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.
I've been following this thread and have a comment.
Just after she was declared brain dead, a medical person (I don't recall who) said that the sooner the autopsy was done the better, as if there were mistakes done during surgery, they could be identified. But keeping her on the respirator was allowing everything to heal and any evidence of malpractice would be lost.
If at some point in the future it's revealed that she has now "died" (as the family finally accepts it)--on what basis would they sue for malpractice? There would be no evidence by then of a botched surgery, and everyone has to sign the release saying that they understand that death can occur from surgery--it's not an automatic hospital wrongdoing.
I don't see at this point what direction the family (and attorney) is going with this.
If the family has realized that actions they did in post-op caused the bleeding (if the rumors are true), is it possible they are trying to cover that up to avoid legal problems such as manslaughter charges? And the irrational behavior is just a cover for fear about what they helped occur? Maybe the attorney had this idea to keep someone out of prison? Or maybe I just have trouble believing multiple people would be contributing to this irrationality? It seems like such a charade.
If the family has realized that actions they did in post-op caused the bleeding (if the rumors are true), is it possible they are trying to cover that up to avoid legal problems such as manslaughter charges? And the irrational behavior is just a cover for fear about what they helped occur? Maybe the attorney had this idea to keep someone out of prison? Or maybe I just have trouble believing multiple people would be contributing to this irrationality? It seems like such a charade.
Although it's an interesting theory, it looks like the statute of limitations for Involuntary Manslaughter in CA is 3 years, since it's a felony that is not punishable by 8+ years in prison. The DA therefore would have had to file charges no later than December 9th or 12th, 2016 (depending on whether or not the statute of imitations begins on the date of the surgery and the complications that led to her death, or the date that the deceleration of brain death occurred.) If the prosecutor could only charge one or more of the family members with a misdemeanor, then the statute of limitations would be only 2 years.
Even if the family acted inappropriately by feeding the child, or using suction when she started to aspirate, I doubt there is sufficient evidence to accuse the family of a more serious crime (e.g. voluntary manslaughter, murder, etc.)
I think it is very unlikely that any of the family members ill even face criminal prosecution.
Although it's an interesting theory, it looks like the statute of limitations for Involuntary Manslaughter in CA is 3 years, since it's a felony that is not punishable by 8+ years in prison. The DA therefore would have had to file charges no later than December 9th or 12th, 2016 (depending on whether or not the statute of imitations begins on the date of the surgery and the complications that led to her death, or the date that the deceleration of brain death occurred.) If the prosecutor could only charge one or more of the family members with a misdemeanor, then the statute of limitations would be only 2 years.
Even if the family acted inappropriately by feeding the child, or using suction when she started to aspirate, I doubt there is sufficient evidence to accuse the family of a more serious crime (e.g. voluntary manslaughter, murder, etc.)
I think it is very unlikely that any of the family members ill even face criminal prosecution.
You're right, the statute of limitations for felony involuntary manslaughter is 3 years but the clock doesn't start ticking until the victim is dead which presents an interesting twist in this case since the family claims she's alive
You're right, the statute of limitations for felony involuntary manslaughter is 3 years but the clock doesn't start ticking until the victim is dead which presents an interesting twist in this case since the family claims she's alive
Yes, this is the basic part of my theory. By keeping the girl "alive" then there can be no manslaughter charges stemming from anything they did to cause the bleeding.
Yes, this is the basic part of my theory. By keeping the girl "alive" then there can be no manslaughter charges stemming from anything they did to cause the bleeding.
More likely they want to keep her alive because CA has a law that her death as a child could only result in a maximum of $250,000 payout, if they could prove malpractice or error on the dr or hospital's part.
If she is alive then they hit the BIG BUCKS--the total cost for all her care, estimated for her life. So they can say she will live to 70 years old and get the money for her care...but she really won't live that long and they 'extra' money is theirs to keep as the law suit is settled.
PLUS they can sue for her and their pain and suffering and their loss of companionship/relationship. Maybe for their move to a place --state-- where she could get care, maybe for a specialized hugh home she can live in, with them of course. They may add their time in caring for her, and it can go on and on, depending on the jury...and in CA juries will give the money to an individual at the expense of a rich DR or hospital.
So her being dead, gets them $250k total, her being alive gives them a blank check!
Yes, this is the basic part of my theory. By keeping the girl "alive" then there can be no manslaughter charges stemming from anything they did to cause the bleeding.
Very good point. However, if the family or their attorneys were really worried about criminal prosecution, the simplest approach would be to simply leave things as they are. At this moment, the child is legally dead. If she stays dead, then the family is essentially immune from prosecution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lae60
More likely they want to keep her alive because CA has a law that her death as a child could only result in a maximum of $250,000 payout, if they could prove malpractice or error on the dr or hospital's part.
If she is alive then they hit the BIG BUCKS--the total cost for all her care, estimated for her life. So they can say she will live to 70 years old and get the money for her care...but she really won't live that long and they 'extra' money is theirs to keep as the law suit is settled.
