me tell you, if I felt some medical professional I had trusted had irrevocable damaged my baby, oh, the world would see some "harsh". Also, it is confusing to me that so many seem incapable of understanding why a family such as Jahi's would not only be livid, but would also be unable to accept anything else those same professionals had to say, after they caused such incredible damage. (Whether the hospital was actually at fault is irrelevant to me when to comes to what the family might believe, whether they are justified in feeling and expressing deep rage against the entity they feel harmed their kid and to whether or not they should trust what that entity subsequently determines regarding the condition of their child).

It's simple to me. Grief can alter reason. For that matter, so can religion.

Absolutely true. In my dad's case the ICU nursing staff was clearly at fault. We did the same thing Jahi's family did and got him the heck out of there. It was an easily preventable disaster if staff had only done their job.

 

[CHERIE.T]

In many ways I am tired of reading the same things over and over on this thread.
That being said I feel the need to reintegrate that Brain dead is dead........PERIOD


A couple other thoughts.......
there is absolutely positively nothing that points to malpractice by the hospital where Jahi had surgery. Understandably the hospital cannot comment yet the family took full advantage of that tidbit of info. and ran with it.

Some keep bringing up a "grieving mother".
To grieve a person has to believe someone died. This mother IMOO is not grieving at all.
Delusional yes, grieving no.

 

[wendiesan]

With all due respect, in America one is not required to support their religious beliefs but we are required to tolerate them just as we tolerate different races and ethnic practices. America was founded on the principle of tolerance.

JMO

Toleration is, I think, a more accurate description of the real political situation involved and I appreciate you pointing out the difference. Having sympathy and empathy, altruism and kindness towards people who follow a faith different than one's own is very different than supporting the religious beliefs of the many sects and cults and branches of main stream denominations and organizations that can be found in most urban communities. Tolerance implies a willingness to endure what is difficult without complaint. A burden you might want to say a few things about.

I prefer describing the action of accepting that others may hold beliefs differing from one's own without negative comment to be the discipline of tolerance. To me, a burden something which is emotionally hard to carry, a source of current or potential anxiety. It is something which someone may be desperate to lay down. Tolerance, on the other hand, seems a way to describe the allowance of an emotional or intellectual space in those between the places where contact would generate more friction than would be mutually beneficial. It allows people to lead their daily lives without constantly dealing with whose beliefs hold the most sway, whose are right and whose are wrong.

Tolerance, however, does not mean catering to every demand in order to avoid a negative reaction. To me, it the term tolerance implies that while there is a certain leeway involved, and that there is a limit to the latitude which is acceptable. Utter capitulation or appeasement is no more healthy than a refusal to allow differences to exist. Docility, IMO, is not another word for tolerance.

Interesting discussion around lexical and conceptual semantics.

 

[MyBelle]

Toleration is, I think, a more accurate description of the real political situation involved and I appreciate you pointing out the difference. Having sympathy and empathy, altruism and kindness towards people who follow a faith different than one's own is very different than supporting the religious beliefs of the many sects and cults and branches of main stream denominations and organizations that can be found in most urban communities. Tolerance implies a willingness to endure what is difficult without complaint. A burden you might want to say a few things about.

I prefer describing the action of accepting that others may hold beliefs differing from one's own without negative comment to be the discipline of tolerance. To me, a burden something which is emotionally hard to carry, a source of current or potential anxiety. It is something which someone may be desperate to lay down. Tolerance, on the other hand, seems a way to describe the allowance of an emotional or intellectual space in those between the places where contact would generate more friction than would be mutually beneficial. It allows people to lead their daily lives without constantly dealing with whose beliefs hold the most sway, whose are right and whose are wrong.

Tolerance, however, does not mean catering to every demand in order to avoid a negative reaction. To me, it the term tolerance implies that while there is a certain leeway involved, and that there is a limit to the latitude which is acceptable. Utter capitulation or appeasement is no more healthy than a refusal to allow differences to exist. Docility, IMO, is not another word for tolerance.

Interesting discussion around lexical and conceptual semantics.

BBM. I think the Constitution defines an absolute tolerance. iow, you don't have to accept another's religious belief but you must respect it and not intervene. There is no leeway.

For example, my neighbor is Jewish and her husband is Catholic. They have exposed their children to both faiths. A few years ago a fundamentalist Christian church group got permission to approach middle school students during their lunch period. Neighbor's daughter was uncomfortable with their questions. The principal had no problem with it. The husband went to the school board and threatened to sue the school. Church group stopped.

I think what we do way too much of in this country is to leap to conclusions about those who are from a different race, culture, religion, country or of a gender preference. It is stereotyping and I find it reprehensible. Jahi's family has said they have received death threats. What kind of human being threatens a family just because they are desperately clinging to their beliefs? I just do not get that kind of mentality.

JMO

 

[CHERIE.T]

Are my post invisible?

 

[K_Z]

Tolerance of beliefs is vastly different than acceptance of behavior and rituals that are in conflict with the laws of a civilized society. Tolerance of differences in dress, language, and culture is vastly different than saying our society must allow and support "any" behavior in the name of religion or culture.

