idk, I see her point. I mean, if it was MY child, and someone (especially a dr.) was telling me there was a chance, I would want to believe it more than anything, even if I knew in my heart it wasn't the truth. I don't blame the family, I blame the awful predators who are exploiting them.
Is the kid still dead?? Or has she recovered as many on that facebook page claim their relative have?
A day after spending Christmas together in a room at Children's Hospital Oakland, the family of Jahi McMath said Thursday that they are preparing to move the 13-year-old to another facility before Monday, the day doctors can legally turn off the girl's breathing machine.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-...efore-deadline
Puzz makes a good point. It probably is a Catholic place because the article mentions a bunch of Catholic doctors coming to their aid. I just don't see how the insurance will cover the costs. She's already been pronounced dead. I wonder if the family misunderstood that, too.
The comments on that article are pretty decent.
one article i read said that one of the reasons hospitals pull the vent shortly after death is because they cover the costs for the meanwhile. they will often leave it for a day or so to allow families to gather, but the hospital is the one doing the spending after death.
I suspect (and I'm really guessing here) that it's some sort of nursing home or hospice where they'll be giving her minimal care (based on the Uncle's statement that it would be much less expensive than Children's Hospital) and I also wonder if they think they can bill medicaid, it the absence of a death certificate? Or have they issued one?
Alameda Superior Court Judge Evelio Grillo previously ruled that the hospital must hold off on any decisions regarding discontinuing life support until December 30, and the judge encouraged both sides to work together.
Family attorney Christopher Dolan told reporters Thursday that Jahi would need to have tracheostomy and gastrostomy tubes put in before she could be moved.
"The most logical people are the ones in the hospital where she's sitting who have the ability to do that. If they refuse to do that, and insist upon moving towards this deadline of pulling the plug, then we'll just continue to do what we've been doing," he said.
Chief of Pediatrics David Durand responded in a statement for Children's Hospital.
"Judge Grillo was very clear on Tuesday December 24. He ruled Jahi McMath to be deceased and instructed the hospital to maintain the status quo. Judge Grillo did not authorize or order any surgical procedures or transfer to another facility.
"Children's Hospital Oakland does not believe that performing surgical procedures on the body of a deceased person is an appropriate medical practice. Children's Hospital Oakland continues to extend its wishes for peace and closure to Jahi McMath's family," he said.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/26/health...html?hpt=hp_t2
I think hospitals don't mind covering costs when it is associated with traveling families and giving family time to say their goodbyes. It's typically hours to a couple of days, which I think is very reasonable. If it involves organ donation the OPO will pick up the cost retroactive to the pronouncement.
I wonder if the uncle said that it would be cheaper than Children's Hospital just to try to poke a little. Like, "we don't want her there anyway nah nah nah." It very well could be cheaper though. It might be terrible to say, but I'm really hoping Jahi's heart stops while on the vent, before the 30th. Just so the madness stops, but the family will probably expect CPR.
I don't think a death certificate has been issued because it was a coroner's case and they have yet to perform an autopsy. Even so, there has been a death pronouncement made in the medical chart so I don't know how billing an insurance carrier is going to work. I have a really hard time believing an insurance carrier has decided they will cover the costs in a long term facility. How could they get a hold of anyone and a decision be made so quickly? Just like RBW's mentioned, she can't even get an approval for a chiro appointment. Something doesn't sound right. Plus, would an insurance company want to get involved in the politics of keeping a dead person on a vent?
I forgot to mention in my previous post, I hope the family is not able to sue the hospital. I'm sure they will try, but I hope any lawsuits are dismissed. The longer the family keeps the girl on the vent the harder it is going to be for the coroner to come up with a COD. The family will probably say the coroner is incompetent when it comes time for the autopsy, because it may be inconclusive, and will probably be digging this poor girl up for decades getting second, third, fourth opinions.
Holy crap! I was typing my response when you posted this one.
Does anyone see the irony here? This family is accusing the hospital of killing or trying to kill their kid. They didn't believe the doctors that are associated with the hospital that the girl is dead. But they want the hospital to perform, at least, two more surgical procedures on her? What if they "kill" her during the procedure? The procedures will be a lot cheaper this time around considering no anesthesia will be needed.
i mean, it's petty but reasonable. as in: we are going to stand by our stance no-matter-fucking-what. they can pull the plug on the 30th and the family wants to move her by then so it doesn't happen - what's the point of refusing to make the transfer possible just so you can pull the plug? just do it and get her the fuck out of there... somebody else's problem.
i understand the need to make it clear/set precedence/blah blah blah, but it does look a little petty to me.
The hospital isn't standing in their way of the transfer, though. It's the receiving facility that wants the tracheostomy and gastrostomy. The hospital is just stating the facts; the girl is deceased and it is inappropriate to continue life sustaining measures or perform any on someone who will not benefit from them because they are deceased. If the girl was in a coma or vegetative state it would be reasonable. It's unreasonable for the family to think any facility should do what they are requesting.
I'm not trying to change your mind or arguing your point, btw. I'm just responding as to the whys.
that's what i mean by petty. now they get to go through a whole other round of court proceedings when they could just say: you know what? ok... we'll go ahead and cut a little hole into her neck so you can take her off our hands because right now we are losing money and resources having her here. and money and resources going to court every tuesday.
it smells like company lawyer drawing the line in the sand and putting the hurt down to prepare for the million dollar lawsuit.
Besides what I mentioned earlier, I really don't think it's a wise decision for the hospital to perform the procedures. What if her heart stops during the procedure? The family will really say the hospital killed their kid (even though she's already dead). That's more liability. I really think it is a no win situation. The hospital is damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Nope, but who knows with this case. Unless the courts have required something else her date of death will remain December 12th no matter when her heart stops.
And since you brought up the head shot. I don't understand why the only thing that kills zombies is a head shot. On The Walking Dead the dude at the CDC showed how the brain has no activity so zombies are brain dead. Why is trauma to the head necessary if there is no brain activity? The trauma should be done to the brain stem.
I've had organ donors crash and we performed CPR. They crashed because they were dead and we did CPR to keep the oxygen perfusion for the organ procurement.
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)