Case 1 Jahi McMath Case: This 2013 California case involves a...

Question Answered step-by-step Case 1 Jahi McMath Case: This 2013 California case involves a… Case 1Jahi McMath Case:This 2013 California case involves a 13-year-old female patient (Jahi McMath) who, following a rather minor surgery aimed at relieving symptoms of sleep apnea, suffered massive blood loss, cardiac arrest, and loss of blood flow to her brain. After resuscitative efforts and ventilator maintenance, three days later, tests revealed a total absence of brain activity and her doctors pronounced her “brain dead,” which constitutes a legal measure of death in all states.?While on the ventilator, the teenager’s chest rose and fell in a normal pattern, giving the appearance that she was sleeping. Her parents vigorously disagreed with the diagnosis of brain death and asked for a second opinion. A second physician repeated the test and confirmed the criteria for the diagnosis had been met.Under normal conditions, the next step would be to pronounce her dead, request permission to recover organs for donation and disconnect the ventilator, after which her breathing would cease and her heart would fail. However, her parents refused to believe the results of the tests and requested and were granted an extension of the ventilator and feeding tube support. The hospital argued against the extension and continuance of the ventilator, feeling that it was unethical and “grotesque” to require the hospital and its staff to provide medical care to a dead person. After a series of court hearings before a Superior Court judge, it was agreed that the mother could remove her daughter from the hospital as long as the hospital’s doctors would not be required to perform a tracheostomy and insert a feeding tube in preparation for the transfer and that the mother assumed full responsibility.The family assumed custody and moved the girl to an undisclosed location where a tracheotomy and feeding tube were inserted. She was then transferred to a long-term care facility in New Jersey.New Jersey and Japan have laws that would have allowed the young woman to be classified as being “alive” if that is what the parents believed. Do we need a “conscience based” default position about the definition of death to accommodate religious beliefs in cases like this?Often hospitals will continue cardiac and ventilator support on patients declared brain dead to allow for the harvesting of organs. Given there is no law against continuing to ventilate a dead person, should the hospital have continued in this case, especially if the family would personally assume the costs?There are some who believe that the shift to a brain death definition was done to facilitate organ harvesting rather than waiting for respiration and cardiac failure, which might harm the desired organs. Do you consider this appropriate?As health care providers do you feel we have the right to refuse to provide inappropriate care on a dead person based on the principle of professional autonomy?As a postscript: In 2015 the family celebrated the fifteenth birthday of their daughter at her bedside in the New Jersey facility, and posted pictures of the event on her Facebook page. There are many in the Right to Life movement who believe she is still alive and in a persistent vegetative state. Recently, a court in California permitted the mother to present evidence that her daughter “has standing” to bring a lawsuit. Because a dead person has no legal standing to sue, if the court agreed, it would open the door for the presentation of evidence that her current condition does not meet the clinical criteria of brain deathCase 2Terry Schiavo case, summary:In 1990, a twenty-six-year-old woman collapsed at home and suffered brain damage as a result of oxygen deprivation. The medical malpractice case that ensued resulted in a monetary judgment and trust fund adequate to pay for her lifetime care. Some medical and legal specialists have argued that she does not meet all the criteria of a persistent vegetative state. Nevertheless, since her initial collapse, due to her limited state of consciousness, she has been dependent on medically assisted nutrition and hydration administered by gastric tube. This level of support is necessary for her survival, as she is unable to feed herself. Although some have argued in this case that the woman’s apparent eye contact, gestures, and movements indicate that rehabilitation is possible, other specialists state that these are mere reflexes. What is clear is that she did not provide written documentation of her desires prior to the event and that she is not able to speak for herself. She is not ventilator dependent, not brain dead, not in a comatose state, not terminally ill, and not in imminent danger of death given that she has had no problem assimilating the nutrition.Unfortunately, there is disagreement in the family as to what needs to be done, and a long and exhaustive legal battle has ensued. Her husband has affirmed that he remembers his wife stating that she would not wish to be kept alive in such a condition. Her parents and siblings, on the other hand, have taken comfort in the limited responses she can give and feel that with appropriate rehabilitation, she can make some level of recovery.The woman’s parents and siblings have volunteered to take responsibility for her care, but the husband has refused this, stating that he wishes to remain true to the desires of his wife and allow her to die. The culmination of the court case came when the judiciary agreed that the feeding tube providing nutrition and hydration could be removed and the appeal to the state supreme court was refused. The tube providing nutrition and hydration was removed, which would have resulted in her death; however, in an extraordinary intervention by the governor and state legislature, the tube has been reinserted.1. What do you think is most appropriate in this case?2. Would it affect your judgment if you knew: a. The husband will gain financially when his wife dies. b. The husband is living with another woman and they have children. c. One of the nurses on staff has sworn under oath that when giving the husband an update, he said “When is that bitch going to die?”3. To what extent do you think the motivation of participants should be taken into account in these cases?4. In cases where there is a clear conflict of interest, should there be a mechanism to shift the decision-making burden to other individuals?5. Was the removal of Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube active or passive euthanasia? Explain.6. If you have a terminal illness, with a paralyzed body, but active mind, describe three good reasons for continuing to live. Health Science Science Nursing NCC 1653 Share QuestionEmailCopy link Comments (0)