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.
Maybe....but its very clear to me that you think you can prejudge this entire case without a trial. Perhaps, we should forgo a jury trial in this case completely and simply base the outcome on what your opinion is.
I will say this much. A doctor made a decision to operate on this girl. If she really had all the health problems that are claimed, one has to ask the question why the surgery was done. This wasn't surgery to repair internal bleeding. This wasn't surgery to fix a collapsed lung. The girl had bad sleep apnea and they were trying to fix this. This is a serious condition, but it is hardly life threatening--at least in the short term. If a physician chooses to do such an operation in this case, one would thing he/she had assessed the patient as capable of going through the surgery successfully.
None of this means this girl was in good shape and that her family doesn't bear some responsibility for what happened. However, almost no surgical patients are in perfect shape before surgery. Otherwise, they wouldn't have a problem that needed fixing.
If I am prejudging, then you are as well. But your reasoning is faulty.
Sleep apnea hardly life threatening? Are you kidding me? Sleep apnea is definitely life threatening. The girl also had enuresis from the sleep apnea. It was a surgery that was indicated. It wasn't a surgery that was done on an emergent basis, but obviously she needed the surgery and probably the sooner the better. She had obstructive sleep apnea. That means her airway was getting blocked. Clearly they needed to do something about that or it could cause her to die during sleep from hypoxia, or it could cause heart damage, or it could cause brain damage from lack of oxygen. THAT is why the surgery was done.
I am sure she was assessed prior to the surgery. Patients are always assessed prior to surgery. Risks and benefits are evaluated and discussed. She came through the surgery fine. She was fine after the surgery.
If it is true that the family gave her food after the surgery and suctioned her themselves before they called hospital personnel, and were having her talk, then I would say the family is responsible for her condition. Any and all of those things could cause hemorrhage and subsequent heart attack.
Maybe the family shouldn't have fed her a hamburger when she was supposed to be NPO or tried to get her to talk when she wasn't supposed to talk. And maybe they shouldn't have suctioned her themselves before calling for help. To me, it sounds like it's the family's fault the girl is dead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by luzianne
I don't think so. Apparently the family posted it on Facebook and then later deleted it. A lot of people saw it and I hope someone did a screen save or something as proof. They fed her a hamburger and a popsicle. They admitted to the popsicle, but she wasn't supposed to have that, either. She was supposed to be NPO. They also were trying to get her to talk and she wasn't supposed to be talking, she was supposed to be writing on a board.
Jahi had had surgeries before and her mother knew she was usually hungry after, so she brought her food. She apparently ate part of a hamburger and a popsicle and was talking, none of which she was supposed to be doing.
Ant type of surgery has risks. And it you do not follow post-operative treatments plans that greatly, greatly increased the risk.
I had read that other parents, in the PICU, also observed and reported the hamburger & popsicle incidents as well many visitors (her extended family) encouraging Jahi to talk when she was supposed to be quiet and not speaking and not eating.
Can't happen. There is no such a thing as a damage award to pay the cost of keeping a dead body on ventilator. When the coroner issued a death certificate in this case, the issue of whether this child was dead or alive was settled.
A lot of assumptions are being made here. Some may be valid and some may not be.
I realize we are all speculating based on incomplete evidence.
As far as an award is concerned, do you think it is impossible that a jury made up of people who believe you are not dead until your heart stops could increase an award based on that belief?
What do you think the reasoning of the judge who allowed this situation to develop is?
I realize we are all speculating based on incomplete evidence.
As far as an award is concerned, do you think it is impossible that a jury made up of people who believe you are not dead until your heart stops could increase an award based on that belief?
What do you think the reasoning of the judge who allowed this situation to develop is?
I'm saying her death wouldn't be a question the jury could consider. The judge would instruct them based on the death certificate that the girl was dead. Some questions in a lawsuit are decided by a judge and some by a jury. Where something is that crystal clear, the jury wouldn't be allowed to decide the issue of whether the "girl was really dead".
I can't speak at all to the judge who allowed this girl to remain on life support. That is almost dumbfounding to me.
Ant type of surgery has risks. And it you do not follow post-operative treatments plans that greatly, greatly increased the risk.
I had read that other parents, in the PICU, also observed and reported the hamburger & popsicle incidents as well many visitors (her extended family) encouraging Jahi to talk when she was supposed to be quiet and not speaking and not eating.
Good, I'm glad there are witnesses. I wasn't sure where the reports were coming from but I kept seeing references and then someone on Facebook said the family posted some things then later deleted them. I don't understand deliberately disobeying postop orders.
Wow. I guess I was hoping the staff was not performing any care other than an occasional bath so the family would really "see" death, in all of its (not so much) glory. A warming blanket? Aaarggh. No wonder they're still in denial. OTOH, maybe the staff is trying to preserve a semblance of normalcy for other PICU patients and visitors. Or at least not freak them out.
Wow. I guess I was hoping the staff was not performing any care other than an occasional bath so the family would really "see" death, in all of its (not so much) glory. A warming blanket? Aaarggh. No wonder they're still in denial. OTOH, maybe the staff is trying to preserve a semblance of normalcy for other PICU patients and visitors. Or at least not freak them out.
Yes, I thought it was interesting that she cannot even maintain her temperature and they have to do it with a warming blanket, her skin is losing turgor, and her bowel is sloughing.
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.
Are you kidding me? Sleep apnea is definitely life threatening. The girl also had enuresis from the sleep apnea. It was a surgery that was indicated. It wasn't a surgery that was done on an emergent basis, but obviously she needed the surgery and probably the sooner the better. She had obstructive sleep apnea. That means her airway was getting blocked. Clearly they needed to do something about that or it could cause her to die during sleep from hypoxia, or it could cause heart damage, or it could cause brain damage from lack of oxygen. THAT is why the surgery was done. 
