PDA

View Full Version : Terri Schiavo redux



Jim Bow
12-31-2013, 05:29 PM
Tragedy. Young teen enters the hospital for a "routine" tonsilectomy. Goes into cardiac arrest. Is now brain dead. Family demands that her body be kept "alive".

I can remember my absolute disbelief when Republican legislators rushed to Washington to take an emergency vote to preserve the life of Terri Schiavo. It was appaling.

I wonder if they're gearing up for a second round. Poor child. (http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_24825161/jahi-mcmath-terri-schiavo-group-secretly-leading-transfer)

Soundbounder
12-31-2013, 05:56 PM
Tragedy. Young teen enters the hospital for a "routine" tonsilectomy. Goes into cardiac arrest. Is now brain dead. Family demands that her body be kept "alive".

I can remember my absolute disbelief when Republican legislators rushed to Washington to take an emergency vote to preserve the life of Terri Schiavo. It was appaling.

I wonder if they're gearing up for a second round. Poor child. (http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_24825161/jahi-mcmath-terri-schiavo-group-secretly-leading-transfer)

She's black, which in teabonic land means she is receiving welfare, food stamps, and free healthcare. The same rightwingers who got involved in the Schiavo case will this time be saying "Let Her Die!!!!"

Gerarddm
12-31-2013, 06:18 PM
Terri Schiavo is why Jeb Bush will never be president.

I feel for that family and for that child.

Bob Adams
12-31-2013, 06:39 PM
Some things should be neither political nor partisan. Poor child. Poor family. My prayers go out to them.

Phillip Allen
12-31-2013, 06:44 PM
you guys are being pretty nasty, ya know

elf
12-31-2013, 06:47 PM
I hope the parents are able to let go in a reasonably timely manner. Surely the most digifying thing to do for the young woman is to let her go.

Phillip Allen
12-31-2013, 09:10 PM
I can tell you something...
I stood right next to Brittaney when the doctors pulled the plug... I watched her draw her last breath

I would not second guess this person's parents/family but letting go must be done quickly if possible or letting go will happen slowly perhaps... but letting go is important to a family's collective health

Donn
12-31-2013, 09:18 PM
you guys are being pretty nasty, ya know

One of the guys, especially, ought to re-think his post. It's particularly obnoxious.

Bob Adams
12-31-2013, 09:35 PM
She's black, which in teabonic land means she is receiving welfare, food stamps, and free healthcare. The same rightwingers who got involved in the Schiavo case will this time be saying "Let Her Die!!!!"

Fairly crappy thing to say.

Donn
12-31-2013, 09:49 PM
Jim Bow, and others of his ilk on this thread, owe it to themselves to refresh their memories of the Schiavo case. There is absolutely no similarity between that case, and the case of Jahi McMath.

Soundbounder
01-01-2014, 04:38 AM
On Tuesday, the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network said publicly for the first time that it has been helping Jahi's family for weeks to find a place to transfer the 13-year-old Oakland girl declared brain-dead by doctors. The network has worked "in relative silence for the sake of the sensitivity of her case."
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_24825161/jahi-mcmath-terri-schiavo-group-secretly-leading-transfer

Why aren't Republican lawmakers flying to Washington to intervene on this attack upon the "culture of life" ?
How come Limbaugh and Hannity aren't devoting hours of their show to this case?

John Smith
01-01-2014, 10:17 AM
I was the last tonsillectomy the doc who did mine ever did. I scared the hell out of him.

I remember coming out of the anesthesia and vomiting like mad. Nurses RAN to me and I was under again. When I woke up it was the next day. I had tubes going through both sides of my nose. I was in the hospital for several days.

I missed two weeks of school and one of my teachers got on my case; nobody, he thought, misses two weeks having their tonsils out. My mom went in and gave him holy hell.

There is no such thing as surgery that cannot develop unexpected problems.

In the case of this young girl, I, too, was reminded of Terri Shaivo. The doctors say she IS BRAIN DEAD. I feel for her family, but that doesn't mean they can pray her back to normal, or that any amount of time of life support will change the fact.

To some it may sound cold, but to my mind, there daughter is dead. They can let her go and accept the reality or they can make great effort to postpone the inevitable.

It's also of interest to point out the "death panel" language that was taken out of Obamacare. In truth it would have helped this family keep the machines going.

Again, I risk being cold, but who pays for all this if they succeed in having her continue for another 6 months or a year, or more?

George Jung
01-01-2014, 11:30 AM
Incredible loss, compounded, for the family, by what's happening now. There's some politicking of this, though not like what I recall in the Shiavo case. Politics isn't particularly sensitive; if it's helpful to 'the cause', it gets used.