PLUS they can sue for her and their pain and suffering and their loss of companionship/relationship. Maybe for their move to a place --state-- where she could get care, maybe for a specialized hugh home she can live in, with them of course. They may add their time in caring for her, and it can go on and on, depending on the jury...and in CA juries will give the money to an individual at the expense of a rich DR or hospital.
So her being dead, gets them $250k total, her being alive gives them a blank check!
THAT is why I think they want her to be alive!
I think this is the simpler, and thus more plausible reason for the lawsuit, under the Occam's razor / the KISS principle. Furthermore, her mother, and other family members want to believe that she is still alive. I think this desire is purely emotional, and mutually exclusive of and legal motivation. They make be, at least in part, seeking to have the death certificate revoked as a means of validating this delusion.
If you have read the facts of the case from the beginning (please google them), you would know:
1. This child was the victim of egregious medical malpractice.
2. Once the doctors and hospital realized the magnitude of errors that caused her to fall into a coma - not just botched surgery by the doctor, but negligent after care, where she was left to bleed uncontrollably for hours (quicker action might have saved her), they rushed to have her declared "brain dead" and began *bullying* the family -- repeatedly -- to sign paperwork that would allow them to harvest her organs for donation. They also tried to limit her family's physical access to her body.
Think about it: Your child undergoes surgery for a not uncomplicated but fairly straightforward surgery. You trust the name and reputation of the UC California system; you trust that doctors and medical personnel are going to do their jobs and *take care of your child*.
Your child starts showing signs of distress and no one takes seriously your repeated requests to check into the situation, to help you. Finally they respond, but it is too late --- your child falls into a coma, and before you can really process what has happened, you have a swarm of very official, "smart" , "knowledgeable" people who are not only *unsympathetic* to your situation, but treat you as if you are stupid and inhuman for asking questions about what went wrong; for wanting more information about all options before making a decision to "pull the plug on your child;" for not wanting to rush your kid down to the morgue; for not wanting to have her sliced open so that all of her organs can be removed *for someone else*.
When I first heard about this case, I thought it was a medical system that got a little too eager to pounce on the organs that would be available for the hospital's lucrative transplant facility. There was a precedent of the hospital acting in a similar fashion with another Oakland-area family - Wade & Jen Westhoff, who were also bullied repeatedly by UCSF Benihoff doctors and staff after their daughter Morgan fell into a coma after surgery - and who also filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the hospital and staff. (http://http://www.mercurynews.com/20...d-jahi-mcmath/
However, when I heard that the monetary limitation for a medical malpractice was $250,000 in California, it became much more clear that the hospital was urgently trying to have Jahi McMath declared "dead" in order to limit their liability exposure for their overt malpractice.
I realize that the legal system is messed up; people file frivolous lawsuits all the time. I also know that doctors are human and make mistakes. Life is fragile and difficult.
But doctors and hospitals have a *duty* to exercise care and good judgement when treating patients. It is very clear in the McMath case that they not only *did not* exercise care and good judgement in her treatment, they actively tried to cover their mistakes and negligence, and then used their money and power to bully the family (people of color, and of limited means) into accepting the "brain dead" diagnosis in order to lessen the damages for which they knew they were liable.
I ask you again to consider how you would feel if a loved one's death was caused directly by the actions of a careless doctor and medical staff (especially if that love one were young, not suffering from a terminal disease, and who otherwise would have years of normal life in front of them).
You would feel angry. You would want the people who caused your loved one's death to own up to the mistake and be held accountable.
And would $250,000 be enough - to compensate you for the loss of your child's life, and to hold the hospital accountable for their fatal mistakes and their subsequent mistreatment of you and mishandling of the situation?
I kinda doubt it.
Let's face it -- In a world where hospitals and doctors are motivated by profit rather than by a desire to help and heal, the only thing patients have to hold them accountable, to force them to behave with care and with transparency - is the legal system.
I don't believe this family is motivated by greed (and I do not believe all the BS floating around that they somehow were implicit in Jahi's death. That stinks of hospital lawyers and PR trying to muddy the waters and deflect the attention away from their clients). FWIW, my opinion is they are motivated by a desire for justice for the undeniable wrongs they have suffered.
And as for whether Jahi is truly, fully *dead* - I don't think so. I've seen the tapes; they are pretty convincing of some kind brain activity. And we need to separate de facto "life" from issues of "quality of life." Would I want that kind of future for a loved one? Of course not. But it is *not* up to me - or anyone else - to tell another family what they should do in this situation.
If you have read the facts of the case from the beginning (please google them), you would know:
1. This child was the victim of egregious medical malpractice.
2. Once the doctors and hospital realized the magnitude of errors that caused her to fall into a coma - not just botched surgery by the doctor, but negligent after care, where she was left to bleed uncontrollably for hours (quicker action might have saved her), they rushed to have her declared "brain dead" and began *bullying* the family -- repeatedly -- to sign paperwork that would allow them to harvest her organs for donation. They also tried to limit her family's physical access to her body.
Think about it: Your child undergoes surgery for a not uncomplicated but fairly straightforward surgery. You trust the name and reputation of the UC California system; you trust that doctors and medical personnel are going to do their jobs and *take care of your child*.
