Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What if ultimately we could keep the hearts of every brain dead person beating indefinitely? By creating homeostasis of all the hormones and chemicals produced by the brain, we could preserve the kidneys and the liver and all the magic that is a living body. Where would we warehouse them? Who would pay for it? Should the money come from the health care system, if doing so means there is less money to provide care to people who can actually benefit from it? What if many of those people were young, like Jahi, and could be kept on a ventilator for decades? Can we really justify the expenditure of the resources that would take to keep someone to old age without a functioning brain?
The problem here is not that Jahi's mother refuses to believe her daughter is dead, it is that she believes Jahi will get better. She expects the return of the child she had before, and that is not going to happen.
The fact is that when brain death occurs, people stop breathing and their hearts stop soon after in the absence of artificial ventilation. Stopping the artificial ventilation allows the inexorable process that started with death of the brain to reach its inevitable conclusion. There is absolutely nothing dishonest about that.
I posted earlier why it is so important to have a written living will and discuss with one's family and doctor. Yes, absolutely the family will have to personally provide all care or have the financial resources to admit a brain dead person, whose heart is beating for whatever reason, to pay cash for the care.
Insurance nor any Federal or State Government funding can't pay for brain dead patients.
Additionally, to providing financial security, I think anyone wishing to have this type of care needs to confirm who will provide care.
States may take a pro-active stance and pass legislation making it illegal for facilities to accept brain dead patients. There is no guarantee in 2014 of which states could refuse care for brain dead pts.
The state and other agencies would have to draft new protocols and guidelines of what was appropriate care etc. That costs more money and worker time. Few, if any states, have excess now of either of those..
Plus, the shrinking number of healthcare providers could make it difficult to find medical and nursing personnel enough to what could be an increasing number of brain dead patients who have mechanical devices or other ways to keep the heart beating.
The drain on funding, except some private, family money, is only one aspect. The drain on personnel and changes in laws are two different additional factors to consider, IMO.
I have another question. Can't we take any person who has passed and hook them up to a heart and lung machine and keep their body going for some time? Yet we aren't able to keep the brain going once it goes. Wouldn't that be a good indicator?
I'm confused. I don't understand what the "doctor got" posted on Jan. 06, 2014. He didn't know where she was or who had participated in her care, their goals or methods used to keep her heart beating.
I do agree with one point he makes. She could have been removed from her vent after brain death had been declared. Perhaps the Critical Care doctors at CHO were too compassionate vs. following CA law.
For those who believe life continues as long as a heart is beating, regardless of external support, including meds and a vent, be sure to write that in your own living will, discuss with your family and your doctor. Advanced planning for unexpected situations helps everyone plan, including financially, to represent you if you can't state your own wishes.
MSR
He gets that the parents and many other people cannot accept brain death as actual death. Sorry if that wasn't made clear.
I agree with both of you who posted about this. How will anyone know what "treatment" she had. I guess the M.E., as if the Coroner's office will get her body back.
This starts such a slippery slope........
Thanks to both of you for thoughtfully stating what many have wondered.
MSR
Not sure if you mean to say that an ME will be examining the body or not but, if so, I believe it is not necessary to call in a coroner for a death that was medically attended
I thought that her body was released with the condition that upon death it was returned to the coroner ?
A thought that crosses my mind is how are they going to make a solid legal case against the hospital without an autopsy anyway ? surely they would be throwing away any chance they have of compensation when the all the case comes down to is 'he said she said' ??
I thought that her body was released with the condition that upon death it was returned to the coroner ?
A thought that crosses my mind is how are they going to make a solid legal case against the hospital without an autopsy anyway ? surely they would be throwing away any chance they have of compensation when the all the case comes down to is 'he said she said' ??
She's already dead. The death certificate was dated 12/12/13 (I think). Basically she was released from the hospital to the coroner and the coroner then released her body to t he family. In this case instead of burying her the turned her into some sort of Frankenstein science project IMO.
I have another question. Can't we take any person who has passed and hook them up to a heart and lung machine and keep their body going for some time? Yet we aren't able to keep the brain going once it goes. Wouldn't that be a good indicator?
blueherons,
I think I understand your question and your thinking process is trying to separate the systems of the body. Good for you for trying to learn more
Brain death causes damage to heart and lung tissues which is why they finally stop without mechanical and/or medication support. So there is no guarantee one's heart and lungs would be viable to utilize what you propose above, as I understand both your question and the lifeless body. I might have misunderstood something. Maybe someone else understands your question differently.
Keep thinking about the difference in systems though, as you are right the electrical impulses, and chemicals/hormones released by the brain are responsible for the other systems working.
Yes, the mother in Texas was also brain dead, though she had an embolism, I believe. Her husband described the changes in her body as it deteriorated.
Ringo1,
I concur with Suzie. A few things are different. Both she and her husband were paramedics and called to scenes like what he found. He found his wife "down," for an unknown period of time. This unfortunate lady was NOT in a hospital ICU with help and equipment immediately available.
The medical chart on the 13 y.o. will have the time when she had cardiac arrest and the sequence of events, including the time.
I really appreciated one of our earlier posters here separating the two cases, as while brain death is brain death, there are a differences in what happened.
It's hard, but good to think about possible situations where brain death could ultimately be the outcome so families can talk about what the person wanted done if that were to happen. Then put it in writing so there is no question, for an adult.
MSR
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