Jim Bow
01-01-2014, 02:16 PM
It's also of interest to point out the "death panel" language that was taken out of Obamacare. In truth it would have helped this family keep the machines going.

Of even more interest is the FACT that there was no "death panel" language in Obamacare to take out. What there was, was a clause to actually pay a medical professional for the office time spent explaining end of life matters. Without that clause, the docs were spending office time on their own dime.

Curtism
01-02-2014, 04:14 AM
Incredible loss, compounded, for the family, by what's happening now. There's some politicking of this, though not like what I recall in the Shiavo case. Politics isn't particularly sensitive; if it's helpful to 'the cause', it gets used.

Exactly, point for point.

The Schiavo debacle happened not far from here and got a ton of local coverage, in addition to the national press. Talk about your proverbial vultures. The media and political harlots had a field day with that one and managed to make an already tragic situation even harder on the families.

skipper68
01-02-2014, 06:17 AM
Well, I read that the mother has seen signs of her responding.
There lies the real pain.
I know the brain is not capable of repairing damaged neurons, but it can rewire some parts to learn again.
If there is one tiny speck of hope, the family has every right to decide.

There are many instances where the doctors were wrong, and people HAVE recovered.

Recent cases of people being declared brain dead, then recovering contradict what doctors and organ procurement groups having been telling the public since 1968.

"Brain dead is dead. There is no 'recovery,'" one organ procurement organization says on its website. It's a familiar refrain, but one that savvy medical consumers would do well to investigate before agreeing to become organ donors.

The "Dead" Awaken

In July, a woman diagnosed as "brain dead" did the supposedly impossible. Madeleine Gauron woke up. Transplant folks had already sought consent to harvest her organs, but fortunately for her, her family refused, demanding proof she was really dead.

That case follows on the heels of a similar "miracle" in Australia in March. Doctors declared Gloria Cruz, 56, brain dead. She regained consciousness three days later.

Lydia Paillard revived after a diagnosis of brain death in October. Sebastien Paillard was considering consenting to turning off his mother's ventilator at the doctor's recommendation when staff members noticed signs of brain activity in the "dead" woman.

Three woman in a single year, first they were irrevocably dead, and then they weren't. Before them, there was Zack Dunlap.

Zack Dunlap, Brain Dead or Living?

Zack Dunlap was declared brain dead in 2008. Organ harvesters were at the ready and actually began the process, according to NeuroLogica. An impulsive decision by Dunlap's cousin to make a final check of his vital signs saved his life.

After his ordeal, Dunlap remembered being declared brain dead and feeling "ticked off" at the doctor, he told the TODAY Show.

But the hospital treating Dunlap insists he was really dead, according to the Toronto Star. Dr. Leo Mercer said there was no blood flow to Zack's brain, therefore, "He was dead. He (met) the legal, medical requirements for declaring a patient brain dead."

Dr. Steven Novella analyzed the Dunlap case based on media reports for NeuroLogica. He found the diagnosis timing problematic. Dunlap suffered trauma to the brain and was declared brain dead 36 hours later. Novella says that swelling during that period would interfere with accuratediagnosis.

Problems with Brain Death Standard

An ad hoc committee of Harvard doctors introduced brain death in 1968. Their push for the adoption of this new legal standard for determining death was significantly motivated by a desire to increase the supply of organs for transplant.

Doctors Truog and Miller recognized a distinction between legal death and actual death when they posited in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2008 that the standard is unconvincing because many patients declared brain dead retain some essential neurological function.

"Many will object that transplant surgeons cannot legally or ethically remove vital organs from patients before death, since doing so will cause their death. However, if the critiques of the current methods of diagnosing death are correct, then such actions are already taking place on a routine basis," those doctors argue.

Truog and Miller advocate a new standard allowing for explicit organ harvesting from living patients when the death is imminent due to ventilator removal plans.

Brain Death Determinations in Practice

Doctors are not consistent in declaring brain deaths. "Determining Brain Death," published by the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses in 1999, cited a study demonstrating that only 35% of 165 doctors likely to have to assess brain death could accurately describe the legal standard. Only 42% were consistent in applying their concept of death.

So were Dunlap, Gauron, Cruz and Paillard victims of mistaken diagnoses? Or were they "brain dead" yet still alive and capable of recovery? To medical consumers, it may not matter. Either way, if you're a potential organ donor, you could end up giving someone else the gift of life with the sacrifice of your own.

Phillip Allen
01-02-2014, 07:42 AM
"An ad hoc committee of Harvard doctors introduced brain death in 1968. Their push for the adoption of this new legal standard for determining death was significantly motivated by a desire to increase the supply of organs for transplant."

