I'm quite flabbergasted that others think they have a say in what that family do.

(December 26, 2015 at 1:54 am)pool Wrote: I'm quite flabbergasted that others think they have a say in what that family do.

Hospitals are public goods so what they do need to benefit society as a whole.  It's wrong to subject the staff to caring for a case in which there's zero chance of a recovery.  A really caring system would have pulled the plug a long time ago.

(December 26, 2015 at 1:54 am)pool Wrote: I'm quite flabbergasted that others think they have a say in what that family do.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me...story.html

Quote:But an Alameda County judge upheld the death certificate after a respected Stanford University neurologist and two other medical experts concluded the girl was dead.

What part of d-e-a-d is giving you the most trouble?

(December 26, 2015 at 2:26 am)Minimalist Wrote:

(December 26, 2015 at 1:54 am)pool Wrote: I'm quite flabbergasted that others think they have a say in what that family do.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me...story.html

Quote:But an Alameda County judge upheld the death certificate after a respected Stanford University neurologist and two other medical experts concluded the girl was dead.

What part of d-e-a-d is giving you the most trouble?

I would go visit my mothers grave after she passes away. I would know that she's dead but I would still go visit the grave.
I'm not saying you're wrong. You're right and wrong simultaneously. You're right when you look at the story logically, you're wrong when you look at it emotionally. People aren't mindless drones, at least not always. If the family finds comfort in it, they should certainly do it, I would totally support them.

Have you considered the following thoughts on death?

Sirach 30:14-17 (CEB) =https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=CEB

Sirach 30:21-23 (CEB) = https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=CEB

Sirach 38-16-23 (CEB) = https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=CEB

Sirach 41:1-4 (CEB) = https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=CEB

Let's see. The child has been declared brain dead. There's a death certificate on file, which has been up held in a court of law. The child is never going to have a life. The child is never going to be able to function or have any quality of life.

I say it's time for taxpayers to stop footing the bill. As harsh as that sounds, it is the reality. Time for the family to let go.

(December 26, 2015 at 1:54 am)pool Wrote: I'm quite flabbergasted that others think they have a say in what that family do.

To some extent, I agree with you. I wouldn't want to tell the family they're grieving wrong, or that their beliefs are dumb. (I'd just make sure they knew their beliefs were not medically sound, and suggest to them that keeping her body alive like this is a rather undignified end to a too-short life.)

But how much money should be paid to keep a body, minus the brain, alive? Millions? Each year? We would need to extend the option to everyone. What if it put a company out of business? People out of work? Or doubled the cost of medication for social security recipients who have the same insurance as that girl?

Ultimately, there has to be a point (maybe not immediately, but after, say, two weeks of brain death) at which the insurance companies simply cannot be made to continue paying and at which health care providers simply cannot be made to devote major resources to a lost cause. The horrible thing, that girl's death, has already happened. By far the most fair, just outcome would be to pull the plug.

(December 26, 2015 at 1:27 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: It's the family's decision, whatever they wanna do. I don't think it's a matter of morality, since I don't think it would be wrong to keep her alive, OR to pull the plug on her in these circumstances.

Also it's impossible to say, as outsiders looking in, how we personally would handle that situation if it was our own child. No judgement over here.

Agree. Their decision and theirs alone.

(December 26, 2015 at 2:32 am)pool Wrote:

(December 26, 2015 at 2:26 am)Minimalist Wrote: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me...story.html


What part of d-e-a-d is giving you the most trouble?

I would go visit my mothers grave after she passes away. I would know that she's dead but I would still go visit the grave.
I'm not saying you're wrong. You're right and wrong simultaneously. You're right when you look at the story logically, you're wrong when you look at it emotionally. People aren't mindless drones, at least not always. If the family finds comfort in it, they should certainly do it, I would totally support them.

You visiting your mother's grave is not wasting valuable resources on a corpse.

As was noted, insurance companies are paying which means that someone besides this family is footing the bill for this refusal to accept reality.

For that matter, it does not sound as if the family is wealthy enough to be able to afford all these lawyers which means that the family is little more than a pawn in someone's agenda.

The kid is dead.  Period.

Morally, it's probably a non-issue. The child is almost certainly not experiencing anything, so it wouldn't be cruel.

Financially, if public money isn't being spent on it, then fine. If it is, I would object. I wouldn't consider it a reasonable use of resources.