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.
According to one article I read, there's something like 33 cases since 1982 where brain dead people were placed on life support.
There were two high profile cases in recent years, one in France I believe and the other in the U.S., where brain dead mothers were placed on life support until their babies could be delivered.
Apparently the organs don't need brain function to survive, as long as you feed it nutrients, give it oxygen, etc.
Unfortunately there's never been a case in history where a brain dead person ever came back. Zero, zilch, nada.
There have been some cases where it was thought the person was brain dead, but that was subjective and more likely it was a coma or vegetative state. When you're brain dead, there's no brain activity and there's no coming back.
A California judge ruled that a teen girl declared brain dead more than three years ago after a tonsillectomy may still be technically alive, allowing a malpractice lawsuit against the hospital to proceed.
Alameda County Judge Stephen Pulido ruled Tuesday that it's up to a jury to determine whether Jahi McMath is alive, which would increase the amount of damages if jurors decide in the family's favor.
Which of the medical experts on the jury are qualified to determine if a patient is brain dead? Can they interpret brain flow studies, angiograms, and other tests?
Poor girl. Her mom should let her die. That's not living.
They are keeping her alive for malpractice suite, it sounds like. They will say that it will cost tens of millions to keep her ventilated her whole life. Once they get the money they'll pull the plug.
Which of the medical experts on the jury are qualified to determine if a patient is brain dead? Can they interpret brain flow studies, angiograms, and other tests?
This is an excellent question. Indeed, it is the key point in this case. To be fair, the Judge is not a physician, and is therefore not qualified to determine whether or not the child is brain dead. This may be the reason for allowing the case to proceed. When it goes to trial, I am sure the hospital will get more than one physician (probably Neurologists) to testify, as expert witnesses, that the child is brain dead. The family may also get one or more physicians to testify that she is not brain dead, but I have a feeling that the jury will decide that the hospital's physicians are more credible.
As far as I know, the family has not allowed any physician to examine the child, aside from Dr. Shewmon. According to the article, this physician is "a well-known critic of how experts define brain death." He seems to be using this case as a means of furthering his agenda. I think the family will eventually be forced to allow other physicians to examine the child and perform tests to determine brain death, if they want to have any hope of winning this case. I doubt any jury will be willing to take the word of Dr. Shewmon, if they find out that no other physicians have been allowed to examine the child. The hospital's attorneys may even ask the Judge to issue an court order to require the family to permit independent tests and examinations. Even if these examinations are not permitted, the hospital can call a number of physicians to impeach Dr. Shewmon's credibility, buy testifying that his opinion on brain death is not supported by generally accepted practice standards, research, etc. This alone may be enough to sway a jury to rule in favor of the hospital.
I can't believe they're going to let a JURY decide whether Jahi is dead when multiple DOCTORS have already said she is. Unreal. Her mother is a horrible human being for keeping up this charade, and it's terribly unhealthy for her to be doing so.
This is an excellent question. Indeed, it is the key point in this case. To be fair, the Judge is not a physician, and is therefore not qualified to determine whether or not the child is brain dead. This may be the reason for allowing the case to proceed. When it goes to trial, I am sure the hospital will get more than one physician (probably Neurologists) to testify, as expert witnesses, that the child is brain dead. The family may also get one or more physicians to testify that she is not brain dead, but I have a feeling that the jury will decide that the hospital's physicians are more credible.
As far as I know, the family has not allowed any physician to examine the child, aside from Dr. Shewmon. According to the article, this physician is "a well-known critic of how experts define brain death." He seems to be using this case as a means of furthering his agenda. I think the family will eventually be forced to allow other physicians to examine the child and perform tests to determine brain death, if they want to have any hope of winning this case. I doubt any jury will be willing to take the word of Dr. Shewmon, if they find out that no other physicians have been allowed to examine the child. The hospital's attorneys may even ask the Judge to issue an court order to require the family to permit independent tests and examinations. Even if these examinations are not permitted, the hospital can call a number of physicians to impeach Dr. Shewmon's credibility, buy testifying that his opinion on brain death is not supported by generally accepted practice standards, research, etc. This alone may be enough to sway a jury to rule in favor of the hospital.
It will be a battle of the experts, which ever one can convince the jury who most likely will have no idea what is valid science and what isn't will win. I hope they have some of her caretakers testify who have stated that what the mother claims is evidence of menstruation is actually liquifactive necrosis
It will be a battle of the experts, which ever one can convince the jury who most likely will have no idea what is valid science and what isn't will win. I hope they have some of her caretakers testify who have stated that what the mother claims is evidence of menstruation is actually liquifactive necrosis
Studies on brain dead women have revealed that function in both the hypothalamus and the anterior pituitary gland (the portion that produces FSH and LH), is preserved even in brain death. So the fact that Jahi now has her period is interesting, but meaningless.
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.