I've pointed out this sort of 'motive' for years and generally just get attacked for being an ignorant bricklayer

SMARTINSEN
01-02-2014, 08:28 AM
Where does the quote come from... and is there any reason to actually believe it?That is a very good question. Skipper c&p'd it from a Yahoo news ciip and Phillip c&p'd it from her.
Here is their disclaimer:

This story comes from Yahoo! Contributor Network, where individuals publish their unique perspectives on some of the world’s biggest stories.

http://news.yahoo.com/brain-dead-doctors-said-yes-patients-proved-otherwise-221600587.html


So basically it is an opinion piece.

=====================

Regardless of the discussion of "brain dead" and any other end of life issues, if you are not already, you should become an organ donor, it is administratively painless when you are alive, all you have to do is check off a box when you renew your driver's license. And it is painless as well after you are dead.

Keith Wilson
01-02-2014, 08:41 AM
An ad hoc committee of Harvard doctors introduced brain death in 1968. Their push for the adoption of this new legal standard for determining death was significantly motivated by a desire to increase the supply of organs for transplant.Let us assume just f the sake of argument that this is true. What's wrong with it? If someone's brain is no longer functioning - i.e. anything that would be reasonably considered a person is gone, what's wrong with using their organs to help other people? Why should we let what's left of people sit around in a vegetative state? Is this merciful or just?

Yes, of course sometimes people make mistakes. We're dealing with human beings.; that's one of the things we do. That does not mean the idea is wrong.


if you are not already, you should become an organ donor+1. I have been for many years. No chance to exercise it yet, fortuantely.

Tom Montgomery
01-02-2014, 09:42 AM
That is a very good question. Skipper c&p'd it from a Yahoo news ciip and Phillip c&p'd it from her.
Here is their disclaimer:
This story comes from Yahoo! Contributor Network, where individuals publish their unique perspectives on some of the world’s biggest stories.http://news.yahoo.com/brain-dead-doctors-said-yes-patients-proved-otherwise-221600587.html

So basically it is an opinion piece.And the author of the Yahoo News opinion piece lifted the majority of the quotation from a New Zealand "pro-life" website without attribution.

From Life-Sustaining Technologies and the Elderly (1987) by the Congress of the United States Office of Technology Assessment:


Standards for the determination of death are relevant to decisions about life-sustaining treatment because everyone agrees that such treatment should not be used for persons who are already dead. Two decades ago, the accepted standard for determining death was the permanent absence of respiration and circulation. Since then, determination of death has become has become more complex because respiration and circulation can be maintained by artificial means even when the brain centers that control respiration no longer function and the whole brain, including the brain stem, is dead (101,152). The concept of brain death evolved as a solution to this problem.

In 1968, an Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School issued an influential report defining what the Committee called “irreversible coma” and listing four clinical criteria for determining it: 1) unreceptivity and unreponsitivity to even the most painful external stimuli; 2) no spontaneous movements or breathing; 3) no reflexes; and 4) a flat electroencephalogram. It was stressed that these four conditions should remain unchanged for at least 24 hours and exist in the absence of hypothermia and central nervous system depressants (1). These criteria have been widely used to determine brain death.

Tom Montgomery
01-02-2014, 09:55 AM
"An ad hoc committee of Harvard doctors introduced brain death in 1968. Their push for the adoption of this new legal standard for determining death was significantly motivated by a desire to increase the supply of organs for transplant."

I've pointed out this sort of 'motive' for years and generally just get attacked for being an ignorant bricklayerCan organs be harvested without consent? I don't think so.

A less cynical and religio-political ideological take is that the adoption of the legal standard for brain death was motivated by the desire to eliminate unnecessary expense for the family of the deceased as well as a desire to free hospital resources for the living who can be helped. Think: triage.

pkrone
01-02-2014, 10:06 AM
Tragedy. Young teen enters the hospital for a "routine" tonsilectomy. Goes into cardiac arrest. Is now brain dead. Family demands that her body be kept "alive".

I can remember my absolute disbelief when Republican legislators rushed to Washington to take an emergency vote to preserve the life of Terri Schiavo. It was appaling.

I wonder if they're gearing up for a second round. Poor child. (http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_24825161/jahi-mcmath-terri-schiavo-group-secretly-leading-transfer)

Tonisillectomy can be far, far from routine in the morbidly obese child. So many things that can go wrong in a higher risk patient such as that. Such a terrible thing for that family to have to live through.

Tom Montgomery
01-02-2014, 10:07 AM
There is an important distinction to make between the Terri Schiavo case and the Jahi McMath case.

Terri Schiavo was breathing on her own. The issue was whether or not to remove her feeding tube.

Jahi McMath cannot breathe on her own. The question is whether or not to take her off the ventilator that is maintaining respiration.

skipper68
01-02-2014, 10:34 AM
There are many extenuating circumstances here.
First the most important: the hospital nurse told the family to keep her home after the surgery, for 5 hours when the parents seen she was in distress.
This caused the brain swelling that happened.