Consider that in some parts of the world, honor killings are not only socially acceptable, but encouraged. In this country, an individual might “believe” honor killings are “right”. They are entitled to believe that privately, and in some circumstances, they could even say they believed it, and it would be protected freedom of speech. However, if those beliefs cross over into actions that produce the killing of another person, or if the belief-holder conspires to have another person carry out a killing at their bequest, it is murder under the laws of this country.

Every society has 4 major social areas around which there are cultural practices: birth, death, coming of age, and pair-bonding (mating/ marriage). The death rituals of many, many cultures would not be acceptable, or lawful, in the U.S. We may respect their cultural practices, and strive for some way to incorporate certain rituals into the lawful disposition of a body here in the U.S., but we don’t create exceptions to allow for things such as “sky burial” (a Nepalese tradition of dismembering the corpse on a hillside, and feeding it to vultures), nor do we allow people to bring their dead loved ones home and maintain their bodies in a partially mummified state while they save enough money for a culturally appropriate funeral. We don’t allow open-pyre cremation, which is practiced by many cultures. We don’t host Japanese bone-picking ceremonies at American crematoriums. These are extreme examples, but examples nonetheless of beliefs that someone in this country might have, and might want to carryout . We don’t allow a LOT of cultural beliefs to be expressed as actions that are in conflict with our laws and policies and regulations. We may tolerate the beliefs, but not the actions. That is the issue for me in the McMath case, and why I believe the compromise of initiating the death certificate, and allowing them to take her body “somewhere”, ultimately was not the right decision. For the McMath family, or for the respect of our laws and our society. Death does not discriminate—that is a fact. We all have to accept death when it comes. We cannot “opt out” of our loved one’s death, nor can we (in this country) affirmatively hasten the death of our loved ones (or, not so loved ones!) with active euthanasia.

So, why does it matter if one family makes a big public scene, and seeks extreme exceptions to the diagnosis of brain death? Why should we even care? How does this affect anyone else?

The legislatures of 49 states (NJ having the odd exception) have, with great effort, time, and much debate at many levels, defined death, who may pronounce death, and under what circumstances. It is cases such as Jahi’s (because of her family’s actions) that will, IMO, cause many institutions to further tighten and write into policies the time and circumstances under which somatic support (ventilators, etc) will be withdrawn from people who have been properly diagnosed as brain dead.

What concerns me is that this particular case will produce a result of less and less “tolerance” by institutions for compassionately delaying the withdrawal of “life support”.

Because of this case, I can easily envision policies developed in many hospitals that may MANDATE withdrawal of care within “x” number of hours of the diagnosis of brain death—regardless of things such as extended family in transit to the hospital.

For example, we don’t continue futile CPR until all the family has arrived—we terminate efforts when appropriate, and inform the family what has happened, and that the person has died, despite efforts to resuscitate them. The extremity of the McMath case, IMO, may mean that that the COMPASSION of the health care workers may be put on an increasingly short timetable, and increasingly spelled out and regulated, so as not to appear to unfairly prejudice one family or another. And to protect hospitals from allegations of prejudice, and similar lawsuits. That is just ONE of the potential negative outcomes for many other families as a result of the notoriety, publicity, and adverse actions of this family.

As far as tolerance, I see this case as encouraging less and less official “tolerance” for behaviors like the ones by the McMath family. IMO, the McMath family has had a tremendous amount of tolerance and compassion extended to them, that other families don't receive, by the hospital, medical professionals, the courts, and their supporters, AND those that do not support what they are doing with Jahi's body.

 

[Mira]

Are my post invisible?

if you mean the post from an hour ago, I saw it. I didn't agree with some of it, so I didn't "thank" it.

sometimes you gotta wait a while to get an answer

 

[K_Z]

In many ways I am tired of reading the same things over and over on this thread.
That being said I feel the need to reintegrate that Brain dead is dead........PERIOD


A couple other thoughts.......
there is absolutely positively nothing that points to malpractice by the hospital where Jahi had surgery. Understandably the hospital cannot comment yet the family took full advantage of that tidbit of info. and ran with it.

Some keep bringing up a "grieving mother".
To grieve a person has to believe someone died. This mother IMOO is not grieving at all.
Delusional yes, grieving no.

No Cherie-- you're not invisible!

I completely agree that there is no objective evidence at this time that the hospital did anything "wrong" to cause Jahi's death.

It bothers me a lot that there are so many accusations and a presumption that the medical and nursing staff did things "wrong" and caused Jahi's death. Maybe they did, maybe they did absolutely everything in accordance with standards of practice, and still there were fatal complications. We just don't know, and it is very unfair that the public accusations made by the family have received so much press coverage, without any supporting evidence or balance in the stories.

THAT is a "burden" (for the hospital and medical professionals) that "tolerance" of this family's actions has produced, IMO. The burden of having to keep quiet, while simultaneously "tolerating" hurtful and damaging accusations. IMO.

 

[seattlechiquita]

Are my post invisible?

