|
Post by malleodei on Dec 28, 2013 22:02:29 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by malleodei on Dec 28, 2013 22:06:49 GMT -6
Besides a legal mess, there is sure to be a huge malpractice suit. Because of hipaa, I'm sure there is more to the story. But how can the hospital decide this? How does this meet the legal definition of death?
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Dec 28, 2013 22:40:00 GMT -6
The link you posted wasn't working, but I know the story. It's a tragedy, but the girl is brain dead, there's nothing that can be done to bring her back. Long term care would accomplish nothing more than allow other organs to function, minus her brain. We went through this same scenario with Terri Schiavo a few years back.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Dec 28, 2013 22:45:03 GMT -6
Malleo,
what would you want your family to do if you were laying brain dead in a hospital bed?
I know I'd like my family to end all life support and let the rest of my body to die.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Dec 28, 2013 23:52:05 GMT -6
Is this the story of the girl who bled out after a tonsillectomy? I think we've referenced it here before.
There is no moral obligation to continue futile care. If she's brain dead, she's brain dead. As she is no longer suffering, ending life support is not aimed at her comfort or release. It is the family that needs to face her death and grieve it. Continuing her on life support as if she might wake up and walk out doesn't allow them to face the tragedy squarely and move through it. Hospitals should not rush the family to the cessation of care, but if we are talking about the same case, they have done anything but rush. It's been weeks--far longer than it should have been.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Dec 29, 2013 1:36:33 GMT -6
This story hits a bit close to home for me since my mom told me I had such a viciously sore throat after having a tonsillectomy because I started coughing on the way out of surgery and began bleeding. The look on Mom's face when she explained what had happened scared me badly enough even though I didn't really understand that I could have died.
I'll spare you the details of how I spent most of the rest of the day under observation once they got the coughing stopped. It was mega-not-fun.
It wasn't till my throat healed that I wanted any ice cream. I felt massively cheated out of the fabled "all the ice cream you can eat." Even that felt purely awful going down, I discovered upon trying some. Do I ever know what "liquid diet" means!
|
|
|
Post by malleodei on Dec 29, 2013 19:46:45 GMT -6
The link you posted wasn't working, but I know the story. It's a tragedy, but the girl is brain dead, there's nothing that can be done to bring her back. Long term care would accomplish nothing more than allow other organs to function, minus her brain. We went through this same scenario with Terri Schiavo a few years back. Each case is different. I don't know whether or not the Terri Schiavo case applies or not. This case looks to be different. My concern is that the hospital is making a decision that the family should make. The hospital will, undoubtedly, be sued for this. They look callous by their statements in this article, especially considering that they botched a simple tonsillectomy.
|
|
|
Post by malleodei on Dec 29, 2013 19:52:02 GMT -6
Malleo, what would you want your family to do if you were laying brain dead in a hospital bed? I know I'd like my family to end all life support and let the rest of my body to die. The article wasn't specific, but it sounds like she is only kept alive because of artificial means, through a ventilator. If that is the case, then there is no moral obligation by the family to prevent natural death because a ventilator is an extraordinary means to sustain life with little to no hope of change. I dont know know the legal definitions, but how can she be declared dead when there is still breathing and a heart beat?