Second, it is in the hospitals interest to confirm her as already deceased. to lessen the damages if a lawsuit is filed in the future.

Third, the parents are her legal guardians.It is THEIR right to decide on her care, or to let her go, not the hospital that did this in the first place.

Fourth, by the hospital already calling her "Deceased" they wont allow the surgery for the permanent feeding and breathing tube to be done, so she can be transfered to where her LEGAL Guardians want her to be sent.
They are also withholding food, because they have declared her dead, which is basically starving her to death, to make sure they are "Right".
Only the family should have any say in this, and the hospital that botched this operation should be the LEAST opinion to be counted, IMO.

John Smith
01-02-2014, 10:39 AM
Of even more interest is the FACT that there was no "death panel" language in Obamacare to take out. What there was, was a clause to actually pay a medical professional for the office time spent explaining end of life matters. Without that clause, the docs were spending office time on their own dime.

There was also a clause allowing the government to insure LIFE SUSTAINING requests were honored.

John Smith
01-02-2014, 10:42 AM
Let us assume just f the sake of argument that this is true. What's wrong with it? If someone's brain is no longer functioning - i.e. anything that would be reasonably considered a person is gone, what's wrong with using their organs to help other people? Why should we let what's left of people sit around in a vegetative state? Is this merciful or just?

Yes, of course sometimes people make mistakes. We're dealing with human beings.; that's one of the things we do. That does not mean the idea is wrong.

+1. I have been for many years. No chance to exercise it yet, fortuantely.

We treat dogs humanely and sick people like dogs.

We all die. We can postpone it, but we can't prevent it. Is there not a point where postponing death serves no real purpose for the patient?

John Smith
01-02-2014, 10:44 AM
There are many extenuating circumstances here.
First the most important: the hospital nurse told the family to keep her home after the surgery, for 5 hours when the parents seen she was in distress.
This caused the brain swelling that happened.

Second, it is in the hospitals interest to confirm her as already deceased. to lessen the damages if a lawsuit is filed in the future.

Third, the parents are her legal guardians.It is THEIR right to decide on her care, or to let her go, not the hospital that did this in the first place.

Fourth, by the hospital already calling her "Deceased" they wont allow the surgery for the permanent feeding and breathing tube to be done, so she can be transfered to where her LEGAL Guardians want her to be sent.
They are also withholding food, because they have declared her dead, which is basically starving her to death, to make sure they are "Right".
Only the family should have any say in this, and the hospital that botched this operation should be the LEAST opinion to be counted, IMO.

Who pays the bill?

Keith Wilson
01-02-2014, 10:47 AM
Skipper, while this is certainly a tragic case, and the the hospital may possibly have been at fault originally, that doesn't change the facts about her current condition. Keeping a genuinely brain-dead person alive on a respirator and feeding tube is not a good idea.

skipper68
01-02-2014, 11:43 AM
I do agree, that it is a very tragic situation, but will maintain it is the parents and families right to make this decision, not the hospitals.
She has already been approved/ financed to be transported to the Terri Schiavo Center in NY.

That this hospital is doing it's best to cause more distress to the family is what upsets me. They caused this situation, by negligence.

And yes, I did have to unplug my Mother. It was MY decision, on my terms- not the hospitals.
This is because I was her Health Care Proxy.
I disagreed with the Doctors on which hospital to send her to, and I disagreed with her wishes on no artificial life support, to let the family say good by. I think she would have agreed with my choices.
Thankfully it was only a half hour, till she passed. If it had been 5 weeks I would have sat by her side. The point is- it was MY choice- not a hospital or a court.
I highly recommend everyone to sign a proxy, with your wishes known.

BTW, I was an organ donor- I am now donating my body to science though.
I have all the paperwork in place, and health care proxies signed. They might use my organs for others, but that will be the hospitals decision.

This child and her family had none of these in place, obviously.
Not a one of us has any right to tell that family what to do. Science has come this far for a reason. Not just to harvest organs. If this were true, those with damaged bodies wouldn't be allowed respirators or artificial life support.
If they choose to keep up hope, even where there is none, it is their right. They are their daughters voice, while she has none.
Let them come to terms in peace, without a vicious fight in courts during such a horrible situation.
Edit. I am a firm believer in that we have a soul.
Therefor, WHO decides where that soul resides in this vessel we live in?
The mother said she has seen some reactions from her. Whether true or only in her wishes, is her prerogative to do as she feels right in HER heart.

Keith Wilson
01-02-2014, 12:00 PM
I highly recommend everyone to sign a proxy, with your wishes known.Me too. Good advice.

Phillip Allen
01-02-2014, 12:56 PM
THANK-YOU-Skipper!!!