Ketchupis Ultionis

Jan 4 2014, 01:14 AM

This has been a story in the US for a few weeks now, but 13 year old Jahi McMath went in for a routine procedure to get her tonsils removed because of bad sleep apnea, and ended up waking up from surgery, only to fall into a coma an hour later. She was declared brain dead shortly after due to an unforeseen complication.

Click here for a recent article

Jahi McMath has been declared brain dead by at least two different doctors, and her family is refusing to take her off life support. As of this moment, the family is trying to find a facility which will take the girl before January 7th, in which the courts will rule in favor of the hospital and take her off the ventilator.
This deadline to take her off the ventilator has already been pushed back several times, and I'm not sure if they will be able to get it pushed back again.

What is your opinion about this?

Quote:

 

Finally, a presidential commission issued a landmark 1981 report – Defining Death: Medical, Legal, and Ethical Issues in the Determination of Death – that rejected the "higher brain" approach[clarification needed] to death in favor of a "whole brain" definition. This report was the basis for the Uniform Determination of Death Act, which is now the law in almost all fifty states. Today, both the legal and medical communities in the US use "brain death" as a legal definition of death, allowing a person to be declared legally dead even if life support equipment keeps the body's metabolic processes working.

Ninjaneer

Jan 4 2014, 01:21 AM

Ketchupis Ultionis

Jan 4 2014, 01:14 AM

This has been a story in the US for a few weeks now, but 13 year old Jahi McMath went in for a routine procedure to get her tonsils removed because of bad sleep apnea, and ended up waking up from surgery, only to fall into a coma an hour later. She was declared brain dead shortly after due to an unforeseen complication.

Click here for a recent article

Jahi McMath has been declared brain dead by at least two different doctors, and her family is refusing to take her off life support. As of this moment, the family is trying to find a facility which will take the girl before January 7th, in which the courts will rule in favor of the hospital and take her off the ventilator.
This deadline to take her off the ventilator has already been pushed back several times, and I'm not sure if they will be able to get it pushed back again.

What is your opinion about this?

The scientific criterion of death is either full stop cardiac arrest for a specific period of time, or full brain death.

Quote:

 

Finally, a presidential commission issued a landmark 1981 report – Defining Death: Medical, Legal, and Ethical Issues in the Determination of Death – that rejected the "higher brain" approach[clarification needed] to death in favor of a "whole brain" definition. This report was the basis for the Uniform Determination of Death Act, which is now the law in almost all fifty states. Today, both the legal and medical communities in the US use "brain death" as a legal definition of death, allowing a person to be declared legally dead even if life support equipment keeps the body's metabolic processes working.

-Wikipedia

I don't know how much more cut and dry this argument needs to be.

Pelador

Jan 4 2014, 01:29 AM

You're not technically alive if your brain isn't working. I mean you're basically a just piece of meat. Only reason to keep the person around is the vain hope that there will be some miracle cure for the condition. This is a harsh and cold thing to say but other people need the bed.

Ninjaneer

Jan 4 2014, 01:34 AM

And this is the US. Just imagine how sky high the medical bill is. There isn't an insurance company in existence that would support her. You know that family is racking up bills, and I hear the limit is 500k.

Daemon_Rising

Jan 4 2014, 04:25 AM

Everyone here tends to have a similar stance, with one or two points of contestation. Debating an issue as a Devil's Advocate is encouraged. After all, a debate isn't a debate if everyone agrees.

On topic, the only reasons I can think of that it would be fair to make in keeping her on life support is if:

1. She had made it clear she would want to stay on life support,

Or

2. There is a decent probability of recovery.

The second is abundantly impossible. But what of the first? Anyone know if any statement was made by her to that effect?

Ninjaneer

Jan 4 2014, 01:46 PM

Daemon_Rising

Jan 4 2014, 04:25 AM

Everyone here tends to have a similar stance, with one or two points of contestation. Debating an issue as a Devil's Advocate is encouraged. After all, a debate isn't a debate if everyone agrees.

On topic, the only reasons I can think of that it would be fair to make in keeping her on life support is if:

1. She had made it clear she would want to stay on life support,

Or

2. There is a decent probability of recovery.

The second is abundantly impossible. But what of the first? Anyone know if any statement was made by her to that effect?

Probably not. No one ever really says that they want to remain on life support because they never suspect they will be.

There is no probability of recovery. There has never been a single instance of brain death to reverse itself. When brain death occurs, so does significant damage and atrophy. Thus even if somehow recovery was to occur by outside means, the person would most certainly be less cognitive than before if at all.

lunar2

Jan 4 2014, 11:15 PM

Ninjaneer

Jan 4 2014, 01:46 PM

Daemon_Rising

Jan 4 2014, 04:25 AM

Everyone here tends to have a similar stance, with one or two points of contestation. Debating an issue as a Devil's Advocate is encouraged. After all, a debate isn't a debate if everyone agrees.

On topic, the only reasons I can think of that it would be fair to make in keeping her on life support is if:

1. She had made it clear she would want to stay on life support,

Or

2. There is a decent probability of recovery.

The second is abundantly impossible. But what of the first? Anyone know if any statement was made by her to that effect?

Probably not. No one ever really says that they want to remain on life support because they never suspect they will be.

There is no probability of recovery. There has never been a single instance of brain death to reverse itself. When brain death occurs, so does significant damage and atrophy. Thus even if somehow recovery was to occur by outside means, the person would most certainly be less cognitive than before if at all.

this is actually not true. there have been reported cases of recovery from apparent long term brain death, even after life support was removed. it's very rare, but it does happen. our instruments are not quite sensitive enough to say for sure whether someone is truly brain dead.

also, potential quality of life is not a reason to take someone off life support without their express consent. only the patient can make that decision, even if they are too far gone to make that decision.

that said, if the family is operating on faith alone, go ahead and pull the plug. after all, they should have faith that she'll be saved regardless of the breathing machine.