No mamma, I see you just fine :wave:

 

[MyBelle]

Tolerance of beliefs is vastly different than acceptance of behavior and rituals that are in conflict with the laws of a civilized society. Tolerance of differences in dress, language, and culture is vastly different than saying our society must allow and support "any" behavior in the name of religion or culture.

Consider that in some parts of the world, honor killings are not only socially acceptable, but encouraged. In this country, an individual might “believe” honor killings are “right”. They are entitled to believe that privately, and in some circumstances, they could even say they believed it, and it would be protected freedom of speech. However, if those beliefs cross over into actions that produce the killing of another person, or if the belief-holder conspires to have another person carry out a killing at their bequest, it is murder under the laws of this country.

Every society has 4 major social areas around which there are cultural practices: birth, death, coming of age, and pair-bonding (mating/ marriage). The death rituals of many, many cultures would not be acceptable, or lawful, in the U.S. We may respect their cultural practices, and strive for some way to incorporate certain rituals into the lawful disposition of a body here in the U.S., but we don’t create exceptions to allow for things such as “sky burial” (a Nepalese tradition of dismembering the corpse on a hillside, and feeding it to vultures), nor do we allow people to bring their dead loved ones home and maintain their bodies in a partially mummified state while they save enough money for a culturally appropriate funeral. We don’t allow open-pyre cremation, which is practiced by many cultures. We don’t host Japanese bone-picking ceremonies at American crematoriums. These are extreme examples, but examples nonetheless of beliefs that someone in this country might have, and might want to carryout . We don’t allow a LOT of cultural beliefs to be expressed as actions that are in conflict with our laws and policies and regulations. We may tolerate the beliefs, but not the actions. That is the issue for me in the McMath case, and why I believe the compromise of initiating the death certificate, and allowing them to take her body “somewhere”, ultimately was not the right decision. For the McMath family, or for the respect of our laws and our society. Death does not discriminate—that is a fact. We all have to accept death when it comes. We cannot “opt out” of our loved one’s death, nor can we (in this country) affirmatively hasten the death of our loved ones (or, not so loved ones!) with active euthanasia.

So, why does it matter if one family makes a big public scene, and seeks extreme exceptions to the diagnosis of brain death? Why should we even care? How does this affect anyone else?

The legislatures of 49 states (NJ having the odd exception) have, with great effort, time, and much debate at many levels, defined death, who may pronounce death, and under what circumstances. It is cases such as Jahi’s (because of her family’s actions) that will, IMO, cause many institutions to further tighten and write into policies the time and circumstances under which somatic support (ventilators, etc) will be withdrawn from people who have been properly diagnosed as brain dead.

What concerns me is that this particular case will produce a result of less and less “tolerance” by institutions for compassionately delaying the withdrawal of “life support”.

Because of this case, I can easily envision policies developed in many hospitals that may MANDATE withdrawal of care within “x” number of hours of the diagnosis of brain death—regardless of things such as extended family in transit to the hospital.

For example, we don’t continue futile CPR until all the family has arrived—we terminate efforts when appropriate, and inform the family what has happened, and that the person has died, despite efforts to resuscitate them. The extremity of the McMath case, IMO, may mean that that the COMPASSION of the health care workers may be put on an increasingly short timetable, and increasingly spelled out and regulated, so as not to appear to unfairly prejudice one family or another. And to protect hospitals from allegations of prejudice, and similar lawsuits. That is just ONE of the potential negative outcomes for many other families as a result of the notoriety, publicity, and adverse actions of this family.

As far as tolerance, I see this case as encouraging less and less official “tolerance” for behaviors like the ones by the McMath family. IMO, the McMath family has had a tremendous amount of tolerance and compassion extended to them, that other families don't receive, by the hospital, medical professionals, the courts, and their supporters, AND those that do not support what they are doing with Jahi's body.

BBM. The Judge issued a ruling and it stands. Our laws do not allow us to intervene in the practice of another's religion in the United States. Doesn't matter nor is it relevant what is done in other parts of the world. I don't believe in cryogenics but I'm sure not going to spend any time complaining about Ted Williams' family.

The McMath family have not committed a crime. If others don't like it, then they can change the channel. What public opinion isn't going to change is their faith and their beliefs and their right to practice them whether it be to keep her on a ventilator or in a vat of freezing chemicals. I doubt Jahi is being cared for by anyone who does not have compassion for her or her family.

all, JMO

 

[nrdsb4]

BBM. The Judge issued a ruling and it stands. Our laws do not allow us to intervene in the practice of another's religion in the United States.
JMO

That is absolutely, patently false. Some religions mandate prayer in lieu of medical care. The law can and does allow courts to intervene and order treatment for children in these circumstances when withholding it could result in severe illness or death or other serious consequences. The law can and does intervene in the practice of another's religion if said practice is in conflict with state or federal law.

 

[MyBelle]

That is absolutely, patently false. Some religions mandate prayer in lieu of medical care. The law can and does allow courts to intervene and order treatment for children in these circumstances when withholding it could result in severe illness or death or other serious consequences. The law can and does intervene in the practice of another's religion if said practice is in conflict with state or federal law.

Nothing I said is false. There was a court ruling in this case. The Judge did NOT order treatment.

JMO