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Dec 30, 2013 4:54:53 GMT -6
The hospital will, undoubtedly, be sued for this. They look callous by their statements in this article, especially considering that they botched a simple tonsillectomy. I think you're very likely mistaken that this was "a simple tonsillectomy." Articles I've read said she had three different surgeries, the tonsillectomy and two others to correct sleep apnea. What all was involved wasn't specified, but any surgery carries the possibility of complications. This wasn't necessarily malpractice if, for instance, McMath had some type of reaction such as my violent coughing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2013 10:13:20 GMT -6
The link you posted wasn't working, but I know the story. It's a tragedy, but the girl is brain dead, there's nothing that can be done to bring her back. Long term care would accomplish nothing more than allow other organs to function, minus her brain. We went through this same scenario with Terri Schiavo a few years back. Each case is different. I don't know whether or not the Terri Schiavo case applies or not. This case looks to be different. My concern is that the hospital is making a decision that the family should make. The hospital will, undoubtedly, be sued for this. They look callous by their statements in this article, especially considering that they botched a simple tonsillectomy. Hi M.D.: Breathing and heart beat are relatively easy to keep going indefinitely with electronics and machines. The heart/lung system is relatively simple, at least compared to the brain. Death occurs in the brain when there is no further electrochemical neural activity consistent with life. Obviously, brain death occurs in short order if the heart and lungs stop working. When brain death occurs, no recovery is possible, so the hospital ought to be able to pull the plug on the ventilator, even if the family disagrees. Here is the Colorado definition of death, other states might vary: 12-36-136 - Determination of death. (1) An individual is dead if: (a) He has sustained irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions; or (b) He has sustained irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem. (2) A determination of death under this section shall be in accordance with accepted medical standards. Source: L. 81: Entire section added, p. 778, ยง 1, effective May 21. Editor's note: Prior to the enactment of this section, the Colorado Supreme Court had adopted the concept of "Brain death" as set forth in the "Uniform Brain Death Act". See Lovato v. District Court, 198 Colo. 419, 601 P.2d 1072 (1979). The hospital might lose a lawsuit for the tonsillectomy, they might not. A really bad outcome does necessarily mean that the applicable standard of care was not met. In this case a lawsuit and settlement is inevitable, but the settlement might not be that high. I personally don't think that unplugging her is going to affect the suit and outcome much, other than motivating the family a bit more. If I remember correctly, this is not like the Terri Schiavo case. In her case the respirator was unplugged, but her brain stem functioned and kept her heart and lungs beating anyway. So, in her case only the cognitive portions of her brain were dead, which is really rare and not contemplated by the above law. I believe that they let her die by starvation, but I'm not sure. She was incapable of suffering or any cognition. Jim
|
|
|
Post by malleodei on Dec 30, 2013 11:03:02 GMT -6
I'm not sure what the case js here, as I said. It sounds to me like her respiration is accomplished artificially, rather than on her own. I don't think the article stated as such, but that is what it sounded like. In that case, I agree, that it is morally acceptable to let natural death occur. Even in Catholic morality (since this is a faith forum, that's why I bring it up), I don't think there would be a moral objection, as Catholic morality on end of life issues never holds that life must be maintained in extraordinary measures. This seems to fit that case.
In my own opinion, though, it seems to be in really bad taste for the hospital, to be moving to take legal steps to "pull the plug". I don't know why the family has not decided to let their daughter go. I can't even imagine being in that situation. The hospital is, undoubtedly, moving this along for financial reasons. I get that. It still looks bad, though.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Dec 30, 2013 14:46:40 GMT -6
I have no idea why it looks bad. The girl has been found braindead. The family either doesn't comprehend that or are so heavily in denial that they don't want to acknowledge she is gone, understandable if so.
The hospital is acting in both its and the family's interests by moving to turn off the machines.
I've had to make this type of decision for a family member. It's hell, but a person must ultimately face the harsh reality and not keep tying up resources that might be used for someone who could recover.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Dec 31, 2013 9:17:57 GMT -6
The latest news is that a judge has ruled that life support will not be removed before January 7.
This is yet another example of the failure of the ethical formula:
Heartbeat = Life
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2013 9:58:52 GMT -6
The latest news is that a judge has ruled that life support will not be removed before January 7. This is yet another example of the failure of the ethical formula: Heartbeat = Life HB=Life made sense 100 years ago. I'm pretty sure that we could keep a heart beating indefinitely in a decapitated corpse with enough money and a sterile lab. The radio snippet I heard driving in this morning indicated that the decedent was being moved across country to a facility that would accept her. If the family is paying for everything, I guess that is OK by me, although I think that it is weird and very wasteful. It's not cruel, because the decedent is brain dead. I would strongly oppose medicare or a private insurance company being forced to pay the enormous bills in a case like this. Any shared cost system really does need "death panels." It's a shame politicians are afraid to admit that. The original question in this thread was whether a third party (hospital) has the right to pull the plug. My answer would be absolutely, if the patient is brain dead and there is a risk that the hospital, an insurance pool or the citizens through state or federal government were going to be stuck with the tab. If the family is footing the bill, maybe not, although I would change my mind if it were demonstrated that live patients were waiting for these specific hospital resources. Nothing like a really cold post to end 2013! Jim
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Dec 31, 2013 11:23:15 GMT -6
"Death panel" isn't a very marketable concept. The underlying principle is that we shouldn't give futile care just because (truly) it makes us feel better to do something rather than nothing. Nothing is often the right answer.
|
|