|
Post by showmedot on Dec 31, 2013 11:55:08 GMT -6
A six doctor has found her to meet the criteria for brain dead: "An independent physician named by Alameda County Superior Court Judge Evelio Grillo last week corroborated the determination that Jahi is legally dead, saying that testing showed no blood flow to the brain, no ability to breathe without the ventilator and no sign of electrical activity." touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-78728189/It appears her family simply can't yet accept the inevitable. Kids her age aren't supposed to die and in our era infrequently do, making acceptance that much more painful for this family. I do hope someone can gently persuade them that this is a lost cause.
|
|
|
Post by malleodei on Dec 31, 2013 14:42:15 GMT -6
I can give the family the benefit of the doubt. She's 13. 13 A family in our parish lost their 14-year old this year from TBI when he was dragged under a car. As a parish, we all shared in the anguish and sadness over those 8 months. If it's your child, and you love them more than your own life, I can understand why they cannot let go. Some pain is just too much to bear, and I'll bet this is one of those times.
|
|
|
Post by malleodei on Dec 31, 2013 14:42:58 GMT -6
I can agree with your sentiments, DOT.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Dec 31, 2013 15:56:58 GMT -6
I can give the family the benefit of the doubt. She's 13. 13 A family in our parish lost their 14-year old this year from TBI when he was dragged under a car. As a parish, we all shared in the anguish and sadness over those 8 months. If it's your child, and you love them more than your own life, I can understand why they cannot let go. Some pain is just too much to bear, and I'll bet this is one of those times. She's been confirmed as brain dead for three weeks. The family certainly deserved sympathy, but enough is enough.
|
|
|
Post by malleodei on Dec 31, 2013 18:25:33 GMT -6
Wrong answer. You can't put a time frame on the families grief, and that's what this is, the start of the grieving period for a daughter who was not sick nor terminal just 3 weeks ago. The family needs counseling from family and whomever their faith ministers are. They don't need finger wagging and enough is enough.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Dec 31, 2013 18:42:25 GMT -6
Wrong answer. You can't put a time frame on the families grief, and that's what this is, the start of the grieving period for a daughter who was not sick nor terminal just 3 weeks ago. The family needs counseling from family and whomever their faith ministers are. They don't need finger wagging and enough is enough. First of all, I am taking it for granted that the family is not present in this conversation. I am in no way diminishing their need to grieve or saying that families should be rushed. That said, mechanically ventilating a dead body for 3 weeks is not medicine, and this family is getting (or listening to) anything but wise counsel. They are being told by lawyers and physicians not involved in the care that the child is still alive. She isn't.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Jan 1, 2014 14:58:23 GMT -6
You can think before being put in such a situation that you'd make the reasonable, sensible decision.
However, you could find to your dismay as I did that what's reasonable and sensible yields to emotion, a level of emotion that overwhelms both.
Thus, I'm not prepared to say, "This family should have agreed to withdraw extraordinary measures when brain dead was explained to them as it undoubtedly was." That would have been the rational decision.
When it's YOUR child, YOUR spouse or YOUR parent, you may find yourself so overcome by shock, grief and other devastating emotions that you act absolutely contrary to how you always thought you would. That happened to me. It could, I think, happen to anyone.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Jan 2, 2014 12:13:01 GMT -6
I hadn't thought of this aspect of arguing that McMath be sustained by machines: Extreme right-to-life supporters, he adds, "reject lack of electrical activity in the entire brain, including the brain stem, as death, because they see it as a means for abortion of the newly fertilized egg, which does not have any brain," says [Fr. John]Paris [bio-ethics professor at Boston College]. “Given that mix, what is the new agreed-upon standard?” he asks. “Or do we want 300 million individuals setting their own standard?”From a thoughtful article about the extent to which religious beliefs vs. science should be considered when determining that death has occurred: m.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/1231/Jahi-McMath-case-Does-definition-of-death-need-to-be-rethought
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jan 2, 2014 22:39:44 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 3, 2014 0:11:21 GMT -6
I hadn't thought of this aspect of arguing that McMath be sustained by machines: Extreme right-to-life supporters, he adds, "reject lack of electrical activity in the entire brain, including the brain stem, as death, because they see it as a means for abortion of the newly fertilized egg, which does not have any brain," says [Fr. John]Paris [bio-ethics professor at Boston College]. “Given that mix, what is the new agreed-upon standard?” he asks. “Or do we want 300 million individuals setting their own standard?”From a thoughtful article about the extent to which religious beliefs vs. science should be considered when determining that death has occurred: m.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/1231/Jahi-McMath-case-Does-definition-of-death-need-to-be-rethoughtReally? You didn't see that one coming? That's the problem with many pro-lifers. They don't have a good working definition of life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2014 10:10:52 GMT -6
