it isn't about her as a person - she's just being used as an incubator for the fetus.

An axlotl tank is essentially a brain-dead woman whose womb is used as a tank to create gholas. The Bene Tleilax's use of their women in this capacity explains why no one has ever seen a Tleilaxu female.

Well done.

All that sweet 'new baby' smell Republican politicians feed on has worn off by then. At that age they actually need stuff like education, healthcare and other various social services. Which shifts them clearly into the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" column.

I was reflecting on how the very same people who support laws prohibiting the parents right to choose in the case in Texas, support the defunding of educational and social programs for children once they're born. That was all my mind was trying to express.

This 13 year old is dead.

I feel for the family I cant imagine how hard it is for them. But the child is gone.

In the texas case there is still life there.I think the decision is much more complicated. Even the Husband who wants her to be let go is conflicted about it.

fetus might be in poor shape and not healthy. But it's still too young to run the tests.

According to this article while extremely rare this is not unique.

http://www.khou.com/news/national/238647891.html

Marlise Munoz's case appears to be rare. A 2010 article in the journal BMC Medicine found 30 cases of brain-dead pregnant women over about 30 years. Of 19 reported results, the journal found 12 in which a viable child was born and had post-birth data for two years on only six of them — all of whom developed normally, according to the journal.

My understanding is the husband was trying to carryout his wife's wishes not to be kept alive via artificial support. Which is something some people feel very deeply about. I won't pass judgment on the husband, whatever his decision is, because I'm not in his situation and have no clue of what his wife's wishes may be. However, I've wondered if a person who feels very strongly about not being sustained by a machine could add something to their request which would cover them to be removed during the early stages of a pregnancy when an abortion would have still been their legal right?

I probably shouldn't even be wondering about something like that in a topic like this, I apologize if it's offensive.

Since the law specifially forbids taking pregnant women off life support.

The law in Texas wasn't intended to be applied to a person who was pronounced brain dead, according to what I've read. It appears this could possibly be another case of Texas' legislature having written a law poorly, and now it's falling into question if it applies in this situation. With an additional layer to protect the hospital a future case like this could possibly be avoided.

I suppose the law could be somewhat open to interpretation, but if she wasn't brain dead, she wouldn't need to be on life support to begin with.

Both of which situations could require a person to be put on artificial life support. Not someone who was pronounced brain dead, which in Texas is considered legally dead.

I've no idea how this will ultimately end, but it's not as cut and dried as it appeared to have been when it was first being reported. Or, so it would appear if we're to believe the two people in my linked excerpt above who helped draft the law.

ambiguity in the law. But they haven't.

able to survive on its own soon.

if they took her off life support -- which the family is united in wanting.

The father is not conflicted at all about the decision. He DID want another child, but not this way.

Since TX law prohibits taking pregnant women off life support, nobody is going to take this woman off life support. So the fetus isn't going to die unless the mother's heart stops before fetus can be safely removed.

requires "life-sustaining" measures.

It would be different if this woman were in a coma -- then the law would apply to her. No one then could decide to take her off life support.

But she's not in a coma -- she's dead. She's not a "pregnant patient" because she's not a patient at all. She's a corpse hooked up to machines. And the machines aren't life-sustaining; they're death-prolonging.

to save the fetus? I've seen situations were this was the case. The woman is dead but she can potentially produce a viable fetus. But if she is dead then the hospital should have a right to turn off life support regardless? Since she is no longer the patient?

for the pregnancy to be maintained or not -- just as the woman would have been able to decide if she were alive. It shouldn't be up to the hospital or the government.

The difference between this case and the California girl is the fetus, which may be capable of life. But it should be up to the family whether this woman is used as an incubator to continue the development of the fetus, not the hospital.

I could easily envision a situation where family wants pregnancy to continue but hospital says since the woman is legally dead we will just turn life support off.
In this particular case of brain dead woman the family doesn't want her to be on life support, but in just a short time fetus will actually be viable and able to survive on his/her own. So far they haven't gone to courts. If they are serious about wanting life support off, I wonder why.

The forced-birthers strike from beyond the fucking grave even...

Forced, FORCED, beyond death, to bear a child, like a farm animal or something. Worse, a child that is probably in similar condition, due to lack of oxygen...

According to this article. The law does say you cant withhold or withdraw life support though from a pregnant person.

http://www.khou.com/news/national/238647891.html

Granted, I haven't read the law yet, but I tend to assume the hospital has, based on their compliance.

Otherwise they would have been able to turn off her vent.

to its own life support system.

The corpse of the woman shouldn't be used as an incubator of a non-viable fetus that couldn't survive on its own, against all the wishes of the family.