Your child starts showing signs of distress and no one takes seriously your repeated requests to check into the situation, to help you. Finally they respond, but it is too late --- your child falls into a coma, and before you can really process what has happened, you have a swarm of very official, "smart" , "knowledgeable" people who are not only *unsympathetic* to your situation, but treat you as if you are stupid and inhuman for asking questions about what went wrong; for wanting more information about all options before making a decision to "pull the plug on your child;" for not wanting to rush your kid down to the morgue; for not wanting to have her sliced open so that all of her organs can be removed *for someone else*.
When I first heard about this case, I thought it was a medical system that got a little too eager to pounce on the organs that would be available for the hospital's lucrative transplant facility. There was a precedent of the hospital acting in a similar fashion with another Oakland-area family - Wade & Jen Westhoff, who were also bullied repeatedly by UCSF Benihoff doctors and staff after their daughter Morgan fell into a coma after surgery - and who also filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the hospital and staff. (http://http://www.mercurynews.com/20...d-jahi-mcmath/
However, when I heard that the monetary limitation for a medical malpractice was $250,000 in California, it became much more clear that the hospital was urgently trying to have Jahi McMath declared "dead" in order to limit their liability exposure for their overt malpractice.
I realize that the legal system is messed up; people file frivolous lawsuits all the time. I also know that doctors are human and make mistakes. Life is fragile and difficult.
But doctors and hospitals have a *duty* to exercise care and good judgement when treating patients. It is very clear in the McMath case that they not only *did not* exercise care and good judgement in her treatment, they actively tried to cover their mistakes and negligence, and then used their money and power to bully the family (people of color, and of limited means) into accepting the "brain dead" diagnosis in order to lessen the damages for which they knew they were liable.
I ask you again to consider how you would feel if a loved one's death was caused directly by the actions of a careless doctor and medical staff (especially if that love one were young, not suffering from a terminal disease, and who otherwise would have years of normal life in front of them).
You would feel angry. You would want the people who caused your loved one's death to own up to the mistake and be held accountable.
And would $250,000 be enough - to compensate you for the loss of your child's life, and to hold the hospital accountable for their fatal mistakes and their subsequent mistreatment of you and mishandling of the situation?
I kinda doubt it.
Let's face it -- In a world where hospitals and doctors are motivated by profit rather than by a desire to help and heal, the only thing patients have to hold them accountable, to force them to behave with care and with transparency - is the legal system.
I don't believe this family is motivated by greed (and I do not believe all the BS floating around that they somehow were implicit in Jahi's death. That stinks of hospital lawyers and PR trying to muddy the waters and deflect the attention away from their clients). FWIW, my opinion is they are motivated by a desire for justice for the undeniable wrongs they have suffered.
And as for whether Jahi is truly, fully *dead* - I don't think so. I've seen the tapes; they are pretty convincing of some kind brain activity. And we need to separate de facto "life" from issues of "quality of life." Would I want that kind of future for a loved one? Of course not. But it is *not* up to me - or anyone else - to tell another family what they should do in this situation.
1. There is no evidence presented thus far of any malpractice. Jahi's family can say whatever they wish about Jahi's care; HIPAA prevents the hospital and doctors from saying anything without the consent of her family. Bleeding is a potential complication of any surgery, and the procedure she had was complex and anything but routine. Without hearing the physicians' side there is no way to determine whether her medical care was substandard or not. We absolutely do not know whether anyone was careless or not.
2. The information that the family contributed to the bleeding came from the family itself. They fed her when she was not supposed to be fed. Her grandmother admitted to repeatedly trying to suction her throat. The very anatomy that led to the problems for which the surgery would make it difficult to manage Jahi's airway while she was bleeding. From what information is available to the public, the proximate cause of the bleeding was indeed due to things the family did.
All a family has to do to refuse organ donation is say no. Your allegation that organ transplantation is done only out of greed is a real kick in the teeth to doctors who make it possible - and to families who make organs available. Let's hope no one you love ever becomes a transplant candidate. I would assume that you would refuse to have it done. The people who discuss organ donation with grieving families are taught how to do it with compassion. They do not just pounce on them immediately after brain death is confirmed.
There was no effort to "rush" Jahi to the morgue. There are steps that must be taken to define brain death. Those were done appropriately and confirmed by an outside expert.
If you have a problem with the $250,000 cap on a "wrongful death" claim you would need to bring that up with the California state legislature. That is a different issue from malpractice. Damages from malpractice are not capped. If you wish to see that wrongful death cap raised I assume you would agree that it should apply to all wrongful deaths, including one that you might cause in a traffic accident.
After brain death occurs there can still be muscle movement because reflexes that happen through the spinal cord still exist. Such movements are not evidence that her brain works. In addition, the family has refused examinations by outside experts. The fact remains that the only reason her heart still beats is due to artificial ventilation. Stop that, and her heart will stop. In essence what we have here is a macabre biology experiment to see how long a human body with no functioning brain can be maintained artificially.
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.