I hadn't thought of this aspect of arguing that McMath be sustained by machines: Extreme right-to-life supporters, he adds, "reject lack of electrical activity in the entire brain, including the brain stem, as death, because they see it as a means for abortion of the newly fertilized egg, which does not have any brain," says [Fr. John]Paris [bio-ethics professor at Boston College]. “Given that mix, what is the new agreed-upon standard?” he asks. “Or do we want 300 million individuals setting their own standard?”From a thoughtful article about the extent to which religious beliefs vs. science should be considered when determining that death has occurred: m.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/1231/Jahi-McMath-case-Does-definition-of-death-need-to-be-rethoughtReally? You didn't see that one coming? That's the problem with many pro-lifers. They don't have a good working definition of life Hi FB: No need to limit your observation to pro-lifers. Many pro-choicers demonstrably have a sketchy grasp of the life>humanity>human rights thing too. Ultimately, one's viewpoint is based in philosophy or religion, not science since the continuum from egg to baby does not have a well defined "human rights here" medical science based inflection point. (Although the Supremes have used viability outside of the womb as one such possible point, that is arbitrary and a moving target). This is not the case with death decisions since science can very accurately define when humanity flees - when one's brain dies. I know that we agree on the above in general, based upon other conversations. I'm just prodding you for characterizing this as a pro-lifer problem. J
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 3, 2014 13:12:59 GMT -6
Really? You didn't see that one coming? That's the problem with many pro-lifers. They don't have a good working definition of life Hi FB: No need to limit your observation to pro-lifers. Many pro-choicers demonstrably have a sketchy grasp of the life>humanity>human rights thing too. Ultimately, one's viewpoint is based in philosophy or religion, not science since the continuum from egg to baby does not have a well defined "human rights here" medical science based inflection point. (Although the Supremes have used viability outside of the womb as one such possible point, that is arbitrary and a moving target). This is not the case with death decisions since science can very accurately define when humanity flees - when one's brain dies. I know that we agree on the above in general, based upon other conversations. I'm just prodding you for characterizing this as a pro-lifer problem. J I suppose. As you know, I personally think that the fetus acquires a relative human rights standing as the brain switches on, which is a fairly definable point. Prior to brain activity, to see a fetus as a person with rights is pure silliness, IMO--here the comparison to brain death is completely apt. At such time as the fetus becomes sensate, I think the moral implications of abortion become substantially more debatable.
|
|
|
Post by malleodei on Jan 3, 2014 13:36:41 GMT -6
Rubbish. Either a person has dignity or not. Your definition is purely utilitarian and relativistic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2014 13:54:21 GMT -6
Hi FB: No need to limit your observation to pro-lifers. Many pro-choicers demonstrably have a sketchy grasp of the life>humanity>human rights thing too. Ultimately, one's viewpoint is based in philosophy or religion, not science since the continuum from egg to baby does not have a well defined "human rights here" medical science based inflection point. (Although the Supremes have used viability outside of the womb as one such possible point, that is arbitrary and a moving target). This is not the case with death decisions since science can very accurately define when humanity flees - when one's brain dies. I know that we agree on the above in general, based upon other conversations. I'm just prodding you for characterizing this as a pro-lifer problem. J I suppose. As you know, I personally think that the fetus acquires a relative human rights standing as the brain switches on, which is a fairly definable point. Prior to brain activity, to see a fetus as a person with rights is pure silliness, IMO--here the comparison to brain death is completely apt. At such time as the fetus becomes sensate, I think the moral implications of abortion become substantially more debatable. "as the brain switches on, which is a fairly definable point" I don't think that the brain switches on at a definable point at all, but please feel free to correct me. This is not something I've studied. The fetal brain starts firing fairly early on and of course takes control of more and more biological sub-systems as the fetus and her brain develops, so it's more of a continuum than a switch point. No?
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 3, 2014 13:58:55 GMT -6
Rubbish. Either a person has dignity or not. Your definition is purely utilitarian and relativistic. In what sense is a fetus (or a brain-dead adult) without any brain activity whatsoever a "person"? Honest question.
|
|