I am curious if you think hospital should have a right to turn off life support from a pregnant brain dead woman if family wants the hospital to save the fetus? Since the woman is brain dead she isn't a patient, and per your argument there is no viable life there.

just as -- if she were alive -- the decision to continue the pregnancy would be up to the woman.

But just as a side note . . . even the Catholic Church would have no problem with this body being taken off life supports, whether it has a living fetus inside or not.

In McMath family, the child is dead and hospital wants to turn off life support because the child is dead. Despite what family wants. Why should it be different with a pregnant but brain dead woman. She is dead, so turn off life support regardless of what family wants?

In the Texas case, there is, as you said, a potential viable life. It should be up to that family -- standing in for the mother -- to decide whether that potential viable life receives support in the form of keeping the mother's corpse hooked up to machines. Not the state.

But the 13 year old is dead, and there is no potentially viable fetus to consider in her case. There is no point in keeping her corpse hooked up to machines.

I cannot imagine being in their situation. It's every parents worst nightmare to lose a child, and to lose one like this would make it even more unbearable.

would agree to perform a tracheotomy and a gastrotomy on a dead person. The medical board would come down on such a doctor like a ton of bricks.

The family and the lawyer probably found a former butcher or mortician to do the procedures.

Anything to keep Jahi appearing like she is alive and in a coma until the malpractice trial to earn jury's sympathy and increase the damage award.

This is beyond grief/religion/belief at this point -- it seems just too well-orchestrated.

may have something to do with this development.

Last edited Tue Jun 16, 2020, 10:16 PM - Edit history (2)

I doubt any California licensed doctor would agree to perform a tracheotomy and a gastrotomy on a dead person. The medical board would come down on such a doctor like a ton of bricks...

This is beyond grief/religion/belief at this point -- it seems just too well-orchestrated.

1. Jahi did not have a simple tonsillectomy but had massive adenoid and lymphoid tissue removal from the nasopharynx and the lateral turbinates in the nose plus a UPPP (uvulopalatopharyngoplasty) -- so it was an extremely complicated and high risk surgery -- not something simple as family led the media to believe.

2. Jahi had a genetic bleeding disorder which the family did not disclose to the physicians treating her.

3. Jahi was asked to not speak during the recovery phase and not have any visitors beyond the immediate family. Instead, the family paraded dozens of relatives to her bedside and encouraged her to talk with them.

Unfortunately, the hospital cannot give this info out due to HIPAA -- so the family and their lawyer went unanswered, trying to poison the jury pool. It seriously backfired in my opinion. A malpractice plaintiff who withholds serious and relevant info from physicians and contributes to a serious complication can be kicked out of a court on a summary judgment.

So it's amazing to me folks continue to do the "Bidding" of Oakland Children's Hospital since HIPPA laws PREVENT this information from being published by the medical facility in the first place. #SMH

(fyi)

hospital hooked her up to the respirator. As I understand it, she can't breathe on her own because she's dead, and several physicians including 3 retained by the family, have confirmed this.

case given the potential liability of the hospital is a possible major malpractice suit coupled with the insistence of the family on continuing artificial life support and ventilation of the corpse well after death has occurred

rule that hospital can not discontinue ventillation.
Otherwise it would have been.

The heart doesn't have to stop for someone to be dead. Her respiration is continuing because of a machine and would stop the second the plug is pulled. Stopping her respiration and heart won't make her any more dead than she already is.

revived from cardiac arrest- During many forms of cardiac surgery - the heart is bypassed - None of this is possible with the brain. There simply is no more debate in the medical field about brain death being death. There might be a few quacks who argue the point - but in 33 years of working with ventilated patients I have never heard of any debate on the matter - not even from the most raving "born again washed in the blood of the lamb fundamentalist Christian" or devote Muslim or cynical atheist - there is no debate outside of a lunatic fringe that I certainly have ever heard of until recently

Routine.

she's being given any nourishment - and if she's dead why would they? It's all too surreal for me. The mother has complained that the hospital is "starving" her daughter.

Need to get the Schaivo foundation assholes the hell out of the picture too.

Kidneys without a body continue to make urine. During kidney transplants a kidney may be removed and transported many miles, sometimes from one country to another before being implanted in the recipient. The functioning cells continue to function as if they were in a body. Hence the donated kidney is quite healthy en route and after transplant.

The same is true for transplanted hearts. Cardiac cells have the ability to generate a heartbeat with electrical stimulation independent of the brain, automaticity. http://www.phschool.com/science/biology_place/biocoach/cardio1/electrical.html

That is why hearts also keep beating while being transported for transplant.

http://medcitynews.com/2013/11/transmedics-organ-care-system-way-cooler-cooler-transporting-live-organs-video/

The ventilator is simply a machine that pumps air into the Patient's lungs. It can allow the Patient to take breaths on their own but it also can be in full control of the work of breathing if the Patient is brain dead.

is what allows the mother to claim her daughter is still warm to the touch?

This helps to keep the Patient warm. Jahi's heart may yet be healthy--enough to be transplanted into someone who needs a healthy heart.

Jahi's brain is not alive. The brain cells start to fall apart and have no function resulting in a gelatinous mass which ancient Egyptians used to suck out with a type of straw through the nose (through the bottom of the skull during the process of mummification).

dead but the mother apparently believes she's alive because of that machine-generated warmth.

by organ donation if they are in good condition. The kidneys and the heart are probably needed for transplants.

When a neurologist says your dead, then your dead. No brain function is death. I don't see why this is so hard for these people to understand. I have kids too and I could never go through this, no matter how hard it would be to let go. Keeping her body breathing against it's will is not life.

She had a very routine surgery, you don't die from that....I think some MD and/or someone else on the surgical team seriously screwed up....I hope the family sues the hospital...

I can speak with some experience on having to turn off the machines on a loved one....2 yrs ago, my mom suffered a PE, which led to a cardiac arrest...Took 14.5 minutes for ER staff to revive her...At that point, she was basically brain dead, only had very limited brain stem function remaining....The one MD said to me first 72 hrs after a cardiac arrest are most crucial, if no improvement after that time, probably wont be any....So after 4 days, based on what couple MD's said, along w/what i know what mom would have wanted, she was taken off life support and died peacefully shortly thereafter...

as a "routine tonsillectomy" but there was more involved. They also removed adenoids and extra sinus tissue to treat pediatric obstructive sleep apnea. Her mother said Jahi before surgery was afraid she wouldn't wake up. However, she did awake from the surgery and asked for an ice pop for her sore throat. At some time thereafter the bleeding started.

that the family's lawyer puts out. The hospital is prevented from commenting on Jahi's surgery by HIPAA. Thus, only one side of the story is being propagated. There have been rumors and accusations flying about on various Bay Area boards, some of which seem plausible, some of which seem wildly speculative: it seems to be getting more and more bizarre.

She underwent the procedure for sleep apnea. The surgery included tonsillectomy, uvulopalatopharyngoplasty (UPPP), and removal of nasal turbinates.

A lot of the media outlets have described this as a tonsillectomy gone wrong, but as usual, there is more to the story.

The novel Frankenstein was written against the backdrop of scientific interest in reviving dead bodies with the use of electricity. Some rather bizarre experiments were done and claims were made of bodies being revived, all bogus of course. Fascinating though. This story has made me think of that. This poor distraught family has now been keeping their dead daughter's body on a machine for 3 weeks, but the fact is that she is dead and will never wake up. This is not a coma. Her body is already decomposing from what I understand, although the ventilator is slowing down the process.

I linked this in another thread, but I link it here again. I have found it to be very informative (although I suppose the info should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt as well).
http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2014/01/jahis-legacy.html

... with the fact that their daughter is gone.

There may be a (somewhat) living body in that bed, but the person that inhabited it is long gone.

Do I need to have this written into my Living Will? "If I am brain dead, pull the plug!" It is is so sad when people won't let their loved ones go when it's time. Not to mention expensive. I will be glad when they get the child out of that hospital, since that is what the family wants.

was on the ventilator ward of a small hospital. Most of our patients were there due to illness or accident. Some lived a long time; some a short time. Some recovered fully; some died.

One was virtually (but not completely) brain dead due to an error in his care following a routine surgery. When I started working there, it was almost 20 years after the medical malpractice that ended his life, for most meanings of the word "life." His heart was still beating when I stopped working there two years later, but his fingertips were beginning to turn black, usually seen as a sign of impending cardiac death. His wife was working to have the hospital insert a pacemaker, to keep his heart beating.

Teri Shiavo was in a persistent vegetative state. This child is not in a persistent vegetative state or coma. She is DEAD. Her brain stem is dead, her organs are already slowly decomposing despite the ventilator. She is absolutely dead.

I imagine it will be the family.....but then, maybe there are donors....

And someone will have to pay the bill.

It won't be small

My understanding is that the respiration and circulation are slowing down that process, but that room's got to be getting ripe at this point.

Just keeping the heart beating can't possible be enough to keep the other organs viable.

This sets a really creepy precedent. People who don't believe in science, who believe in miracles, in divine intervention, will start demanding their loved ones be kept in some weird lifeless state while they wait for God to intervene.

I feel really sorry for the family because there have been just enough people to go along with this to keep this fiasco going. Recovering from this charade will be very hard.

What went so horribly wrong with her surgery?